G.R. No.

202020 March 13, 2013

MIKE ALVIN PIELAGO y ROS, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

The petitioner, Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros (Pielago) assails the Decision1 dated February
1, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 33475 which affirmed the
Judgment2 dated May 31, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City, Branch
14, finding Pielago guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape by sexual
assault.

Pielago was charged in an Information,3 the accusatory portion of which reads:

"That on or about July 1, 2006 at around 3:30 in the afternoon at Barangay Allang[,] City
of Ligao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused with lewd design and actuated by lust, did then and there willfully and
unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA4, a
minor being four (4) years old, by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers to
the vagina of [AAA], which acts debase, degrade and demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of said minor as human being to her damage and prejudice."

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

Prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, Pielago voluntarily surrendered to the police
authorities and posted a property bail.

During arraignment, Pielago pleaded not guilty to the charge against him.

At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA; her mother, BBB; Ligao
City Health Officer Dr. Lea F. Remonte; Melie P. Gonzales, a resident of Barangay
Allang; and PO2 Ma. Rowena S. Aldea. The defense, on the other hand, presented the
testimonies of the accused; Nestor and Celeste Pielago, his parents; Myrna Ros De La
Torre, his aunt; and some of the residents of Barangay Allang where the accused and
the victim reside.

Evidence for the Prosecution

On July 1, 2006, between 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., AAA and her two (2)-year old brother,
CCC, were playing with Pielago whom they call as Kuya Alvin at the porch of Boyet
Ros’ (Boyet) house. After playing, the three (3) went inside Boyet’s house to watch
television. After a while, Pielago turned off the television and brought AAA and CCC to a
bedroom. While CCC played with a toy carabao at a corner, Pielago made AAA lie
down on bed. Pielago then took off AAA’s short pants and inserted his right hand’s
forefinger inside her vagina and exclaimed "masiram" (which means "delicious") as he
brutely licked it and spewed saliva in it. AAA felt pain and blood came out of her vagina
which frightened her. Unsatisfied, Pielago made AAA lie on her chest on the same bed
then fingered her anus. After a few minutes, AAA and CCC were called for lunch by
their mother, BBB. Pielago immediately replaced AAA’s shorts then sent her and CCC
out of the bedroom. BBB noticed the bloodstains at the back portion of AAA’s shorts.
When BBB asked AAA what happened, AAA did not answer immediately until she said
"Kuya Alvin tugsok buyay saka lubot ko buda dila pa." (which means "Kuya Alvin
inserted something in my vagina and my anus and he licked me). Incensed by what
AAA told her, BBB went to a certain Manay Eden who accompanied her to the house of
Boyet where she found Pielago still lying on bed. BBB continually hit Pielago as she
asked him what he did to AAA. Pielago, however, denied the accusations and
maintained that he was asleep when the incident happened. At 6:00 p.m. of the same
day, AAA and BBB lodged a complaint at the Police Station where AAA was physically
examined by a medico-legal officer which issued a report showing a superficial
laceration found at the 7 o’clock position of AAA’s anus and the presence of erythema in
the perihymenal area and fossa navicularis caused by the insertion into the victim’s
genitals of a foreign object, possibly a small finger or any blunt object.6

Evidence for the Defense

Pielago denied the charge against him and testified that on July 1, 2006, he ate lunch
with Mary Grace Capinpin, Benedict Bordeos (Benedict) and Jerome Monasterial in the
house of his uncle, Lito Ros. Thereafter, he and Benedict rested in a nipa hut which was
3 to 4 meters away from said house. While resting, Pielago heard BBB calling her two
(2) children, AAA and CCC, who both ignored her while they were at the basketball
court. Being close to the two (2) children, Pielago convinced them to go home and even
assisted them in taking their lunch. He felt sleepy so he proceeded to the house of his
uncle and slept on the sofa located in the living room. However, AAA and CCC came in
and noisily played in the living room where he was so he transferred to the bedroom. He
was sound asleep until he felt somebody boxing his back. While BBB was continually
boxing Pielago, she kept on asking what he did to her child, AAA. Awakened and
shocked, Pielagio retorted: "What is it?" He denied her accusation because he said he
was fast asleep. At that time, he saw AAA and CCC chatting at the corridor of his
uncle’s house. After BBB left, Pielago just went back to sleep. Pielago added that there
is an existing land dispute between his grandparents and BBB’s family which could
have impelled the latter to file the instant charge against him even if he has nothing to
do with it. The defense also insisted that the bloodstain found on AAA’s shorts may
have resulted from BBB’s spanking; or that it could be the menstrual blood of a
teenager living in the house of Pielago’s uncle who owns the short pants which AAA
took and wore during the incident.7 This was not far fetched because Pielago stated
that after he woke up, he noticed that the clothes on top of the bed were already
scattered.8

