People vs. XXX

Rape by sexual assault committed against a child twelve (12) years of age and below eighteen (18) shall be punished as Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua; and the failure of an accused to object to a duplicitous Information before trial constitutes a waiver, permitting conviction of as many offenses as are charged and proven.

AAA, born on March 17, 1996, is the biological daughter of accused-appellant XXX. The prosecution charged XXX under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 (the Anti-Rape Law of 1997), for three separate incidents of rape allegedly committed against AAA when she was thirteen and fifteen years old. The case also involves the interplay between the Revised Penal Code provisions on rape and R.A. No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), which provides for the crime of lascivious conduct when the victim is a child between twelve and eighteen years of age subjected to coercion or influence by an adult.

AAA was born on March 17, 1996, and is the daughter of accused-appellant XXX. According to AAA, XXX began raping her when she was thirteen years old, abusing her three or four times every week. She did not report the incidents out of fear that he would kill her.

Sometime in 2009, when AAA was thirteen years old, XXX woke her from an afternoon nap. He pulled her, removed her shorts and panty, and overcame her resistance. He inserted his penis into her vagina. Afterward, AAA went to the comfort room and saw blood gush from her vagina. She was in pain and informed her mother BBB that she had a wound in her vagina, but XXX dismissed the claim, saying her menstrual period had started.

On March 6, 2012, when AAA was fifteen years old, XXX attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. When she refused, he shouted invectives at her, accused her of having a boyfriend, pulled her hair, and forced her mouth open to insert his penis into it. He then inserted his penis into her anus. The following day, March 7, 2012, XXX again approached AAA for sex, but she refused because she was in pain due to her swollen "pwerta." XXX kicked her. Fed up, AAA left the house and stayed with a classmate, texting her mother to meet her on March 9, 2012. During that meeting, AAA disclosed everything XXX had done to her. Thereafter, AAA and her mother went to the hospital, where AAA's cervix was operated on and she was confined for five days. Upon recovering, she went to the police station to file a complaint.

XXX vehemently denied the charges, claiming that AAA concocted them out of spite because he had disciplined her after seeing her naked with a boy at their house sometime in March 2009. The RTC found AAA's testimony consistent, candid, and straightforward, and credited the prosecution's evidence establishing AAA's minority and her relationship to XXX through her Certificate of Live Birth. The CA sustained these factual findings, finding AAA's testimony credible, positive, and straightforward, and rejected XXX's denial as unworthy of credence.

• Defective/Duplicitous Information: XXX argued that the Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 is duplicitous because it alleged two separate crimes — forcing AAA to perform fellatio and coercing her to have sexual intercourse — in violation of Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Inapplicability of the Variance Doctrine: XXX maintained that rape by sexual assault is not necessarily included in rape by carnal knowledge, as their modes of commission are utterly different; thus, he could not be convicted of rape by sexual assault pursuant to the variance doctrine.
• Insufficiency of Prosecution Evidence: XXX claimed that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, questioning AAA's credibility and her failure to report the incidents or seek help from her mother, and alleging that her story defies reason and is incredible.
• Lack of Medical Corroboration: XXX pointed out that AAA's Medical Certificate failed to corroborate her claim that he inserted his penis into her anus, and that it did not indicate any external signs of physical injuries, thereby belying her claim that he kicked her during the alleged March 6, 2012 incident.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The OSG countered that the prosecution proved XXX's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, averring that AAA concretely detailed how XXX defiled her, and that AAA's minority and her relationship with XXX were established through her Certificate of Live Birth.
• Medical Certificate Not Indispensable: The OSG asserted that a medical certificate and medical examination of the victim are not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient.
• Waiver Through Failure to Object: The OSG argued that it was too late for XXX to question the allegedly duplicitous Information, as his failure to raise an objection and file a motion to quash before entering his plea constituted a waiver of his right to assail the duplicitous Information in Criminal Case No. 158508, and that due to such failure, he may be charged for all offenses asserted therein and proved during trial.

