March 13, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GERALD SORIANO alias PEDRO, accused-appellant.
Sereno, C.J.:
NATURE: Appeal of a CA decision imposing reclusion perpetua. Criminal case for rape with homicide.
SUMMARY: Soriano was accused of raping and killing an 8 year-old girl. He was convicted on the strength of his
extrajudicial confession made to the town mayor and police chief; also there was circumstantial evidence pointing to him
as the only possible culprit: he was seen drinking on the day the crime happened; according to the witnesses he was the
only person who was seen using the road nearest the crime scene at the time of commission of the crime; and that the
dirty clothes confiscated from him were the same ones he wore on the day the crime was committed. RTC sentenced him
to death; CA reduced his sentence to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, SC acquitted him, holding that there was not enough
circumstantial evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Soriano raped and killed AAA. There were other factual
possibilities that were not excluded by the facts established by the evidence in this case, so the doubt as to the guilt of the
accused must be resolved in his favor. The extrajudicial confession made to the mayor and police chief is inadmissible in
evidence because it was obtained in violation of Sorianos custodial investigation rights under the Constitution, since he
was not provided with counsel.
DOCTRINE: In cases involving the special complex crime of rape with homicide both the rape and the homicide must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the victim can no longer testify against the perpetrator of the offense. Thus, a resort
to circumstantial evidence becomes inevitable to prove the case. Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court,
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the following factors obtain: (a) there is more
than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as would prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. These circumstances and facts must be
absolutely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis propounding the innocence of the accused. CASE AT BAR: The
law enforcers' missteps in the performance of the investigation and the prosecuting attorney's careless presentation of the
evidence cannot lead to any other conclusion other than that there are doubts as to the guilt of the accused.
FACTS
December 31, 1998
o 8:00 AM Gerald SORIANO arrived with the nephew of Alice HIBAYA to drink liquor at her house in
Katutungan, Wao, Lanao del Norte. He stayed there until about 10:00 AM
o Hibaya saw Soriano drink some more at the house of one Noel QUINATADCAN, who lived about two
meters away from her.
o 3:00 PM - Hibaya saw Soriano leave with his other companions.
o Around that time, VICKY Bearneza was grazing her carabao on a palm road when she saw Soriano, clad
in a yellow t-shirt and blue denim, walking drunkenly towards the shortcut to Wao. She did not see anyone
else pass by the area until she went home about 5:00 p.m.
o 3:30 PM - Vickys sister BBB saw Soriano, whom she later similarly recalled was in yellow t-shirt and
pants, pass by her house as he walked to the direction of Wao. It was also around the same time that she
was expecting her 8-year-old daughter, AAA, to take the same shortcut on her way home from harvesting
palay.
o 6:00 PM - BBB asked for help in looking for AAA. The other residents assisted in the search, which lasted
until midnight and turned out to be unsuccessful.
January 1, 1999, about 8:00 AM - TOMAS Bearneza, Vickys husband, found the lifeless body of AAA in a canal
along the shortcut. She was naked except for her shorts, which loosely hung below her knees. Her face and
breast revealed bite marks.
The health physician of the Wao District Hospital, Dr. Calico Haji Ali (Dr. Ali), examined the body of AAA. He
observed the presence of human bite marks on the right side of her face and on her left breast. According to his
examination, she was raped and her death was caused by drowning.
Soriano confessed to Wao Mayor Elvino C. Balicao (MAYOR BALICAO) that he was under the influence of
alcohol when he killed AAA, but denied having raped her.
January 2, 1999 - the Chief Investigator of Wao, SPO4 Edwin B. Bacerra, Sr. (SPO4 BACERRA), questioned
Soriano. Because there were no lawyers available and Soriano claimed to be a minor, a DSWD representative
assisted him during the investigation.
o Soriano admitted that he saw AAA near the canal. AAA tried to run away, but he caught up with her. She
then started shouting for help, prompting him to panic and choke her. Thereafter, he removed her clothes,
bit her left breast and threw her into the water. These statements were reduced into writing and signed by

both Soriano and the DSWD representative.