The Decision of the RTC

In its Decision9 dated May 31, 2010, the RTC stated that it is necessary to determine
the actual or proper crime against the accused in view of the discrepancy between the
crime charged in the Information and the factual allegations contained therein. On its
face, the Information charged the crime of acts of lasciviousness against Pielago.
However, the factual allegations contained in the Information and the provisions of
existing laws pertain to the crime of rape by sexual assault defined and penalized under
Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8353.10 The trial court explained that the testimony of AAA merits full credit despite her
tender age. Her clear, candid and straightforward testimony categorically narrated how
Pielago successfully ravished her innocence when he inserted his finger into her vagina
and anus that caused her to feel pain in her genital parts. Indeed, AAA’s positive
identification of Pielago as her molester convinced the trial court to believe her version
of what indeed transpired between them.

The RTC brushed aside Pielago’s defense of denial for being intrinsically weak. Finding
Pielago guilty for the crime of rape by sexual assault, the RTC sentenced him to an
indeterminate penalty of prision mayor, as minimum, to reclusion temporal, as
maximum, after considering Pielago’s voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance,
and to pay AAA the amounts of ₱30,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱30,000.00 as moral
damages, ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages and ₱10,000.00 as temperate
damages.11

The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

a. Finding the accused, Mike Alvin Pielago y Ros GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Rape by Sexual Assault, committed against [AAA], defined in paragraph
No. 2, Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353; thereby, after
taking into account the qualifying circumstance relating to the victim’s age, "less than
seven (7) years of age" (last paragraph, Art. 266-B, ibid.), but crediting accused with the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, hereby sentences said accused to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from seven (7) years of prision
mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, with the accessory penalties provided by law;

b. As civil liability ex delicto, the same accused is ORDERED

TO PAY minor complainant, [AAA], through her parents, the following sums:

1) Php.10,000.00 as temperate damages;

2) Php.30,000.00 as civil indemnity for the commission of Rape by sexual assault;

3) Php.30,000.00 as moral damages; and

4) Php.25,000.00 by way of exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.12

The Decision of the CA

On February 1, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision13 affirming in toto the RTC’s

decision. The appellate court explained that despite the fact that the Information
charged the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the established factual circumstances
therein constitutes the elements of rape penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code such as: (1) that the offender inserted his penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice or inserted any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice
of another person; and (2) that the same was done to a child below 12 years of age.14
Citing the case of Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v.
People,15 the CA emphasized that it is not the nomenclature of the offense that
determines the crime in the Information but the recital of facts of the commission of the
offense. The determination by the prosecutor who signs the Information is merely an
opinion which is not binding on the court.16 The CA, moreover, agreed with the RTC in
brushing aside the bare self-serving denial of Pielago. He also failed to adduce any
evidence to support his claim that AAA was coached by her mother on what she should
testify in court. Finding support in current jurisprudence,17 the CA aptly stated that an
accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim so long as it is credible,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.18 Lastly,
the CA concurred with the RTC’s cognizance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender there being no warrant of arrest issued against Pielago. Thus, it decreed, in
this wise:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated May 31, 2010, of the
Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, Branch 14 in Criminal Case No. 5496 is AFFIRMED
in toto.

SO ORDERED.19

Hence, this appeal anchored on the two issues, namely:

WHETHER THE HONORABLE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONER’S

CONVICTION

DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT; and

II

WHETHER THE HONORABLE CA ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER OF

THE CRIME OF RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT DESPITE HIS BEING CHARGED IN
THE INFORMATION FOR ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS ONLY.20

Our Ruling

This Court affirms Pielago’s conviction with modification as to the awarded damages.

Pielago’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

This Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed
by the CA. It is well-settled that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be
disturbed on appeal.21 After a careful review, this Court is convinced that the testimony
of AAA positively identifying Pielago as the one who molested her is worthy of belief.

The clear, consistent and spontaneous testimony of AAA unrelentingly established that
Pielago inserted his right hand’s forefinger into her vagina and anus while she and her
younger brother, CCC, were in his custody. Being a child of tender years, her failure to
resist or struggle while Pielago molested her would all the more prove how she felt
intimidated by her "Kuya". Furthermore, Pielago’s bare denial cannot exculpate him
from the criminal charge. It is well-settled that denial, just like alibi, cannot prevail over
the positive and categorical testimony and identification of an accused by the
complainant.22 Mere denial, without any strong evidence to support it, can scarcely
overcome the positive declaration by the victim of the identity and involvement of
appellant in the crime attributed to him.23

Apparently, in the instant case, Pielago failed to prove the alleged ill motive on the part
of the prosecution witnesses that led to the false charges against him.

