People vs. Cordial

Sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code is not included in the "rape" contemplated under Article 294(1) for the special complex crime of robbery with rape, because at the time R.A. No. 7659 imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with rape, acts now classified as sexual assault were still considered acts of lasciviousness, and Congress never intended to treat sexual assault and rape through sexual intercourse on equal footing; accordingly, an accused who commits robbery and, on the occasion thereof, commits sexual assault may be convicted of two separate crimes rather than the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

Jay Cordial y Brez, together with Jimmy Irinco y Lagitan, Victor Eva, Jr. y Corcoto, Marvin Apilyedo y Vililia, and a househelp known only as "Gina" or "Jane Doe," was charged under a single Information with the special complex crime of robbery with rape arising from events on March 12, 2012 in Mandaluyong City. The Information alleged that the group, conspiring together and armed with firearms and knives, entered the victims' dwelling, robbed them of personal property, and while the robbery was in progress, Eva inserted his fingers into the victim's vagina while Cordial mashed her breasts. Eva died during trial, leaving Cordial as the sole appellant from the lower courts' conviction for robbery with rape. The legal framework at the center of the dispute involves Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 (which imposed reclusion perpetua to death for robbery with rape) and R.A. No. 8353 (which expanded the definition of rape to include sexual assault but maintained a distinction in penalties between the two modes).

On March 12, 2012, around 8:00 p.m., BBB was in the living room of his Mandaluyong City home checking emails while his wife CCC watched television. Their household included AAA, DDD, and BBB's grandchildren, who were in their bedrooms on the second floor. The househelp, accused Gina, went out to throw garbage and left the gate open. Shortly after, four men — Cordial, Irinco, Eva, and Apilyedo — entered the house. BBB heard the dogs barking and, upon turning, saw Eva pointing a gun at him.

Eva ordered BBB to lie face down on the ground and tied his hands. Cordial and Apilyedo approached CCC, tied her hands, and covered her mouth. Irinco, also holding a gun, took BBB's wedding ring, while Cordial took BBB's laptop, cellphone, wallet, Swiss knife, and flashlight. After restraining BBB and CCC on the first floor, the four accused proceeded to the second floor. Eva and Cordial barged into a room where AAA was lying down. Eva pointed a gun at her and threatened to kill her if she spoke. Cordial took packaging tape from his bag and began tying AAA's hands. At the same time, Eva pulled down AAA's shorts and panties, touched her vagina, and inserted his fingers inside it. While tying AAA's hands, Cordial repeatedly paused to mash her breasts. AAA begged them to stop, eventually convincing Eva and Cordial by offering to show them the family vault. Cordial then brought AAA to the first floor and shoved her beside her parents.

At around 9:00 p.m., barangay tanod Dennis Platan received a report from a tricycle driver that four men were at BBB's house. Platan and other tanods proceeded to the house and found BBB hog-tied on the floor. Upon seeing the tanods, Eva ran to the second floor and escaped through a window together with Cordial and Apilyedo. The tanods arrested Cordial and Apilyedo and confiscated their knives. Police Officers Edwin Tan and Justiniano Pano arrived and arrested Eva, who was hiding in a vacant lot behind the house, and Irinco, who was hiding under a bed on the second floor. The defense presented no evidence. During trial, accused Eva passed away.

• Inconsistencies in Prosecution Testimonies: Cordial argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses BBB and CCC contained inconsistencies impairing their credibility, specifically as to the time of the robbery, who untied BBB, how the accused entered the house, and who among the accused went up the stairs first.
• Lack of Conspiracy for Rape: Cordial maintained that there was no evidence showing he knew beforehand that Eva would insert his fingers inside AAA's vagina, and that his act of tying AAA's hands was in furtherance of the original plan to rob, not to facilitate rape. Since the sexual assault was not pursuant to the conspiracy to rob and was not a necessary or logical consequence of robbery, only the actual perpetrator — Eva — should be liable for rape, and Cordial should not be held liable for robbery with rape.

• Liability for Robbery with Rape: Whether accused Cordial can be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
• Scope of "Rape" Under Article 294(1): Whether sexual assault (insertion of fingers into the vagina) falls within the concept of "rape" contemplated under Article 294(1) of the RPC for purposes of the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
• Conviction for Separate Crimes: Whether Cordial may instead be convicted of separate crimes of robbery, sexual assault, and acts of lasciviousness based on a single Information charging robbery with rape.