• Qualified Rape by Carnal Knowledge: Whether XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506.
• Proper Classification of the March 6, 2012 Incident: Whether XXX should be convicted of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, or of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, in Criminal Case No. 158508.
• Duplicitous Information and Waiver: Whether XXX's failure to object to the duplicitous Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 before trial constitutes a waiver permitting his conviction of all offenses charged and proven.
• Credibility of the Victim: Whether the alleged lacuna in AAA's Medical Certificate and her failure to immediately report the incidents tarnish her credibility.

• Qualified Rape by Carnal Knowledge: Yes. The prosecution proved all the elements of qualified rape by carnal knowledge, along with the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship, through AAA's credible, candid, and straightforward testimony and her Certificate of Live Birth.
• Proper Classification of the March 6, 2012 Incident: The proper crime is Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, not rape by sexual assault under the RPC, because AAA was fifteen years old at the time — within the twelve-to-eighteen age bracket — and was subjected to lascivious conduct through the coercion and influence of her father, pursuant to the doctrine in People vs. Tulagan.
• Duplicitous Information and Waiver: Yes. XXX waived his right to question the duplicitous Information by failing to move to quash before entering his plea; under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved.
• Credibility of the Victim: No. The absence of external physical injuries does not negate rape, a medical examination is not indispensable, and a victim's failure to immediately report does not destroy credibility, especially when the victim is a minor cowed into silence by fear.

• Qualified Rape by Carnal Knowledge: Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, defines rape through sexual intercourse ("organ rape" or "penile rape"), the central element of which is carnal knowledge. AAA testified in clear and consistent detail that XXX pulled her, removed her clothing, overcame her resistance, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain and bleeding. Her minority at the time of the incident and her relationship to XXX as his biological daughter were established through her Certificate of Live Birth. Because the victim was under eighteen and the offender was her parent, the rape was qualified under Article 266-B, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua (the death penalty having been prohibited by R.A. No. 9346). The RTC and CA both found AAA's testimony credible, and such factual findings are accorded great weight and respect on appeal.

• Proper Classification of the March 6, 2012 Incident: In People vs. Tulagan, the Court clarified that when rape by sexual assault is committed against a child twelve years old and below eighteen, or at least eighteen under special circumstances, the proper crime is lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, not rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC. Section 5(b) punishes those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7610 define "lascivious conduct" to include the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus, or mouth of any person with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire. The phrase "children exploited in prostitution" contemplates, among other scenarios, a child who, due to the coercion or influence of any adult, indulges in lascivious conduct — terms broad enough to cover any acts of force or intimidation. AAA was fifteen years old when XXX forcibly inserted his penis into her mouth and anus. She was a child subjected to lascivious conduct through the coercion and influence of her own father. Her age and relationship to XXX were established through her Certificate of Live Birth. Accordingly, the proper conviction is for Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, with the corresponding penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Because the crime was aggravated by relationship (XXX being AAA's father), and there being no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the penalty was imposed in its maximum period — reclusion perpetua — conformably with Section 31(c), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610.

• Duplicitous Information and Waiver: The Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 charged XXX with two distinct offenses — inserting his penis into AAA's mouth and having carnal knowledge of her — violating Section 13, Rule 110, which requires that a complaint or information charge only one offense. Section 3(f), Rule 117 permits the accused to move to quash a duplicitous information, but the objection must be made before the accused enters a plea; failure to do so constitutes a waiver under Section 9, Rule 117. XXX failed to timely object, simply pleaded not guilty, and actively participated throughout the trial. Under Section 3, Rule 120, when two or more offenses are charged in a single information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved. The Information charged XXX with forcing AAA to perform fellatio, and the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he forcibly inserted his penis into her mouth. That act constitutes lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. The RTC erred in applying the variance doctrine, because rape by sexual assault is not included in rape by carnal knowledge — their modes of commission are utterly different. The conviction rests instead on Section 3, Rule 120, grounded on XXX's waiver.

