Pielago v. People

Rights of the Accused

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: People v. LarrañagaPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: People v. CruzNext case→

Case DigestWeek 8 - Rule 114 - Bail

Pielago v. People

G.R. No. 202020 · March 13, 2013

Rights of the Accused

Petitioner: PielagoRespondent: People

Gist

The relationship of this case to the requested topic of Bail; Rights of the Accused (Rules 114-115) is DIRECT as to the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (Rule 115, Section 1(b)), and INCIDENTAL as to the right to bail (Rule 114), specifically concerning the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the accused through voluntary surrender and the posting of property bail. The controversy arose when petitioner Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros was charged in an Information for committing an "act of lasciviousness" upon a four-year-old child by "inserting one of his fingers to the vagina," but was subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) of the graver offense of Rape by Sexual Assault. Pielago elevated the case to the Supreme Court, asserting that his conviction for Rape by Sexual Assault violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because the Information designated the crime as Acts of Lasciviousness only. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction, with the sole modification of increasing the exemplary damages and imposing legal interest on all awards.

Core Doctrine

In all criminal prosecutions the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, but what controls is not the title or the designation of the offence in the caption — it is the actual recital of facts in the body of the Information. So where the body alleges every element of the graver offence, a conviction for that offence violates no right, notwithstanding that the caption named a lesser one.

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

Rights of the Accused Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202020_2013.html

Facts

Between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. on 1 July 2006, four-year-old AAA and her two-year-old brother CCC were playing with Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros — "Kuya Alvin" — at the porch of Boyet Ros's house in Barangay Allang, City of Ligao.
He led them inside to watch television, turned it off, and brought them into a bedroom. Placing CCC in a corner with a toy, he made AAA lie on the bed, removed her short pants, inserted his right forefinger into her vagina and licked her genitals, then made her lie on her chest and inserted his finger into her anus.
Her mother BBB called them for lunch; he replaced AAA's shorts and sent them out. BBB noticed bloodstains on the back of the shorts, and AAA said: "Kuya Alvin inserted something in my vagina and my anus and he licked me."
At about 6:00 p.m. BBB confronted him; he denied it, claiming he was asleep. They complained at the Ligao City Police Station, and Dr. Lea F. Remonte found a superficial laceration at the 7 o'clock position of the anus, perihymenal erythema, and erythema of the fossa navicularis — indicating digital or blunt penetration.
Before any warrant issued, Pielago voluntarily surrendered to the police and posted property bail.
The Information's caption charged Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b), R.A. No. 7610 — but its body alleged that he did "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA… by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers to the vagina of AAA." The caption said one crime; the body described another, and the body is what he had to defend against.
He pleaded not guilty.
On 31 May 2010 the RTC of Ligao City, Branch 14, found the caption erroneous but the body sufficient to allege Rape by Sexual Assault, credited voluntary surrender, and imposed seven years of prisión mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusión temporal.
On 1 February 2012 the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto; on 13 March 2013 the First Division denied the petition, modifying only the damages.

Issue

Did convicting Pielago of Rape by Sexual Assault violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the Information's caption having designated only Acts of Lasciviousness?

Secondary issues. Whether denial and a claimed family land dispute can overcome a four-year-old's direct testimony; and whether surrendering and posting bail before any warrant issued earns the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Ruling

NO VIOLATION. The body of the Information sufficiently alleged the digital penetration that is the gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault: "What controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information. In other words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being charged in the information."

Secondary issue 1. GUILT PROVED. "[T]estimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed" — and bare denials and the claim that the bleeding came from spankings or a teenager's menstrual blood are intrinsically weak against positive identification.

Secondary issue 2. ENTITLED. He was not actually arrested, surrendered to a person in authority, and did so voluntarily — presenting himself and posting property bail before any warrant issued.

"WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 1, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33475 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, that: (1) the amount of exemplary damages is increased from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00; and (2) petitioner Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros is ordered to pay the private offended party interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The caption avoids surprise; the body binds. Following Malto v. People, the factual recitals are controlling, and here they explicitly described the finger inserted into the vagina — so he could claim no surprise about the acts he had to answer for.
And those acts are the graver crime. The gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person" — which is exactly what the body alleged and the evidence proved.
So the variance was not fatal, the elements of the offence proved having been fully laid out in the body.
The child's testimony carried great weight, the trial court's credibility findings being entitled to respect and her account clear, candid and straightforward.
And the surrender was genuine. Presenting himself and posting bail before arrest is voluntary submission of his person to the court's jurisdiction, satisfying Article 13(7) and reducing the penalty.