The RTC correctly convicted Pielago for the crime rape by sexual assault.

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.24 In this respect, the designation
in the Information of the specific statute violated is imperative to avoid surprise on the
accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.25 In the
instant case, the designation of the offense in the Information against Pielago was
changed from the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610 to the crime of rape by sexual assault penalized under Article 266-A(2)26 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. It cannot be said, however, that
his right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
was violated. This Court is not unaware that the Information was worded, as follows: "x
x x commit an act of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA, a minor being four (4)
years old, by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers to the vagina of AAA, x
x x." And, as correctly explained by the CA, the factual allegations contained in the
Information determine the crime charged against the accused and not the designation of
the offense as given by the prosecutor which is merely an opinion not binding to the
courts. As held in Malto v. People:27

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.28 (Citations omitted)

Also, in the more recent case of People v. Rayon, Sr.,29 this Court reiterated that the
character of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the information
nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by
the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information.

The CA further ratiocinated that the variance in the two crimes is not fatal to Pielago’s
conviction.1âwphi1 Indeed, in order to obtain a conviction for rape by sexual assault, it
is essential for the prosecution to establish the elements that constitute such crime.
Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code explicitly provides that the gravamen of the
crime of rape by sexual assault which is the insertion of the penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal
orifice. In the instant case, this element is clearly present when AAA straightforwardly
testified in court that Pielago inserted his forefinger in her vagina and anus.
Jurisprudence has it that 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.30 Thus, AAA’s unrelenting
narration of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification of Pielago as
the malefactor, established the case for the prosecution.

The RTC and CA properly imposed the correct indeterminate penalty but the amount of
exemplary damages should be modified.

As can be gleaned from the records, the RTC and CA correctly imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from seven (7) years of prision mayor,
as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum,
with the accessory penalties provided for by law considering that Pielago voluntarily
surrendered to the police authorities before a warrant of arrest could be issued against
him. However, in line with the existing jurisprudence on the matter, the award of
exemplary damages should be increased from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00.31 In addition,
and in conformity with the current policy, we also impose on all the monetary awards for
damages interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality
of this decision until fully paid.32

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 1!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.

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Rosalinda

Asuncion-Vicente and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 29-43.

2 Rendered by Presiding Judge Edwin C. Ma-alat; id. at 80-94.

3 Id. at 47.

4 Under Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and
their Children Act of 2004," and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and
those of her immediate family members are withheld; fictitious initials are instead used
to protect the victim’s identity.

5 Rollo, p. 47.

6 Id. at 32-34.

7 Id. at 35.

8 Id. at 88.
9 Id. at 80-94.

10 The Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

11 Rollo, p. 94.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 29-43.

14 Id. at 36-37.

15 G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 272.

16 Id. at 291.

17 People v. Subesa, G.R. No. 193660, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 390, 401.

18 Rollo, p. 39-40.

19 Id. at 42.

20 Id. at 17.

21 People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 198017, June 13, 2012.

22 People v. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 817, 829.

23 People v. De los Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 186499, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 784,
801, citing People v. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 511, 527.

24 RULES OF COURT, Rule 115, Section 1(b).

25 Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 657.

26 Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.—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 is 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.

27 G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643.

28 Id. at 657-658.

29 G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013.

30 People v. Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 395, 412-413, citing
People v. Tabayan, 357 Phil. 494, 508 (1998).

31 People v. Asprec, G.R. No. 182457, January 20, 2013.

32 People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013.

Case Digest

Facts:
Mike Pielago was charged for the crime of of acts of lasciviousness in the RTC Ligao
city. At the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of AAA; her mother, BBB;
and others. Pielago denied the charge against him. The defense, on the other hand,
presented the testimonies of the accused; Nestor and Celeste Pielago, his parents;
Myrna Ros De La Torre, his aunt; and some of the residents of Barangay Allang where
the accused and the victim reside.
RTC rendered decision holding that the accused is guilty for the crime of rape by sexual
assault because the factual allegations contained in the Information and the provisions
of existing laws pertain to the crime of rape by sexual assault defined and penalized
under Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.. CA affirmed in toto the decision of
RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the Constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation was violated.

Held:
No.

Ratio:
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. In this respect, the designation in
the Information of the specific statute violated is imperative to avoid surprise on the
accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. In the
instant case, the designation of the offense in the Information against Pielago was
changed from the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610 to the crime of rape by sexual assault penalized under Article 266-A(2) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353. It cannot be said, however, that
his right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
was violated.
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.