February 17, 1999 - Soriano was charged with rape with homicide in an Information, which reads in part:
o That on or about December 31, 1998 at around 4:00 oclock [sic] in the afternoon at Barangay
Katutungan, Municipality of Wao, Province of Lanao del Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and by means
of force, violence and intimidation, grabbed AAA, a girl of eight (8) years old, covered her mouth, bitten
[sic] her right face and left breast and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her against her will,
and thereafter grabbed the victims neck and chocked her to death and threw her body into the water of
irrigation canal of Katutungan, Wao, Lanao del Sur.
CONTRARY to and in [v]iolation of the last paragraph of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended.
SORIANOS VERSION
o December 31, 1998
8:00 AM - He and three other men drank Tanduay at Hibayas house while they roasted a pig.
2:00 PM - they had transferred to the house of Quinatadcan, where they had a couple of beers.
Around 3:30 PM - Soriano claimed that he was not quite drunk when he went home using the
shortcut to Wao. He was home by 5:00 p.m.
o Jan. 1, 1999 - Some policemen came to his house. Thinking that he was being hired to harvest corn, he
voluntarily submitted himself to them. However, he was detained at the police headquarters.
o Soriano claimed that, without informing him of the contents of the document, SPO4 Bacerra made him
sign it in front of the DSWD representative. Mayor Balicao purportedly questioned Soriano inside the
formers vehicle, threatened him that he would be fed to the crocodiles if he would not confess, and
promised to help him if he would admit to having perpetrated the crime. Allegedly for these reasons,
Soriano confessed to killing AAA.
RTC DECISION
o Marawi City RTC Br. 10 found Soriano guilty of rape with homicide.
o Imposed death penalty. He was likewise ordered to pay the heirs of AAA in the amount of P100,000 in
civil indemnity and P50,000 in moral damages.
CA DECISION
o On automatic review, CA affirmed RTC, but lowered the sentence to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole. Civil liability was decreased to P75,000. Soriano was also ordered to pay the heirs of AAA
moral and temperate damages in the increased amounts of P75,000 and P25,000, respectively.
o CA disregarded the extrajudicial confession obtained from Soriano by Mayor Balicao and SPO4 Bacerra.
Soriano filed a Notice of Appeal under Rule 124, Sec. 13.

ISSUE (HELD)
W/N the entirety of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain Sorianos
conviction. (NO)
RATIO
1) CA CORRECTLY EXCLUDED SORIANOS EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
It should be underscored that following Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution, the CA was correct in ruling that the
extrajudicial confession elicited by Mayor Balicao and SPO4 Bacerra from Soriano without the presence of
counsel is inadmissible in evidence.
Thus, the only issue is whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to hold
Soriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide.
2) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT SORIANO
SORIANOS ARGUMENTS
a) The estimated time of death of AAA did not preclude the possibility that other culprits had perpetrated the
crime.
b) The prosecution failed to establish that he had caused the bite marks found on AAA.
c) He had never been found to be in the company of the victim.
d) It was not shown that he had gone to the place where her cadaver was found;
e) While he was seen going towards the direction of the crime scene, this fact does not conclusively prove
that he had raped and killed the victim.
f) His soiled clothes were not found at or near the area where the crime was committed, but were taken
from his house without the benefit of a search warrant.
The prosecution faces a great deal of difficulty in cases involving the special complex crime of rape with homicide
because both the rape and the homicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the victim can no longer
testify against the perpetrator of the offense. Thus, a resort to circumstantial evidence becomes inevitable to

prove the case.