• Liability for Robbery with Rape: No. Cordial cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape because the sexual assault committed by Eva does not fall within the "rape" contemplated under Article 294(1) of the RPC, which covers only carnal knowledge or organ penetration.
• Scope of "Rape" Under Article 294(1): No. Sexual assault is not included in the "rape" under Article 294(1) because at the time R.A. No. 7659 was enacted, acts now classified as sexual assault were still considered acts of lasciviousness, and Congress never intended to treat the two modes of rape equally for purposes of the special complex crime.
• Conviction for Separate Crimes: Yes. Because the Information sufficiently alleged all elements of robbery, sexual assault, and acts of lasciviousness, and Cordial failed to move for its quashal before arraignment, he may be convicted of all three separate crimes charged and proven during trial.

• Liability for Robbery with Rape: The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of robbery were present: intent to gain (presumed from the unlawful taking, with the wedding ring recovered from Eva's finger and stolen items recovered on a rooftop), unlawful taking of personal property, violence against and intimidation of the victims (the accused were armed with guns and knives, ordered the victims to lie face down, and tied their hands), and the property belonged to another. Conspiracy among the four accused was established by their coordinated actions. However, while conspiracy in robbery renders all conspirators liable for rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery — unless one endeavored to prevent it — the sexual assault committed by Eva (insertion of fingers into the vagina) does not qualify as "rape" under Article 294(1). Cordial was present and had the opportunity to prevent the assault but instead facilitated it by tying AAA's hands and mashing her breasts. The death of Eva during trial did not extinguish Cordial's liability, as the basis for conspiracy remained unchanged. Nevertheless, the act committed was sexual assault, not rape through carnal knowledge, and thus could not be complexed with robbery under Article 294(1).

• Scope of "Rape" Under Article 294(1): Article 294(1) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 (enacted December 13, 1993), prescribes reclusion perpetua to death when robbery is accompanied by rape. At that time, the definition of rape under Article 335 of the RPC covered only carnal knowledge of a woman; acts now classified as sexual assault were then considered acts of lasciviousness. R.A. No. 8353 (enacted September 30, 1997) expanded the definition of rape to include sexual assault but maintained a clear distinction in penalties: rape through carnal knowledge is punishable by reclusion perpetua (or death in certain instances), while sexual assault is punishable only by prision mayor, with reclusion perpetua imposed only when homicide is committed on the occasion thereof. This disparity shows Congress never intended to treat the two modes equally. Following People vs. Barrera, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the special complex crime of robbery with rape should be limited to instances where rape is accomplished through sexual intercourse or organ penetration. Extending Article 294(1) to cover sexual assault would constitute judicial legislation, as penal statutes must clearly and specifically express the legislative intent to encompass the accused's act.

• Conviction for Separate Crimes: The Information contained a complete recital of the elements of robbery, sexual assault, and acts of lasciviousness. Cordial failed to move for the quashal of the Information for being duplicitous before arraignment, thereby waiving the right to object. Under established doctrine, an accused may be convicted of as many crimes as are charged in the Information and proven during trial. Cordial was thus convicted of three separate offenses: (1) robbery under Article 294(5) of the RPC, with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and commission by a band duly alleged and proven; (2) sexual assault under Article 266-A(2) of the RPC, committed with a deadly weapon and by two persons inside the dwelling, with dwelling as an aggravating circumstance; and (3) acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, the mashing of AAA's breasts constituting lewdness committed through force, threat, and intimidation, with dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Since the records did not indicate AAA's age, R.A. No. 7610 was inapplicable, and the proper charge for the lascivious acts was acts of lasciviousness under Article 336. The modification was also applied to co-accused Irinco and Apilyedo for the robbery conviction, as the corrected indeterminate sentence was favorable and beneficial to them.

• Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Rape — Limited to Rape Through Carnal Knowledge: The special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(1) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is limited to rape accomplished through sexual intercourse or organ penetration. Sexual assault (insertion of fingers, objects, or instruments into genital or oral orifices) is not included, because at the time R.A. No. 7659 was enacted, such acts were classified as acts of lasciviousness, not rape. Even after R.A. No. 8353 expanded the definition of rape to include sexual assault, Congress maintained a distinction in penalties, demonstrating no intent to equalize the two modes for purposes of the special complex crime. The Court applied this doctrine to reverse Cordial's conviction for robbery with rape and instead convict him of separate crimes of robbery and sexual assault.

• Conspiracy in Robbery — Liability for Rape Committed by Co-Conspirator: When conspiracy is established among several accused in the commission of robbery, all are equally liable for rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless one proves he endeavored to prevent the rape. The Court found that Cordial was present when Eva committed the sexual assault, had the opportunity to prevent it, and instead actively facilitated it by tying AAA's hands, making him a participant rather than a mere bystander. The death of a co-conspirator (Eva) during trial does not extinguish the liability of surviving conspirators, provided the basis for the conspiracy charge remains.

