PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V.

NOEL GO CAOILI ALIAS

"BOY TAGALOG", RESPONDENT: A CASE ANALYSIS

[G.R. No. 196848, August 8, 2017]

by

Hannah Joyce D. Ramos

Joey M. Roena

I. FACTS
On or about the 23rd day of October 2005, at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, more or
less, in Purok [III], Barangay [JJJ], [KKK], [LLL], Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Caoili accused, with complete freedom and
intelligence, with lewd design, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
had sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor, 15 years of age and the daughter of the
accused, through force, threat, and intimidation and against her will, to her damage and
prejudice in the amount as may be allowed by law. On July 31, 2006, the RTC issued an
Order confirming Caoili's detention at the Municipal Station of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology after his arrest on October 25, 2005.
The victim, testified that on October 23, 2005, at 7 o'clock in the evening, her
father, Caoili, sexually molested her at their house in. Caoili kissed her lips, touched and
mashed her breast, inserted the fourth finger of his left hand into her vagina, and made a
push and pull movement into her vagina with the such finger for 30 minutes. AAA felt
excruciating pain during and after the ordeal. Against her father's harsh warning not to go
out of the house, AAA proceeded to the house of her uncle, BBB, located 20 meters away
from their house. When he learned of this, Caoili fetched AAA and dragged her home.
He beat and hit her with a piece of wood and boxed her in the stomach
On October 26, 2005, AAA disclosed to Emelia Loayon, the guidance counselor
at AAA's school, the sexual molestation and physical violence committed against her by
her father. As a result, Loayon accompanied AAA to the police station to report the
sexual and physical abuse. AAA also executed a sworn statement regarding the incident
before the Municipal Mayor.
 The victim underwent a medical examination conducted by Dr. Ramie Hipe at the
Medicare Community Hospital. Dr. Hipe issued a medical certificate dated October 26,
2005, showing that AAA had suffered genital disturbances and adverse psychological
effects. Dr. Hipe referred AAA to a Medical Specialist, Dr. Lucila Clerino, for further
Medico-Legal examination and vaginal smear. Dr. Clerino issued a Supplementary
Medical Certificate dated October 28, 2005, indicating that the victim's hymenal area had
lacerations complete at 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock superficial laceration at 12 o'clock. The
victim sought the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and Development,
which facilitated her admission to a rehabilitation center run by the Missionary Sisters of
Mary.
For his defense, Caoili denied molesting AAA. He alleged that on October 23,
2005, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, he saw AAA with her boyfriend at the cassava
plantation. He recognized AAA by the fragrance of her perfume and by the outline of her
ponytail. He even greeted them with "good evening" but they did not respond. He then
went home. When AAA arrived at their house, he confronted her, and the latter admitted
that she had been with her boyfriend, "Dodong," earlier that evening. He was so angry, so
he struck AAA's right thigh with a piece of wood and pushed the same piece of wood on
her forehead. When AAA cried out in pain, he became remorseful and asked for
forgiveness, but AAA kept mum. After supper, Caoili and his son slept in one room,
while AAA and her siblings slept in another.
II. ISSUE OF THE CASE

On June 22, 2006, First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Raul O. Nasayao filed an
Information against Caoili, charging him with rape through sexual intercourse in
violation of Article 266-A concerning Article 266-B of the RPC as amended by R.A. No.
8353 and R.A. No. 7610. The victim was a minor, 15 years of age, and the daughter of
the herein accused. 
Caoili pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After the pre-trial, a trial on the
merits ensued. The RTC rendered its Decision declaring Caoili guilty of rape by sexual
assault. On September 29, 2008, under a Commitment Order issued by the RTC on
August 27, 2008, provincial jail guards escorted Caoili for his confinement at the Davao
Prisons and Penal Farm, Panabo, Davao del Norte.
 After that, Caoili filed his appeal before the C.A. The CA held that although
Caoili is guilty of rape by sexual assault, the trial court should have directed the State
Prosecutor to file a new Information charging the proper offense and, after compliance in
addition to that, to dismiss the original Information. The appellate court found it
"imperative and morally upright" to set the judgment aside and to remand the case for
further proceedings under Section 14, Rule 110, in relation to Section 19, Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court.
Caoili and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed their respective
petitions for review before this Court: G.R. No. 196342 was instituted by the OSG, and
G.R. No. 196848 was filed by Caoili. These petitions were ordered consolidated by the
Court in its Resolution dated August 1, 2011.

 In G.R. No. 196342, the OSG assails the C.A.'s Decision for not being in accord
with the law and established jurisprudence.

III. RULING OF THE CASE

A. The Regional Trial Court Ruling

On June 17, 2008, the RTC issued its decision finding Noel Go Caoili, alias
"Boy Tagalog,"  guilty of rape by sexual assault, concluding that the accused, had
committed the crime of rape, as defined and punished in paragraph 2 of Article 266-
A concerning Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
8353, beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court sentences the said accused to suffer
imprisonment for an indefinite period of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor in its
maximum period, as well as a minimum of 17 years, 4 months after taking into account
the aggravating circumstance of being the parent of the complainant, who was 14 years, 1
month, and 10 days old at the time of the incident in question.
The same accused is hereby ordered to pay AAA an indemnity ex delicto of
P50,000.00; moral damages of P50,000.00; and exemplary damages of another
P50,000.00.
 On September 29, 2008, provincial jail guards led Caoili to his detention in the
Davao Prisons and Penal Farm, Panabo, Davao del Norte, under a Commitment Order
issued by the RTC on August 27, 2008.