Doctrine

The body of the Information, not its caption, determines the crime charged. "It is well-settled that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him… What controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information." Rape by sexual assault is committed "by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person." Child-victims' testimonies are given full weight and credit. And an accused who surrenders and posts bail before any warrant issues has placed himself in the custody of the law and earns the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Limits. Variance has an outer edge. A court cannot convict of a crime whose elements are completely absent from the body — had the Information described only kissing and touching with no mention of penetration, a conviction for rape by sexual assault would violate the right to be informed and be void. That is what the cause-of-accusation requirement actually protects. And the mitigating circumstance has a deadline. *Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the accused surrenders or posts bail only after arrest or after a warrant has been executed. Read alongside People v. Lagarde, the mirror case: there circumstances proved but never alleged could not raise the penalty; here acts alleged but mislabelled could still sustain the graver conviction — the constant is that the factual allegations, and only those, define what the accused must meet. Note that the acts alleged straddle acts of lasciviousness and rape by sexual assault, with the penalty provision following whichever the facts establish.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

The central doctrine established in this decision dictates that under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution and Section 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is not violated by a variance between the designation of the offense in the caption of the Information and the crime proved during trial, because what controls is not the title of the Information or the designation of the offense given by the prosecutor, but the actual, ultimate facts recited in the body of the Information; where the body of the Information sufficiently details the acts constituting Rape by Sexual Assault—such as the digital penetration of the victim's genitals—the accused is fully apprised of the actual charges he must defend himself against and may be validly convicted thereof.

Facts

July 1, 2006 (between 2:00 PM and 2:30 PM): The four-year-old victim, AAA, and her two-year-old brother, CCC, are playing with petitioner Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros (whom they call "Kuya Alvin") at the porch of Boyet Ros' house in Barangay Allang, City of Ligao.
July 1, 2006 (moments later): Pielago leads AAA and CCC inside the house to watch television, subsequently turns off the television, and brings them into a bedroom. While CCC is placed in a corner with a toy, Pielago commands AAA to lie on the bed, removes her short pants, and forcibly inserts his right forefinger into her vagina, licking her genitals. He then makes her lie on her chest and inserts his finger into her anus.
July 1, 2006 (afternoon): The victim's mother, BBB, calls the children for lunch. Pielago replaces AAA's short pants and sends them out. BBB notices bloodstains on the back of AAA's shorts and, upon questioning, AAA states: "Kuya Alvin inserted something in my vagina and my anus and he licked me."
July 1, 2006 (about 6:00 PM): BBB confronts Pielago, who denies the allegations, claiming he was asleep. BBB and AAA immediately lodge a formal complaint at the Ligao City Police Station. AAA undergoes a medical examination by Ligao City Health Officer Dr. Lea F. Remonte, who documents a superficial laceration at the 7 o'clock position of the anus, perihymenal erythema, and erythema of the fossa navicularis, indicating digital or blunt penetration of her genitals and anus.
[Date not in record]: Prior to the issuance of any warrant of arrest, Pielago voluntarily surrenders to police authorities and posts property bail under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
[Date not in record]: The prosecution files an Information against Pielago. The caption and designation of the offense charge Pielago with Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, but the body of the Information alleges that Pielago did "willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA... by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers to the vagina of AAA."
[Date not in record]: Upon arraignment under Rule 116, Pielago, assisted by counsel, enters a plea of "not guilty" to the charge.
May 31, 2010: The RTC of Ligao City, Branch 14, renders its Judgment finding the designation of the offense in the caption erroneous, but holding that the body of the Information sufficiently alleged Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. Crediting Pielago with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the RTC sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of seven (7) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and orders him to pay civil indemnity and damages.
[Date not in record]: Pielago appeals his conviction to the Court of Appeals (docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 33475).
February 1, 2012: The Court of Appeals renders its Decision affirming the RTC Judgment in toto, ruling that the factual allegations in the Information determine the crime charged and that the variance in the crimes is not fatal to the conviction.
[Date not in record]: Pielago files a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
March 13, 2013: The Supreme Court First Division delivers its Decision, denying the petition, affirming Pielago's conviction for Rape by Sexual Assault, and modifying the damages.

