People of the Philippines vs. Carlo Diega y Zapico

An accused who conspires with others to commit rape is criminally liable not only for the rape he personally committed but also for the other counts of rape perpetrated by his co-conspirators, even if those co-conspirators are unidentified or at large. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, showing that all perpetrators shared the same purpose and were united in its execution.

The case involves a charge of Rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code against Carlo Diega y Zapico and three unidentified persons, designated as "John Does." The victim, AAA, was a 12-year-old minor at the time of the incident, which triggered the application of confidentiality protections under Republic Act No. 7610, Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC. The prosecution proceeded against Carlo alone, as his three co-accused remained unidentified and at large.

On April 14, 2013, at 8:00 p.m., AAA, a 12-year-old minor, and her friend JJJ were walking home after tending a grocery store. A certain Ismael blocked their way and invited AAA to hang out. JJJ left and went home. Ismael brought AAA to a nearby store and introduced her to his friends, alias Obat, alias Kalbo, and Carlo Diega y Zapico. Obat suggested a drinking session. AAA told them she wanted to go home, but Ismael held her hand and dragged her along. The group proceeded to a nearby riverbank where they started drinking. Obat offered AAA liquor, which she initially refused but eventually drank. All the while, Ismael held AAA's hand.

The group later left the riverbank and went to a vacant lot near the store, where they continued drinking. AAA felt dizzy and started to drowse off. She laid down and saw Carlo remove her pants and underwear. AAA tried to kick him, but someone held her legs and spread them apart while another held her hands. AAA felt someone spitting on her vagina. Carlo went on top of AAA, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made pumping motions. Afterwards, Kalbo, Ismael, and Obat took turns having carnal knowledge with AAA. Throughout the ordeal, AAA was crying and shouting, but no one came to her aid. The group eventually left her at the vacant lot.

Around 5:00 a.m. of April 15, 2013, AAA awakened, dressed herself, and went home. Distraught and muddied, she relayed the ordeal to her parents and reported the incident to the barangay hall and the police station. Police Senior Inspector Ma. Felicidad Mercedes A. Aulida performed a physical and genital examination on AAA and concluded that the "anogenital findings show[ed] recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the genitalia." PSI Aulida explained that the injuries on the victim's hymen could have been caused by an erected penis or any instrument with soft smooth edges, consistent with AAA's narrative in the Sexual Crimes Protocol.

Carlo denied the accusation and claimed that on April 14, 2013, he was engaged in a drinking spree with AAA, Ismael, Obat, alias Caloy, and alias Jayson. At 10:00 p.m., Carlo went home to change his clothes. He later went out, overheard a group of women looking for AAA, and returned to the drinking spree to tell AAA that someone was looking for her. However, AAA did not want to go home because she was intoxicated and would be scolded. Around 11:30 p.m., Carlo went home and slept. The next morning, he was awakened by loud knocking on his door. A barangay tanod handcuffed him and said, "Pasensiya ka na kasi yung mga kasama mo ay tumakas." Carlo was brought to the barangay hall where he was accused of raping AAA.

The RTC found Carlo guilty, giving credence to AAA's account which was supported by medical findings. The RTC held that Carlo and his three companions conspired to commit the crime of Rape and rejected Carlo's defense of alibi, considering the short distance between his house and the vacant lot where the crime was committed.

• Incredibility of Testimony: Carlo contended that AAA's testimony was incredible because in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, she narrated that she was successively raped by Carlo, Kalbo, Ismael, and Obat, yet during her direct examination, she could not recall who among the accused raped her after Carlo.
• Impossibility of Commission: Carlo maintained the impossibility of committing the crime because he had already gone home before the drinking spree ended.
• Denial and Alibi: Carlo impugned the credibility of AAA and maintained his defenses of denial and alibi, arguing that he was not at the crime scene when the alleged rape occurred.

