View full case

PEOPLE v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Noel Go Caoili (Caoili), also known as "Boy Tagalog," was charged with the crime of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353. The charge stemmed from an incident that allegedly occurred on October 23, 2005, where Caoili, as the father of the victim, allegedly had sexual intercourse with his minor daughter, AAA, against her will through force, threat, and intimidation. AAA testified that Caoili sexually molested her by kissing her lips, touching and mashing her breast, inserting his finger into her vagina, and making a push and pull movement with his finger for 30 minutes. AAA also revealed that Caoili physically abused her and warned her not to leave the house. After disclosing the sexual and physical abuse to a guidance counselor and undergoing a medical examination, AAA sought the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development and was admitted to a rehabilitation center. Caoili, on the other hand, denied molesting AAA and claimed that he saw her with her boyfriend on the day of the alleged incident. The RTC found Caoili guilty of rape by sexual assault, considering the aggravating circumstance that he was the parent of the victim.

The accused, Caoili, was convicted of rape by sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment and payment of indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. He filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Caoili and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed separate petitions for review before the Supreme Court. The OSG argued that Caoili's conviction for rape by sexual assault was proper, while Caoili raised issues on the nature of the offense, remand of the case, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court held that rape by sexual assault was the appropriate offense, as established by the prosecution's evidence. Caoili's credibility was questioned, but the Court found the testimony of the victim, AAA, credible in proving the sexual assault.

The accused, Caoili, was charged with the crime of rape in violation of Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The victim, AAA, who was a little over 15 years old at the time of the incident, testified and positively identified Caoili as the one who defiled her. AAA stated that Caoili inserted his finger into her vagina, causing her tremendous pain. Her testimony was found to be clear, convincing, and devoid of material inconsistencies. The trial court and the appellate court both affirmed AAA's credibility and found Caoili guilty of rape by sexual assault. However, the Court noted that the offense of rape by sexual assault is not subsumed in rape through sexual intercourse. The variance doctrine, which allows the conviction of an accused for a crime proved that is different from but necessarily included in the crime charged, does not apply in this case.

The case involves the appellant, Caoili, who was charged with the crime of rape. It was alleged that Caoili committed an act of lasciviousness by inserting his finger into his daughter's genitalia. The trial court convicted Caoili of rape by sexual intercourse based on the theory that sexual intercourse encompasses a wide range of sexual activities and is not limited to penetration, genitals, and opposite sexes. On appeal, the Supreme Court deliberated on whether Caoili's act of inserting his finger qualifies as carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse. Justice Leonen argued for Caoili's conviction based on his interpretation of sexual intercourse. However, the Court did not adopt Justice Leonen's theory.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the accused can be found guilty of rape by sexual assault if the charge in the Information is rape through carnal knowledge.

  2. Whether the accused can be convicted of the crime of lascivious conduct.

  3. Whether Caoili's acts constitute lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610

  4. Whether AAA's minority was sufficiently alleged and proved

  5. Whether there was influence or coercion present in the commission of the lascivious acts

  6. Whether the accused can be convicted of a lesser offense of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 even if the charge is for rape in relation to the said law.

  7. Whether the accused can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.

  8. Whether the offense should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610" or "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610."

  9. Whether the remand of the case to the trial court for the purpose of filing the proper Information is procedurally infirm.

  10. Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

  11. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is proper.

RULING:

  1. No, the accused cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault if the charge in the Information is rape through carnal knowledge. The Court held that the two modes of rape are distinctly different, and one is not necessarily included in the other. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted of rape by sexual assault in this case.

  2. Yes, the accused can be convicted of the crime of lascivious conduct. The Court applied the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610, which criminalizes sexual abuse against children. The elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of the said law were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

  3. Yes, Caoili's acts constitute lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. The evidence presented confirmed that Caoili committed lascivious acts against AAA by kissing her lips, touching and mashing her breast, and inserting his finger into her vagina and making a push and pull movement for 30 minutes. These acts fall within the definition of lascivious conduct as provided in the rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7610.

  4. Yes, AAA's minority was sufficiently alleged and proved. She was below 18 years old at the time the lascivious conduct was committed against her, which was both alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.

  5. Yes, there was influence and coercion present in the commission of the lascivious acts. Caoili, being AAA's father, used his moral influence and ascendancy over her to perpetrate the acts. Even absent coercion or intimidation, Caoili can still be convicted of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 because moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. Consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.

  6. Yes, the accused can be convicted of the lesser offense of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 even if the charge is for rape. The variance doctrine allows for an accused to be convicted of a lesser offense that is included in the offense charged.

  7. Yes, the accused can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, provided that all the elements of the said offense are established.

  8. The offense should be designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610" when the victim is aged twelve (12) years or over but under eighteen (18), or is eighteen (18) or older but unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. The offense should be designated as "Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610" when the victim is under 12 years of age at the time the offense was committed.

  9. The Court held that the remand of the case to the trial court for the purpose of filing the proper Information is procedurally infirm. The rules on amendment or substitution of the charge are applicable only before judgment has been rendered. In this case, the trial has been concluded and a guilty verdict has already been rendered, which has been reviewed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and elevated to the Supreme Court. The CA's judgment did not amount to an acquittal. Therefore, the remand order is incorrect.

  10. Yes, the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

  11. The penalty imposed by the trial court is modified to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The accused is also ordered to pay the victim civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The two modes of rape - rape by sexual intercourse and rape by sexual assault - are distinct from each other, and one is not necessarily included in the other. The courts cannot convict an accused of rape by sexual assault if the charge in the Information is rape through sexual intercourse.

  • The Court cannot broaden the scope of rape by sexual assault and eliminate its legal distinction from rape through sexual intercourse, as this would amount to judicial legislation and violate the principle of separation of powers.

  • Public prosecutors have a crucial role in drafting criminal complaints or Information, and they must be judicious and circumspect in their preparation to avoid mistakes or defects that may hinder the administration of justice.

  • Republic Act No. 7610 applies to cases of abuse, exploitation, or discrimination against children or individuals who are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves due to physical or mental disability. This law criminalizes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

  • The elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 are: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years old.

  • The acts of kissing, touching, and inserting a finger into the genitalia of a child with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person constitute lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.

  • The minority of the victim must be sufficiently alleged and proved in cases involving the commission of lascivious acts against a child.

  • Influence and coercion can exist in cases where a person in a position of power or trust, such as a parent, uses their moral influence and ascendancy to compel a child to engage in lascivious acts. Consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610.

  • Variance doctrine allows for an accused to be convicted of a lesser offense that is included in the offense charged.

  • The offense of acts of lasciviousness under Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code is included in rape and can be charged under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610.

  • The designation of the offense should be determined based on the age of the victim at the time the offense was committed.

  • The rules on amendment or substitution of the charge are applicable only before judgment has been rendered.

  • The remand of a case to the trial court for the purpose of filing the proper Information is procedurally infirm when the trial has already been concluded and a guilty verdict has been rendered.

  • The guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction for rape can be made.

  • The penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.

  • The victim is entitled to civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages as provided for by law.