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros).

Violation of the Right to be Informed: The petitioner argues that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was flagrantly violated. He contends that he was charged, arraigned, and tried for Acts of Lasciviousness (under R.A. No. 7610) but was unconstitutionally convicted of the completely different and graver offense of Rape by Sexual Assault.
Failure of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: He asserts that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He argues that the medical findings were inconclusive and that AAA's testimony was coached by her mother, BBB, who was motivated by an active land dispute between their families.
Lasciviousness and Menstrual Defense: He claims that the bloodstains on AAA's shorts could have resulted from her mother's spankings, or could have been the menstrual blood of another teenager residing in the house, whose shorts AAA allegedly found and wore on that day.

B. Respondent (People of the Philippines).

Factual Recitals Control the Information: The State argues that the designation of the offense in the caption of the Information is a mere legal opinion of the prosecutor and is not binding on the courts. What controls is the recital of ultimate facts m the body of the Information, which explicitly described digital penetration of AAA's genitals—the exact gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault.
No Fatal Variance: The prosecution contends that the variance between the caption and the body of the Information is not fatal because the facts alleged and proven at the trial clearly established the elements of Rape by Sexual Assault, which Pielago was fully able to defend himself against.
Credibility of Child-Victims: The State maintains that the testimony of AAA, despite her tender age of four, was candid, spontaneous, and consistent with the medical evidence of lacerations and erythema, and is more than sufficient to overcome the petitioner's bare denials.

C. Common Ground.

NOT IN RECORD (No stipulations of fact or common ground were entered, as the defense contested both the credibility of the child and the constitutionality of the conviction).

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the petitioner's conviction for the crime of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, despite the fact that the caption of the Information designated the offense as Acts of Lasciviousness only, and whether such conviction violates the accused's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him under Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution and Section 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court.

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether or not the prosecution proved the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and whether a simple denial and the defense of an existing family land dispute can overcome the direct, consistent testimony of a four-year-old child-victim.
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code to reduce his penalty when he surrenders to police authorities and posts a property bail bond prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Ruling

MAIN ISSUE: NO. The Court of Appeals did not err. The conviction of the petitioner for Rape by Sexual Assault does not violate his right to be informed because the body of the Information sufficiently alleged the digital penetration of the victim's genitals, which is the gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault.
SECONDARY ISSUE 1 (Proof of Guilt): YES. The prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Straightforward testimonies of child-victims are entitled to full weight and credit, and the petitioner's self-serving denial and claim of a family feud cannot prevail over his positive identification.
SECONDARY ISSUE 2 (Voluntary Surrender): YES. Pielago is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because he surrendered and posted property bail under Rule 114 before any warrant of arrest was issued against him.

#### Verbatim Dispositive Portion:.

"WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 1, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33475 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, that: (1) the amount of exemplary damages is increased from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00; and (2) petitioner Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros is ordered to pay the private offended party interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

#### 1. The Factual Recitals in the Body of the Information Control the Crime Charged. The Supreme Court parsed the constitutional scope of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him under Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution and Section 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court. The Court established that while the designation of the offense in the caption of the Information is necessary to avoid surprise, it is the factual recitals in the body of the indictment that are legally binding and controlling. Citing Malto v. People, the Court ruled:

"What controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information. In other words, it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense, not the nomenclature of the offense, that determines the crime being charged in the information."

Because the body of the Information against Pielago explicitly alleged that he committed an act of lasciviousness "by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers to the vagina of AAA," the factual recitals clearly detailed the elements of Rape by Sexual Assault. He cannot claim surprise because he was fully informed of the physical acts he had to defend himself against during the trial.

#### 2. The Gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault (Article 266-A(2), RPC). The Court held that under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (R.A. No. 8353), the gravamen of Rape by Sexual Assault is:

"the insertion of the penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person."

By inserting his forefinger into the four-year-old victim's vagina and anus, Pielago committed Rape by Sexual Assault, not simple acts of lasciviousness. The variance between the designation in the caption (Acts of Lasciviousness) and the crime proved (Rape by Sexual Assault) is not fatal to the conviction because the elements of the latter were fully laid out in the body of the Information.

