People vs. XXX

An accused may be convicted of multiple offenses charged in a single duplicitous information where the accused failed to move to quash on the ground of duplicity before arraignment, thereby waiving the right to object under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.

On June 8, 2014, accused-appellant XXX allegedly sexually assaulted AAA, a seven-year-old minor, inside a poultry house in Misamis Oriental. The victim's mother discovered the incident after noticing her daughter's nervous demeanor upon descending from the poultry house stairs and observing physical signs of abuse. Medical examination later revealed hymenal laceration consistent with sexual assault.

• The Information: The accusatory portion charged that on or about June 8, 2014, accused-appellant "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], minor, 7 years old, by inserting his finger in her vagina against her consent," citing Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
• Prosecution's Version: At approximately 10:30 a.m. on June 8, 2014, the victim's mother BBB was preparing lunch when she observed accused-appellant and AAA near the poultry farm; upon looking again, both had disappeared. BBB rushed to the poultry house and called for AAA, who descended from the stairs looking nervous and scared. AAA later narrated that accused-appellant forced her upstairs, made her lie down, removed her short pants and underwear, inserted his penis into her vagina, and subsequently inserted his middle finger. Medical examination by Dr. Grystel G. Gadian on June 16, 2014 revealed a hyperemic widened hymenal orifice and hymenal laceration at 6 o'clock.
• Defense Version: Accused-appellant claimed he was working at the poultry farm with the victim's father CCC, ate breakfast with BBB and AAA, watched a movie containing adult scenes, and later went to the poultry building to put water for chickens. He denied the assault, claiming AAA was whipped by her mother for climbing the building and only then falsely accused him of rape.
• Trial Court Findings: The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of Statutory Rape only, rejecting the defense of denial and alibi and giving full credence to AAA's testimony and the medical findings.
• Appellate Court Findings: The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the conviction, finding accused-appellant guilty of both Statutory Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault under the single Information, noting that the failure to move to quash constituted waiver of the procedural defect.

• Duplicity of the Information: Petitioner maintained that the Information described only one act (carnal knowledge) and was defective for charging two offenses—carnal knowledge (rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1) and sexual assault by finger insertion (rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 2)—in violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses charged.
• Imposition of Penalty: Petitioner contended that the trial court gravely erred in imposing reclusion perpetua if conviction were warranted.

• Waiver of Objection: Respondent countered that the accused waived the right to object to the duplicitous Information by failing to file a motion to quash before entering his plea and by actively participating in trial without reservation.
• Sufficiency of Allegations: Respondent argued that the Information, read in light of the evidence presented, sufficiently alleged two distinct offenses: carnal knowledge (penile penetration) and sexual assault (finger insertion), as established by the victim's testimony.
• Authority of Appellate Courts: Respondent maintained that an appeal throws the entire case open for review, allowing the appellate court to correct errors unassigned in the judgment, including the failure to convict for all offenses proved.

• Duplicity of Charge: Whether the Information charging accused-appellant with "carnal knowledge... by inserting his finger" constituted a duplicitous charge of two distinct offenses under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
• Waiver of Procedural Defect: Whether accused-appellant waived the right to object to the duplicitous Information by failing to move to quash before arraignment.
• Validity of Multiple Convictions: Whether conviction for both Statutory Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault under a single Information is proper despite the prohibition against duplicity.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both offenses.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Whether the defense of denial and alibi should prevail over the victim's positive identification.