• Consistency of Testimony: The Office of the Solicitor General countered that AAA's testimony was consistent in all material matters.
• Physical Possibility: The OSG argued that it was not physically impossible for Carlo to be at the crime scene because his house was located near the crime scene.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: Whether the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court correctly gave credence to AAA's testimony despite the alleged inconsistency regarding who raped her after Carlo.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established among Carlo and his three companions, making Carlo liable for all four counts of Rape committed in succession.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Whether Carlo's uncorroborated denial and alibi could prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witness.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: Yes. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witness and the veracity of her testimony is given the highest degree of respect, especially where no fact or circumstance of weight or substance was overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. AAA positively identified Carlo and vividly recounted her harrowing experience, and there was no inconsistency in her testimony as to who raped her.
• Existence of Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. The records show that Carlo and his three companions successively raped AAA, and while one had carnal knowledge of the victim, the others held her arms and kept her from struggling, pointing to a joint purpose and criminal design.
• Defense of Denial and Alibi: No. Carlo's uncorroborated denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witness. These negative defenses are self-serving and undeserving of weight in law absent clear and convincing proof, and Carlo did not adduce evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.

• Credibility of the Victim's Testimony: The Court stressed that the CA and RTC's assessment on the credibility of the prosecution witness and the veracity of her testimony are given the highest degree of respect, especially if there is no fact or circumstance of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, which could affect the result of the case. The trial court had the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the prosecution witness, having evaluated her emotional state, reactions, and overall demeanor in open court. AAA positively identified Carlo and his three companions as her ravishers and vividly recounted her harrowing experience. Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of Rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) such act was accomplished through the use of force, threat, or intimidation. The testimony was sufficient to establish that Carlo and his three companions had carnal knowledge of AAA and that they employed force to consummate the acts. Force need not be irresistible but just enough to bring about the desired result, and it is not necessary that the rape victim resisted unto death. Resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party. AAA protested and resisted, but Carlo and his companions forced her to submit to their designs.

• Existence of Conspiracy: Jurisprudence consistently teaches that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, showing that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the perpetrators have the same purpose and were united in its execution. The records show that Carlo and his three companions successively raped AAA, and while one of them had carnal knowledge of the victim, the others held her arms and kept her from struggling. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of each perpetrator pointed to a joint purpose and criminal design. There was no inconsistency in AAA's testimony as to who raped her. The rapes were committed in the following order: first by Carlo, second by Kalbo, third by Ismael, and fourth by Obat. Thus, the victim was raped four times. In several cases, the Court held the accused-appellant responsible not only for the Rape he committed but also for the other counts of Rape that his co-conspirators perpetrated although they were unidentified or at large, consistent with the rule that where there is a conspiracy, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. In People vs. Plurad, the accused-appellant was responsible not only for the Rape committed personally by him but also for the two other counts of Rape committed by his co-accused who remained at large. In People vs. Catubig, Jr., the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant with five counts of Rape committed by him and four other unidentified persons. In People vs. Sabal, the appellants were held liable not only for their own unlawful acts but also for those of the other four unidentified malefactors. In People vs. Rondina, the accused-appellants, together with a third person who is still unidentified and at large, in conspiracy with and helping each other, took turns in raping the victim, and each one was guilty of three Rapes. Consequently, Carlo must be held liable for four counts of Rape.

• Defense of Denial and Alibi: Carlo's uncorroborated denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witness. These negative defenses are self-serving and undeserving of weight in law absent clear and convincing proof. Carlo did not adduce evidence that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The prosecution established the gravamen of the crime of Rape, which is sexual congress with a woman against her will or without her consent. Carlo must be convicted with four counts of Simple Rape and should be sentenced with reclusion perpetua for each count, which merits the award of ₱75,000.00 civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 exemplary damages for each count pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. Carlo should be made solidarily liable to pay the award of damages for each count, as the nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation.

• Conspiracy in Rape Cases — Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In rape cases, conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, showing that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the perpetrators have the same purpose and were united in its execution. The Court applied this doctrine to hold Carlo liable for all four counts of rape committed by him and his co-conspirators, as the successive rapes with each perpetrator holding the victim's limbs while another raped her demonstrated a joint purpose and criminal design.