#### 3. The Superiority of Child-Victims' Testimony over Bare Denials. The Court held that the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of a rape victim are entitled to great weight and respect. The testimony of a child of tender years (four years old) is highly credible when it is clear, candid, and straightforward. The Court emphasized that "when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed." Pielago's bare denials and weak attempts to blame the bleeding on her mother's spankings or a teenager's menstrual blood are "intrinsically weak" and cannot prevail over his positive, categorical identification by the victim.

#### 4. Voluntary Surrender and the Role of Bail under Rule 114. The Court sustained the RTC and CA's appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Under Article 13(7) of the RPC, voluntary surrender requires that:

(a) The offender has not been actually arrested.
(b) The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority.
(c) The surrender was voluntary.

By presenting himself to the police and posting property bail under Rule 114 prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, Pielago voluntarily submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the court. This proactive, voluntary submission satisfies the elements of Article 13(7), entitling him to a reduction of the penalty.

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules.

#### 1. Right of the Accused to be Informed (Rule 115, Section 1(b)):.

"It is well-settled that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. ... What controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information."

#### 2. The Elements of Rape by Sexual Assault (Article 266-A(2), RPC):.

"Rape is committed... By any person who... shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person."

#### 3. Credibility of Child-Victims' Testimonies:.

"testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed."

#### 4. Voluntary Submission under Rule 114:.

An accused who voluntarily surrenders to the police and posts bail prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest has validly placed himself under the custody of the law and is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

C. Limitations/Exceptions.

Strict Limitation on Factual Variance: While a variance between the caption and the body of the Information is permissible, the court cannot convict an accused of a crime whose elements are completely absent from the factual recitals in the body of the Information. If the body of the Information only describes kissing and touching without any mention of penetration (digital or otherwise), a conviction for Rape by Sexual Assault would violate the right to be informed and would be void.
No Voluntary Surrender After Arrest: The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated if the accused only surrenders or posts bail after he has been arrested by police officers or after a warrant of arrest has already been executed.

D. Topic Integration.

This case has a DIRECT relationship to the requested syllabus topic of Rights of the Accused (Rule 115), specifically the Right to be Informed (Section 1(b)), and an DIRECT relationship to Bail (Rule 114).
Pielago v. People represents a brilliant and illustrative intersection of Bail (Rule 114) and the Rights of the Accused (Rule 115).
Under Rule 114, Section 1, bail is the security given to guarantee the appearance of the accused. The decision integrates these rules by clarifying how the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Specifically, Pielago was never arrested; instead, he voluntarily surrendered to the police and posted a property bail bond before any warrant of arrest could be issued against him. Under Rule 114, Section 1, this voluntary surrender and posting of bail effectively placed him under the "custody of the law," submitting his body to the jurisdiction and processes of the trial court.
Furthermore, this voluntary submission under Rule 114 was utilized by the Supreme Court to sustain his entitlement to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, which directly lowered the indeterminate penalty imposed on him under the Revised Penal Code.
At the same time, Pielago protects Rule 115, Section 1(b) (the right to be informed) by establishing that while the prosecution may commit a technical error in designating the crime in the caption of the Information, the accused is not deprived of due process as long as the body of the Information accurately describes the physical acts he committed, allowing him to properly prepare his defense.

Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD (The decision of the First Division, penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, was unanimous, and no separate concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the text of G.R. No. 202020).

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Implementing Rules

Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court

Rights of accused at the trial

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 115 (Rights of Accused)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of counsel.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

LawPhil posts the text as amended effective 1 December 2000. Later amendments — notably to the bail and preliminary-investigation rules — are not reflected here, so check the date of the decision against the date of the amendment.

Why it is cited here

Notice is measured by the acts alleged, not the label attached to them.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: … (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."

The Information designated the offense as "acts of lasciviousness" but averred that Pielago committed it upon a four-year-old by "inserting one of his fingers to the vagina." He was convicted of the graver rape by sexual assault.

The Court affirmed. The right is satisfied where the factual averments describe the offense convicted of — the accused defends against what he is alleged to have done, and the prosecutor's choice of label does not narrow that.

Compare Lagarde, decided the other way on the same principle: there the circumstance itself was never averred, so no amount of proof could supply it. Here the act was averred; only the name was wrong.