• Credibility of the Victim: The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape; the primary consideration is the victim's testimony, not the medico-legal findings. A medical examination is not indispensable — the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. The fact of rape and the identity of the perpetrator may be proven through the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim. AAA's failure to immediately report the incidents does not destroy her credibility, because the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, and it is unfair to expect a rational reaction from a minor confronted with a startling and traumatic experience. AAA explained that she was cowed into silence out of fear that XXX would kill her. The trial court and CA both regarded AAA's testimony as credible and unequivocal, and such factual findings are accorded great weight and respect. XXX's denial falters against the prosecution's strong evidence, as mere denial cannot overcome the positive declaration of a child-victim. It is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father of so serious a crime, submitting herself to public scrutiny and shame, unless the accusation is true.

• Tulagan Doctrine (Reclassification of Rape by Sexual Assault Against Minors) — When rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC is committed against a child twelve (12) years old and below eighteen (18), or at least eighteen (18) under special circumstances, the proper crime is Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The Court applied this doctrine to reclassify XXX's conviction in Criminal Case No. 158508, because AAA was fifteen years old at the time of the incident and was subjected to lascivious conduct through the coercion and influence of her father. The aggravating circumstance of relationship (parent) required the penalty to be imposed in its maximum period — reclusion perpetua — pursuant to Section 31(c), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610.

• Waiver of Objection to Duplicitous Information — Under Section 3(f), Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an accused may move to quash an information charging more than one offense, but the objection must be made before the accused enters a plea. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver under Section 9, Rule 117. Thereafter, under Section 3, Rule 120, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, imposing the penalty for each offense and setting out separately the findings of fact and law. The Court found that XXX waived his right to object to the duplicitous Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 by failing to move to quash before pleading, and was therefore properly convicted of the offense charged and proven.

• Inapplicability of the Variance Doctrine to Rape by Carnal Knowledge and Rape by Sexual Assault — Rape by sexual assault is not included in, and does not necessarily include, rape by carnal knowledge, because the modes of committing the two crimes are utterly different. The variance doctrine under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked to convict an accused of rape by sexual assault when the information charges rape by carnal knowledge. The RTC erred in applying the variance doctrine; the proper basis for conviction was Section 3, Rule 120, grounded on XXX's waiver.

• Credibility of Child-Victim Testimony in Rape Cases — A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature, is sufficient to convict. The absence of external physical injuries does not negate rape. A victim's failure to immediately report the assault does not destroy credibility, as the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, and it is unfair to expect a rational reaction from a minor. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence, and it is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father of rape unless the accusation is true.

• "Rape by sexual assault committed against a child twelve (12) years of age and below eighteen (18), shall be punished as Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610." — This is the opening pronouncement of the decision, stating the controlling rule that reclassifies rape by sexual assault against minors aged twelve to eighteen as lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610, following the Tulagan doctrine.

• "Likewise, the failure of an accused to object to a duplicitous Information constitutes a waiver, and thus, he/she may be convicted of as many offenses as are indicated therein, and proven during the trial." — This passage states the second major holding of the case, establishing that failure to timely object to a duplicitous Information under Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure constitutes a waiver, permitting conviction of all offenses charged and proven.

• "Certainly, XXX's act of forcibly inserting his penis into AAA's mouth constitutes lascivious conduct, punishable under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. AAA, who was then a child, was subjected to lascivious conduct through the coercion and influence of her very own father." — This passage applies the Tulagan doctrine to the facts, explaining how the elements of lascivious conduct under R.A. No. 7610 are satisfied when a parent coerces a child between twelve and eighteen into performing a sexual act.

• "To stress, the Information charges XXX with willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously forcing AAA to perform fellatio on him. Likewise, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that XXX indeed forcibly inserted his penis into AAA's mouth despite the latter's struggle and protest. Furthermore, as discussed, such egregious act constitutes lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. Therefore, XXX shall be convicted of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610." — This passage crystallizes the Court's reasoning for sustaining the conviction under R.A. No. 7610 through the waiver doctrine rather than the variance doctrine, tying together the duplicitous Information, the proof at trial, and the proper statutory classification.