• Duplicity of Charge: The Information was duplicitous, charging two distinct offenses under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code: (1) Rape by carnal knowledge under paragraph 1(d) (victim under 12 years of age), and (2) Rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 (insertion of finger into genital orifice). The term "carnal knowledge" refers to penile penetration, while "inserting his finger" constitutes sexual assault—two separate crimes with different elements.
• Waiver of Procedural Defect: Objection to the duplicitous Information was deemed waived under Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, as accused-appellant failed to move to quash on this ground before entering his plea of "not guilty" and actively participated in trial without reservation.
• Validity of Multiple Convictions: Conviction for both offenses was proper notwithstanding the single Information. Because the accused waived the right to object to duplicity, the Court could convict him of all offenses alleged in the Information. The prosecution established both acts: penile penetration (carnal knowledge) and finger insertion (sexual assault), as corroborated by the victim's detailed testimony and medical findings of hymenal laceration.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Statutory Rape was established by proof that AAA was under 12 years of age (7 years old) and that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Rape by Sexual Assault was established by proof of insertion of accused-appellant's finger into AAA's vagina, which the victim described in detail during trial.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: The defense was rejected as unsubstantiated and insufficient to overcome the victim's direct, positive, and straightforward narration of the incidents. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were accorded great weight and respect.

• Duplicity of Offense (Section 13, Rule 110): A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. The prohibition protects the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Waiver of Objection to Duplicity (Section 9, Rule 117): Failure to move to quash an information on the ground of duplicity before entering a plea constitutes a waiver of the right to object, allowing conviction for all offenses charged despite the procedural defect.
• Nature of Rape under Article 266-A RPC: Rape may be committed in two ways: (1) by carnal knowledge of a woman under specific circumstances, including when the victim is under 12 years of age (Statutory Rape); and (2) by sexual assault through insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object (including fingers) into the genital or anal orifice of another person. These constitute distinct offenses with different elements.
• Appeal Throws Case Open for Review: In criminal cases, an appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction to correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of penal law.

• "Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court provides that an information must only charge one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. The remedy of the accused is to move to quash the information before entering his plea. If the accused fails to move to quash the duplicitous information, it would be considered as a waiver. Thus, the Court could convict the accused on all the charges alleged in the information."
• "The prohibition of filing an information with multiple offenses is predicated in the protection of the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. If two or more offenses are alleged in the information, the remedy of the accused is to file a motion to quash... The failure to object to the information before the arraignment would result in a waiver to challenge the procedural infirmity."
• "The term carnal knowledge has been countlessly interpreted by this Court as penile penetration of the woman's vagina. It leaves no doubt that the accused knew that he was being charged with inserting his penis into the vagina of the minor victim."
• "In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors."

• People v. Lindo, 641 Phil. 635 (2010) — Established that an accused may be convicted of both Statutory Rape and Rape by Sexual Assault charged in a single information where the accused failed to object to duplicity; followed in sustaining the dual conviction.
• People v. VVV, G.R. No. 230222, June 22, 2020 — Controlling precedent with nearly identical information wording; held that conviction for two offenses proper where accused waived objection to duplicity; followed.
• People v. Crisostomo, 725 Phil. 542 (2014) — Cited for the principle that an appeal throws the whole case open for review; followed.
• Pielago v. People, 706 Phil. 460 (2013) — Cited for the definition of the gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC; followed.
• People v. Bormeo, 292 Phil. 691 (1993) — Cited for the definition of "carnal knowledge" as requiring penile penetration; followed.
• People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Cited in modifying the award of damages for Rape by Sexual Assault from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages; followed.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353) — Defines Rape by Carnal Knowledge (par. 1) and Rape by Sexual Assault (par. 2); applied to determine that the Information charged two distinct offenses and to establish the elements of each crime.
• Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Prohibits duplicity of offense in informations; applied to determine that the Information was defective for charging two offenses.
• Section 3(f), Rule 117, Rules of Court — Grounds for motion to quash, including that more than one offense is charged; referenced as the remedy accused-appellant failed to invoke.
• Section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court — Provides that failure to move to quash before plea waives all objections; applied to hold that accused-appellant waived the right to object to duplicity.
• Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — Cited in relation to Section 5(b) regarding the imposition of penalties for acts of sexual abuse committed against children; applied in determining the proper penalty for Rape by Sexual Assault in relation to this statute.

Hernando (Acting Chairperson), Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ.