CASE DIGEST : PEOPLE v. XXX GR No. 254254 GAERLAN

 FACTS : The appeal resolves the conviction of the accused-appellant, XXX, who was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) for two counts of Qualified Rape committed against his own minor daughter, AAA. The victim was between 13 and 15 years old during the alleged incidents. Specifically, XXX was convicted of Qualified Rape by Carnal Knowledge (for an incident in 2009 when the victim was 13) and Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault (for an incident in 2012 involving non-carnal acts). The RTC acquitted him of a third charge due to insufficient evidence. The courts found AAA's testimony credible and consistent, rejecting XXX's defense of denial and motive. A key legal point addressed by the CA was the duplicitous nature of the Information in the sexual assault case; however, the CA ruled that XXX waived his right to object to this defect because he failed to contest it before or during the trial. The CA affirmed the penalties of imprisonment for both convictions and modified the damages awarded in the Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault case, increasing the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages from 30k to 100k each

ISSUE : WON XXX is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of (i) qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 158506; and (ii) qualified rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 158508

HELD : The Supreme Court denied the appeal filed by the accused-appellant, XXX, thereby affirming his conviction for the sexual abuse of his minor daughter, AAA, but necessitated modifications to the designation and penalty for one of the crimes. In his appeal, XXX challenged his conviction for qualified rape by sexual assault, arguing that the Information was duplicitous and that the variance doctrine was improperly applied. The Court confirmed XXX's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for Qualified Rape through Sexual Intercourse (Criminal Case No. 158506), upholding the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, plus P300,000.00 in damages, based on the established facts of carnal knowledge, the victim's minority, and his relationship as her father. For the second incident (Criminal Case No. 158508), the Court agreed with XXX that the Information, which charged both forced fellatio and sexual intercourse, was duplicitous; however, his failure to object before entering his plea constituted a waiver of this right, allowing the court to convict him of the offenses charged and proven during the trial.

The Court held that the correct crime for the second incident (forced fellatio and anal penetration when the victim was 15) was not Rape by Sexual Assault, but rather Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Act), pursuant to controlling jurisprudence. Due to the relationship of the offender as the victim's father, which constitutes an aggravating circumstance, the Court imposed the maximum penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for Lascivious Conduct, along with specific damages: P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus a fine of P15,000.00. Finally, the Court dismissed XXX's arguments questioning the victim's credibility, reiterating that the victim's sole, credible testimony is sufficient to convict, and that the absence of a medical certificate or a delay in reporting the incident—especially when motivated by fear of the perpetrator—does not negate the commission of the crime, thereby confirming the factual findings of the lower courts against his defense of denial.