• Act of One Conspirator is the Act of All — Where there is a conspiracy, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. This rule makes each conspirator responsible for the crimes committed by his co-conspirators in furtherance of the common design, even if those co-conspirators are unidentified or at large. The Court applied this doctrine to hold Carlo liable for the rapes committed by Kalbo, Ismael, and Obat, who remained unidentified and at large.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witness — The trial court's assessment on the credibility of the prosecution witness and the veracity of her testimony are given the highest degree of respect, especially if there is no fact or circumstance of weight or substance that was overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, which could affect the result of the case. The trial court had the best opportunity to determine the credibility of the prosecution witness, having evaluated her emotional state, reactions, and overall demeanor in open court.

• Force in Rape — Force need not be irresistible but just enough to bring about the desired result. It is not necessary that the rape victim resisted unto death. Resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party. The Court applied this doctrine to find that AAA's protest and resistance, coupled with the physical restraint imposed by Carlo's companions, satisfied the force requirement under Article 266-A.

• Denial and Alibi — Uncorroborated denial and alibi cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the prosecution witness. These negative defenses are self-serving and undeserving of weight in law absent clear and convincing proof. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

• Solidary Liability of Co-Conspirators — The nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation. The Court applied this doctrine to hold Carlo solidarily liable for the damages awarded for each count of rape.

• "An accused is responsible not only for the Rape he personally committed but also for the other counts of Rape that his co-conspirators perpetrated although they were unidentified or are at large." — This is the opening dictum of the Resolution and states the core ruling of the case: a conspirator is liable for all rapes committed by his co-conspirators in furtherance of the common design.

• "Jurisprudence consistently teaches us that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, showing that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the perpetrators have the same purpose and were united in its execution." — This passage articulates the standard for inferring conspiracy in rape cases from the circumstances of the crime's commission.

• "The records show that Carlo and his three (3) companions successively raped AAA and that while one of them had carnal knowledge of the victim, the others held her arms and kept her from struggling. Viewed in its totality, the individual participation of each perpetrator pointed to a joint purpose and criminal design." — This passage applies the conspiracy doctrine to the facts, demonstrating how the successive rapes and physical restraint of the victim established a common criminal design.

• "It is settled that the nature of the obligation of the co-conspirators in the commission of the crime requires solidarity, and each debtor may be compelled to pay the entire obligation." — This passage establishes the solidary liability of co-conspirators for damages arising from the crime.

• People vs. Plurad, 441 Phil. 587 (2002) — Controlling precedent for the rule that an accused is responsible not only for the rape he personally committed but also for the other counts of rape committed by his co-accused who remained at large.
• People vs. Catubig, Jr., 396 Phil. 345 (2000) — Followed; affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant with five counts of rape committed by him and four other unidentified persons.
• People vs. Sabal, 394 Phil. 345 (2000) — Followed; held appellants liable not only for their own unlawful acts but also for those of the other four unidentified malefactors, affirming conviction of six counts of rape.
• People vs. Rondina, 233 Phil. 125 (1987) — Followed; held that where conspiracy is established among accused who took turns in raping the victim, each one is guilty of all rapes committed.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited for the prevailing jurisprudence on the amounts of damages awardable in rape cases: ₱75,000.00 civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 exemplary damages for each count.
• People vs. Sartagoda, 293 Phil. 259 (1993) — Cited for the rule that co-conspirators are solidarily liable for damages.

• Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a), Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of Rape as carnal knowledge of a woman through the use of force, threat, or intimidation. The Court applied this provision to establish the elements of rape and to convict Carlo of four counts of Simple Rape.
• Article 266-D, Revised Penal Code — Provides that any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of acts punished under Article 266-A. The Court cited this provision to support the finding that AAA's resistance was sufficient.
• Republic Act No. 7610 — Cited for the confidentiality protections applied to the victim's identity, as the case involved a child abuse and exploitation context.
• Republic Act No. 9262 — Cited for the confidentiality protections applied to the victim's identity in cases of violence against women and their children.
• Section 40, Administrative Matter No. 04-10-11-SC — Cited for the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, supporting the use of fictitious names for the victim.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided text.