• Duplicitous Information — Waiver by Failure to Quash: An Information that charges multiple offenses in a single count is duplicitous, but if the accused fails to move for its quashal before arraignment, the right to object is deemed waived. The accused may then be convicted of as many crimes as are charged in the Information and proven during trial. The Court applied this doctrine to convict Cordial of three separate crimes (robbery, sexual assault, and acts of lasciviousness) based on a single Information originally charging robbery with rape.

• Minor Inconsistencies — Effect on Credibility: Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a victim regarding inconsequential matters (e.g., exact time of the robbery, who untied the victim, how entry was gained, who went upstairs first) do not automatically discredit the witness, especially when recalling a harrowing and traumatic experience. Such inconsistencies do not touch upon the elements of the crime and cannot result in acquittal.

• "It is only upon the enactment of R.A. No. 8353 on September 30, 1997 that the legislators expanded the traditional definition of the crime of rape to include acts of sexual assault. But the legislators never intended to redefine the traditional concept of rape." — This passage articulates the legislative intent underlying the distinction between rape through carnal knowledge and sexual assault, which is central to the Court's ruling that sexual assault cannot be complexed with robbery under Article 294(1).

• "The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the special complex crime of robbery and rape should be limited to instances when rape is accomplished through sexual intercourse or 'organ penetration'. The penalty should not be unduly extended to cover sexual assault." — This is the canonical formulation from People vs. Barrera as quoted and adopted by the Court, establishing the boundary of the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

• "The Court cannot simply presume that with the passage of R.A. No. 8353, rape as a component of the special complex crime of robbery with rape includes sexual assault. With respect to penal statutes, the Court cannot rest on mere deductions. The penal statute must clearly and specifically express that intent." — This passage states the principle of strict construction of penal statutes, barring judicial extension of criminal liability by implication or deduction.

• People vs. Barrera, G.R. No. 230549, December 1, 2020 — Controlling precedent directly relied upon and quoted for the proposition that the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(1) is limited to rape through sexual intercourse or organ penetration and does not extend to sexual assault.
• People vs. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019 — Followed for the distinction between traditional rape and sexual assault under R.A. No. 8353, and for the penalties applicable to acts of lasciviousness depending on the victim's age.
• People vs. Agaton, G.R. No. 251631, August 27, 2020 — Cited for the rule that when conspiracy is established in robbery, all conspirators are liable for rape committed by any of them unless one endeavored to prevent it.
• People vs. Go, 730 Phil. 362 (2014) — Cited for the principle that the death of one conspirator does not prevent conviction of the survivors, so long as the basis for the conspiracy charge remains.
• People vs. Tamayo, 434 Phil. 642 (2002) — Cited for the doctrine that an accused may be convicted of as many crimes as are charged in the Information and proven during trial when the accused fails to move for quashal of a duplicitous Information.

• Article 294(1), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when, by reason of or on the occasion of robbery, rape is committed. The Court held that "rape" here refers only to traditional rape through carnal knowledge, not sexual assault.
• Article 294(5), Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for simple robbery (prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium). Applied to convict Cordial, Irinco, and Apilyedo of simple robbery, with aggravating circumstances of dwelling and by a band.
• Article 266-A(2), Revised Penal Code (R.A. No. 8353) — Defines and penalizes sexual assault (insertion of penis into another's mouth or anal orifice, or insertion of any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another). Applied to convict Cordial of sexual assault, with the qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon and commission by two persons.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Provides the penalties for rape and sexual assault, distinguishing between the two modes. Cited to demonstrate that Congress intended sexual assault to be punished less severely than rape through carnal knowledge.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness. Applied to convict Cordial of acts of lasciviousness for mashing AAA's breasts, since the records did not indicate AAA's age, rendering R.A. No. 7610 inapplicable.
• R.A. No. 7659 — An Act imposing the death penalty on certain heinous crimes, amending the RPC. Enacted December 13, 1993, when sexual assault was still classified as acts of lasciviousness, supporting the Court's conclusion that Congress did not intend to include sexual assault in the "rape" under Article 294(1).
• R.A. No. 8353 — The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, enacted September 30, 1997, which expanded the definition of rape to include sexual assault but maintained a distinction in penalties between the two modes.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment for each of the three separate crimes.

Perlas-Bernabe (Chairperson), Leonen, Zalameda, and Marquez, JJ., concurred.