Implementing Rules

Section 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court

Cause of the accusation

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses)

The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. (9a)

Why it is cited here

The section that makes the acts control.

"The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged …"

"Not necessarily in the language used in the statute" is the clause that decides this case. The pleading standard is descriptive, not nomenclatural.

Read with Section 8, which requires the designation and the acts and the circumstances: a mistaken designation is survivable where the acts are fully pleaded; a missing circumstance is not, because nothing else in the Information supplies it.

Special Law

Article 336, Revised Penal Code

Acts of lasciviousness

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

CHAPTER THREE

SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE

Why it is cited here

The offense charged, and the one he was convicted of.

"Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional."

That is what the Information named. What it described was digital penetration — rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A(2), introduced by R.A. No. 8353 (1997) and carrying a heavier penalty.

The gap between the two is why the notice objection was raised at all, and why it failed: the accused had to meet the conduct alleged, which was the graver one throughout.

On bail, the digest's incidental point: jurisdiction over Pielago's person was acquired by voluntary surrender and the posting of property bail — one of the four forms Section 1 of Rule 114 allows.

Special Law

Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code

Rape: when and how committed

Revised Penal Code, Title Eight, Chapter Three, as incorporated by R.A. No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997)

Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Curated, and it has to be. R.A. No. 8353 is an amending act that quotes the new articles it inserts, so a flat parse of its sections finds "Section 1, Section 2, Section 3" and never sees Article 266-A at all. The text above is the quoted text, transcribed from the act.

Do not confuse this with rpc-art-266. LawPhil's Revised Penal Code page is the original 1930 text, whose Article 266 is slight physical injuries and maltreatment — a different offence entirely. Before 1997 rape was Article 335. A decision on facts predating 22 October 1997 applies Article 335; one after it applies this article.

R.A. No. 11648 (2022) amended paragraph 1(d), raising the age in the statutory-rape clause from twelve to under sixteen (16) years of age. The text above is the 1997 wording. Check the date of the offence.

Why it is cited here

Paragraph 2 — the provision the conviction actually rested on.

"Rape is committed: … 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person."

The Information charged acts of lasciviousness but averred that Pielago inserted one of his fingers into the vagina of a four-year-old. He was convicted of rape by sexual assault.

A finger is "any instrument or object," and the victim's age brings in paragraph 1(d) — so every element of paragraph 2 was described in the Information even though the offence was named as something lesser.

That is why the notice objection failed: under Rule 110, Section 9 the acts are pleaded "not necessarily in the language used in the statute," and the accused defends against what he is alleged to have done.

Compare People v. Pareja, which runs the other way — there the Information charged paragraph 1 and the facts proved paragraph 2, and the mismatch cut the conviction down.

Special Law

Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code

Rape — penalties and qualifying circumstances

Revised Penal Code, Title Eight, Chapter Three, as incorporated by R.A. No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997)

Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall become reclusion perpetua to death.

When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;

3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;

4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;

5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;

7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;

8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;

9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and

10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.

When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.

When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.

Two misprints are the source's, not ours — "ofthe rape" appears twice, and the first qualifying circumstance is numbered "l)" (a lowercase L) instead of 1). Both are reproduced as LawPhil prints them.

The death penalty clauses are inoperative. R.A. No. 9346 (2006) prohibited the imposition of the death penalty; where this article prescribes death, the penalty is now reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Decisions between 1997 and 2006 imposed death and were later reduced.

A qualifying circumstance in this article raises the penalty only if alleged in the Information — see rule-110-sec-8 and People v. Lagarde.

Why it is cited here

Why the mislabelling mattered to the sentence.

"Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. … Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor."

Acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 carries prision correccional. Rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 carries prision mayor — materially heavier.

So this was not a harmless re-labelling in the accused's favour, and the objection was a real one. It failed on the pleading rule, not for want of stakes.

The conviction was affirmed, with the exemplary damages increased and legal interest imposed on all awards.

Related notes:

Assigned under the same subtopic — Rights of the Accused:

(and 16 more under this subtopic — see the Week 8 coverage table.)

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202020_2013.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court

Implementing Rules

Rights of accused at the trial

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, effective 1 December 2000) — Rule 115 (Rights of Accused)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.

(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.

(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.

(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.

(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

Why it is cited here

Notice is measured by the acts alleged, not the label attached to them.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: … (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."

Full entry below ↓