Under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the
concurrence of the following factors obtain: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as would prove
the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
These circumstances and facts must be absolutely incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis propounding the
innocence of the accused.
CASE AT BAR: the prosecution failed to establish the existence of an unbroken chain of circumstances that lead
to no other logical conclusion but the guilt of the accused.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL BASES OF THE RTC DECISION
1. Soriano and his companions admittedly had a drinking spree at Hibayas house and Quinatadcans
store until 3:00 PM of December 31, 1998.
2. Soriano was seen by one of the witnesses while she was grazing their carabao at about 3:00 to 5:00
PM at the barangay road leading to crossing [sic] when he passed by under the influence of liquor,
wearing a yellow T-shirt and maong pants that appeared clean but when witness was shown of the soiled
and dirty yellow T-shirt and maong pants during the trial she affirmed that it was the same set of clothes
3. Soriano was wearing the same aforesaid clothes when he was seen by AAAs mother walking on the
road to Katutungan crossing, where the crime was committed at around or between 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. on
the same day;
4. That the post mortem examination on the body of AAA contained contusions which are signs of
violence inflicted upon her, and that she was raped before being killed; and that there was laceration of
the hymen;
5. That the position of the body of the victim indicated she had been raped and simultaneously killed.
6. That the body of the victim was found in the grassy area near the canal where her under pants was
[sic] beside her and without clothes in her body, where the accused was last seen to have pass [sic] by.
And that no other persons have passed by except the accused at that point in time.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL BASES OF THE CA DECISION
o Soriano was seen walking towards the direction of the "short-cut" road to Wao where the body of the
child-victim was found. He admitted that he used that road in going home. According to BBB, she saw
Soriano pass by her house at around 3:30 p.m. That was also the time when AAA was supposed to be on
her way home using the same "short-cut" road. Soriano confirmed that BBB saw him and that he had
spent the day drinking liquor.
o Soriano was admittedly at the scene of the crime at the time the child was discovered to be missing.
o Soriano was the only person seen going to that road. He admitted that he saw no one else using that
road.
o Soriano stated that he arrived at his home at around 5:00 that same afternoon. By his own testimony, he
was there at the scene of the crime at around the time it happened. There can be no doubt that he raped
and killed AAA as he was the only one out there in the "short-cut" road.
SC HOLDING
o The foregoing findings unquestionably establish that AAA was raped and killed. However, the
circumstances presented by the prosecution do not form a solid and cohesive narrative that proves with
moral certainty its contention that Soriano perpetrated these heinous acts.
o The only circumstances cited to implicate Soriano are the following:
(a) he passed through the shortcut to Wao around 3:00 p.m. on 31 December 1998;
(b) Vicky did not see anyone else use that road from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on that day
(c) the soiled garments confiscated from him were identified to have been the same ones he was
wearing then.
o To an unprejudiced mind, the fact that Soriano was the only one whom Vicky saw pass through the
shortcut to Wao from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM does not logically lead to any conclusion regarding his
participation in the raping and killing of AAA. It is a mere conjecture that can be refuted by other equally
conceivable and rational inferences.
o It is possible that Vicky did not see the killer because he came from the same place as AAA; but, instead
of traversing the shortcut after raping and killing the victim, he actually went back to his point of origin.
o The mere fact that Soriano's clothes were soiled cannot isolate him as the only probable suspect,
considering that his garments were not found anywhere near the scene of the crime, but at his own home.
o As a consequence, the circumstances borne out by the records are severely insufficient to establish the
culpability of Soriano as one may reasonably extrapolate other possible scenarios other than those
pointing to his guilt. The evidence in this case having fallen short of the standard of moral certainty, any
doubt on the guilt of the accused should be considered in favor of his acquittal.
o The law enforcers' missteps in the performance of the investigation and the prosecuting attorney's

careless presentation of the evidence cannot lead to any other conclusion other than that there are
doubts as to the guilt of the accused.
DISPOSITION
CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Soriano ACQUITTED and ordered immediately RELEASED.

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 Decision 1 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 AAA 4, 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 Boyets 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 AAAs short pants and inserted his right hands 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 AAAs shorts
then sent her and CCC out of the bedroom. BBB noticed the bloodstains at the back portion of AAAs 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 oclock position of
AAAs anus and the presence of erythema in the perihymenal area and fossa navicularis caused by the insertion
into the victims 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 uncles house.
After BBB left, Pielago just went back to sleep. Pielago added that there is an existing land dispute between his
grandparents and BBBs 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 AAAs shorts may have resulted
from BBBs spanking; or that it could be the menstrual blood of a teenager living in the house of Pielagos 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, AAAs 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 Pielagos 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 Pielagos voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, and
to pay AAA the amounts of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages,P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages and P10,000.00 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 victims
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 RTCs 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 persons 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 RTCs 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:
I
WHETHER THE HONORABLE [CA] ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONERS CONVICTION
DESPITE THE PROSECUTIONS 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 Pielagos conviction with modification as to the awarded damages.
Pielagos 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
hands 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, Pielagos 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 Pielagos conviction. 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 persons mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into another persons 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 girlchild says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed
committed.30 Thus, AAAs unrelenting narration of what transpired, accompanied by her categorical identification of
Pielago as the malefactor, established the case for the prosecution.
1wphi1

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 fromP25,000.00
to P30,000.00.31 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.