• People vs. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on Tulagan to reclassify XXX's conviction from rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC to Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, because the victim was between twelve and eighteen years of age. Tulagan established that the proper penalty for lascivious conduct against a child in this age bracket is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, and expounded on the meaning of "children exploited in prostitution" to include children subjected to lascivious conduct through the coercion or influence of an adult.

• People vs. VVV, G.R. No. 230222, June 22, 2020 — Followed. Cited in support of the Tulagan doctrine and for the award of damages and the fine of ₱15,000.00 under Section 31(f), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610 in lascivious conduct cases.

• People vs. Pareja, 724 Phil. 759 (2014) — Followed. Cited for the distinction between rape through sexual intercourse ("organ rape" or "penile rape") and rape by sexual assault ("instrument or object rape" or "gender-free rape"), and for the proposition that rape by sexual assault is not included in rape by carnal knowledge because their modes of commission are utterly different.

• People vs. Zafra, 712 Phil. 559 (2013) — Followed. Cited for the propositions that the absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate rape, that a medical examination is not indispensable, and that a victim's failure to immediately report does not destroy credibility.

• People vs. Austria, 820 Phil. 747 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that the absence of physical injuries does not negate rape, and that not even the most ungrateful and resentful daughter would accuse her own father unless the accusation is true.

• People vs. Ramos, 838 Phil. 797 (2018) — Followed. Cited for the principle that a conviction in rape cases often rests solely on the offended party's testimony, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.

• People vs. Agudo, 810 Phil. 918 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the fact of rape and the identity of the perpetrator may be proven through the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim, which is the most important proof of the commission of rape.

• People vs. Udtohan, 815 Phil. 449 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence, and for the proposition that mere denial cannot overcome the positive declaration of a child-victim.

• People vs. Descartin, Jr., 810 Phil. 881 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that it is unthinkable for a daughter to accuse her own father of rape, subjecting herself to public scrutiny and shame, unless she had truly been aggrieved.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed. Cited as basis for the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of ₱100,000.00 each in qualified rape cases.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 — Defines the crime of rape: paragraph 1 covers rape through sexual intercourse (carnal knowledge under force, threat, intimidation, or other specified circumstances), and paragraph 2 covers rape by sexual assault (inserting the penis into another's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice). The Court applied paragraph 1 to sustain XXX's conviction for qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506, and determined that paragraph 2 should yield to R.A. No. 7610 for the March 6, 2012 incident because the victim was a child between twelve and eighteen.

• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 — Provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim of rape is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim. Because R.A. No. 9346 prohibited the death penalty, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

• Section 5(b), Article III, R.A. No. 7610 — Penalizes those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse, with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. The Court applied this provision to reclassify XXX's conviction in Criminal Case No. 158508 from rape by sexual assault to Lascivious Conduct, because AAA was fifteen years old and was subjected to lascivious conduct through the coercion and influence of her father.

• Section 31(c), Article XII, R.A. No. 7610 — Provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is, among others, the parent of the victim. The Court applied this provision to impose reclusion perpetua, the maximum period of the penalty for lascivious conduct, because the aggravating circumstance of relationship was alleged in the Information and proven during trial, with no mitigating circumstance to offset it.

• Section 31(f), Article XII, R.A. No. 7610 — Mandates a fine of ₱15,000.00 in addition to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b). The Court imposed this fine in Criminal Case No. 158508.

• Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. The Court found that the Information in Criminal Case No. 158508 violated this rule by charging two distinct offenses.

• Section 3(f), Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Allows the accused to move to quash an information that charges more than one offense. The Court noted that XXX failed to invoke this provision before entering his plea.

• Section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before pleading shall be deemed a waiver of objections based on the grounds enumerated in Section 3(a), (b), (g), and (i). The Court applied this provision to find that XXX waived his right to object to the duplicitous Information.

• Section 3, Rule 120, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose the penalty for each offense. The Court relied on this provision as the proper basis for XXX's conviction in Criminal Case No. 158508, rather than the variance doctrine.

• R.A. No. 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. The Court cited this law as the reason for imposing reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty for qualified rape under Article 266-B.

Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.