B. The Court of Appeals Ruling

On July 22, 2010, the CA issued the contested Decision. This matter is
immediately remanded to the trial court for additional proceedings commensurate with
this ruling. For these reasons, the appealed Decision of Branch 30 of the Regional Trial
Court of Surigao City in Criminal Case No. 7363 is set aside.
  Although Caoili is undoubtedly guilty of rape by sexual assault, the CA ruled that
the trial court should have instructed the State Prosecutor to prepare new Information
charging the appropriate criminal and, following compliance with that order, dismissed
the previous Information. Accordingly, under Section 14, Rule 110, and Section 19, Rule
119 of the Rules of Court, the appeal court determined that it was imperative and morally
upright to reverse the verdict and remand the matter for additional procedures.
After that, Caoili and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed their
respective petitions for review before this Court: G.R. No. 196342 was instituted by the
OSG and G.R. No. 196848 was filed by Caoili. These petitions were ordered
consolidated by the Court in its Resolution dated on August 1, 2011.
In G.R. No. 196342, the OSG criticized the CA's Decision for not being in accord
with the law and established jurisprudence. 

C. The Court’s Ruling

The petitions are unjustified. The prosecution has proof of sexual assault leading
to rape. The R.A. No. 8353, sometimes known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997," changed
Article 335 to identify rape as a crime against people. It also added the definition of
"sexual assault" as an alternative to "carnal knowledge" or "sexual intercourse" rape.
 Incorporated into the R.A. No. 8353, Article 266-A, rape can be committed in two
ways:

(1) Rape via sexual contact, often known as "organ rape" or "penile
rape." Carnal knowledge, which must be shown beyond a reasonable
doubt, is the essential component of rape through sexual contact.
(2) Rape by sexual assault, commonly known as "instrument or object
rape" or "gender-free rape,"

Through AAA's testimony, the prosecution established that Caoili sexually

assaulted his daughter by inserting his finger into her vagina, pulling and pushing with it
for 30 minutes, and demonstrating rape by sexual assault. Undoubtedly, the prosecution
has provided sufficient evidence to establish the offense of rape by sexual assault as
specified in Article 266-A. However, this crime cannot be used against Caoili as
evidence. Rape by sexual assault is not included in rape through sexual intercourse.
According to Section 5(b) of the R.A. No. 7610, Caoili may be found guilty of
the offense of lascivious behavior. When children or adults who are "persons below the
age of 18 or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination due to a physical
or mental disability or condition" are the victims of abuse, exploitation, or discrimination,
according to R.A. No. 7610 . It is undeniable that AAA was 14 years, 1 month, and 10
days old when the lewd act was committed. 
The evidence has proven that Caoili kissed AAA's lips, stroked and squashed her
breast, inserted his finger into her vagina, and made a movement with the finger for 30
minutes while doing so. Additionally, AAA admitted under cross-examination that Caoili
had molested her. She even recalled her father threatening to keep the incident a secret
from others. It is undeniable that AAA was weak and would have been easily intimidated
by an offender who was not only a grown man but also someone who was in parental
authority over her. Under Section 5(b) of the R.A., No. 7610, Caoili may still be found
guilty of lewd behavior even in the absence of such force or intimidation  as it is clear
that he utilized his parental authority and moral influence to carry out his lewd crimes
against AAA. It is obvious that moral superiority or persuasion replaces force and
violence. Therefore, it is evident that all the criteria for lascivious behavior as
defined by Section 5(b) of the R.A. No. 7610 have been established, rendering Caoili
accountable for the alleged offense.
Because AAA was above 12, but under 18 when the lewd act was committed,
reclusion temporal in its medium length to reclusion perpetua is the appropriate
punishment. The alternative relationship situation should be recognized since the
offending party's father committed the crime. The punishment will be carried out for its
full term, which is reclusion perpetua, without the possibility of parole. This is under
R.A. Section 31(c). No. 7610 explicitly states that the maximum length of the penalty
shall be applied where the offender is, among other things, the victim's parent.
Therefore, both petitions are rejected. Accused Noel Go Caoili alias Boy
Tagalog is guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610,
and the Court of Appeals' judgments of July 22, 2010, and March 29, 2011, are set aside.
He is ordered to pay a fine of Php 15,000.00 and endure the punishment of reclusion
perpetua, without the possibility of parole. Additionally, he must pay the victim, each in
the amount of Php 75,000 in moral damages, exemplary damages, civil indemnity, and
civil indemnity. Interest will accrue on the fine, civil indemnity, and damages at a rate of
six percent (6%) per year from the date this decision becomes final until they are fully
paid.
IV. REFERENCES
G.R. No. 196342 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. NOEL GO

CAOILI ALIAS “BOY TAGALOG”, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 196848, August 8,

2017] NOEL GO CAOILI, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library. (n.d.-b).

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63383