People vs. Gayanilo

Where conspiracy is established among accused persons and they fail to move to quash a duplicitous Information before pleading, they may be convicted of as many offenses as were charged and proven, and each conspirator is liable not only for the rape he personally commits but also for the separate and distinct rapes perpetrated by his co-conspirators. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy, when alleged in the Information and proven during trial, warrants the imposition of the higher penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under RA 9346.

The case involves three accused-appellants—Andre Gayanilo, Stephen Lumanog, and Aldrin Gayanilo—who were charged with rape under Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), for the sexual assault of AAA on October 28, 2018. The victim, AAA, was the girlfriend of Andre, and the accused were related to each other—Andre and Aldrin being brothers, and Stephen being Andre's cousin. The prosecution proceeded on a single Information charging all three accused of mutually helping each other in committing successive acts of rape against AAA, despite the Information alleging multiple distinct acts of carnal knowledge.

At around 8:00 p.m. of October 28, 2018, AAA agreed to meet Andre, her boyfriend, at his place for a drinking session. Upon arriving, AAA contributed PHP 100.00 for the purchase of a bottle of Emperador brandy. After drinking half of the bottle, AAA felt drunk and laid down on Andre's bed. AAA then saw Stephen, Andre's cousin, enter the house. While Andre and Stephen were drinking, AAA fell asleep.

Moments later, AAA was roused from her sleep. She noticed that she was already naked and Andre was on top of her with his penis inside her vagina. Then, AAA heard Andre tell Aldrin, his brother, "Your turn bro." AAA resisted but Andre sat on her stomach and held her hands. At that time, Stephen was licking her vagina. Then, Aldrin went on top of AAA and inserted his penis in her vagina. While Aldrin was doing a push and pull motion, Andre and Stephen were laughing and holding AAA's hands. After Aldrin, Stephen also went on top of AAA, inserted his penis, and made a push and pull movement. AAA begged Stephen to stop and the latter acceded. Then, Andre and Aldrin went out of the room and continued drinking. AAA cried while putting on her clothes. AAA asked Stephen to bring her home which the latter did.

The next day, on October 29, 2018, AAA, together with her mother, filed a complaint for rape against Andre, Aldrin, and Stephen before the City Police Station. Police Officer I (PO1) Jessica Mae Genada conducted the investigation and brought AAA to the City Health Office for a medical examination.

The defense interposed denial and alibi. The defense alleged that Andre and AAA were sweethearts and that they had a drinking session at around 8:30 p.m. of October 28, 2018 during which AAA started browsing the contents of Andre's cellphone and saw the picture of Andre's other girlfriend. AAA got angry after Andre admitted that he and the other girl are still together. To avoid further argument, Andre stepped out of the house where he saw Stephen. Andre invited Stephen over for a drink to which he obliged. AAA poured Stephen a drink. While they were drinking, Stephen's mother told him to go home and attend to his daughter. Stephen then left. At around 10:00 p.m. of even date, Aldrin arrived. Andre also invited him for a drink but Aldrin declined as he went directly to the computer shop to chat with Julie Ann Partodo (Julie), his live-in partner. Aldrin went home afterwards. In the meantime, the drinking session between Andre and AAA ended. Andre went to Stephen's house to ask him to escort AAA home. The defense also presented Julie who corroborated Aldrin's testimony that they were conversing through Facebook Messenger from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. of October 28, 2018.

The RTC gave credence to the lone testimony of AAA that she was asleep and was awakened by the weight of Andre; and that accused-appellants successively went on top of her and inserted their penises into her vagina against her will. The RTC found AAA's testimony and positive identification of accused-appellants as her perpetrators credible, and it found no ill motive on her part to fabricate a story against accused-appellants. The RTC also found conspiracy to be present from accused-appellants' acts that showed a unified and conscious design to sexually molest AAA. The CA sustained AAA's credibility, holding that hymenal laceration is not essential in establishing rape and that the alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony relate to trivial matters which do not impair her credibility.

• Lack of Physical Evidence: Accused-appellants averred that no evidence, i.e., photographs, medical report and/or testimonial evidence from a medical expert, was presented during the trial to prove the physical trauma or hematoma that would have resulted from the alleged force exerted upon AAA.
• Lack of Distress: Accused-appellants alleged that AAA was not distressed the day after the alleged rape when she appeared before the police and medical officer, which negates AAA's claim that she was sexually molested by force, threat, or intimidation.
• Inconsistent Testimony: Accused-appellants asserted that AAA's testimony does not deserve credence as it is riddled with inconsistencies.

N/A — The decision does not separately recount the prosecution's arguments on appeal beyond the general position that the conviction should be sustained based on AAA's credible testimony.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
• Duplicitous Information and Number of Convictions: Whether accused-appellants may be convicted of three counts of rape each despite only one Information being filed against them.
• Ignominy as Aggravating Circumstance: Whether the rape committed against AAA was aggravated by ignominy, warranting the higher penalty.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The prosecution, through the positive, candid, and categorical testimony of AAA, established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants had carnal knowledge of AAA through force, and the Court found no cogent reason to reverse the RTC's assessment of AAA's credibility, which was affirmed by the CA.
• Duplicitous Information and Number of Convictions: Yes. Where conspiracy is established and the accused fail to move to quash a duplicitous Information before pleading, they are deemed to have waived the right to question the defect and may be convicted of as many offenses as were charged and proven; each conspirator is liable for all rapes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• Ignominy as Aggravating Circumstance: Yes. The act of laughing by Andre and Stephen while restraining AAA, and the commission of rape by two or more persons in view of one another, demonstrate ignominy, which was alleged in the Information and proven during trial without objection.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The elements of rape under Article 266-A(1) are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the victim is under 12 years of age. The courts a quo correctly ruled that the prosecution established these elements through AAA's testimony. The Court applied the guidelines on credibility evaluation: the RTC's assessment of witness credibility is given the highest respect due to its unique position in observing demeanor; absent substantial reason for reversal, the reviewing court is bound by the lower court's findings; and the rule is even more stringently applied when the CA concurred with the RTC. The absence of external signs of injury does not negate rape because proof of injury is not an element of the crime. Force need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible; resistance is not an element of rape, and the force employed need only be sufficient to enable the offender to consummate his lewd purpose. Expert testimony is not essential in proving rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. The Court also recognized that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a rape victim, and different people act differently to a given stimulus. The alleged inconsistencies in AAA's testimony referred to trivial matters—such as whether Aldrin was a mere acquaintance, the exact time of arrival, and whether the brandy was half-consumed or finished—which do not affect her credibility and may even be badges of truth.

• Duplicitous Information and Number of Convictions: The general rule is that a complaint or information must charge only one offense; otherwise, it is defective and may be quashed under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. However, if the accused fails to file a motion to quash before entering a plea, the defect is deemed waived, and the accused may be convicted of as many offenses as were charged and proven. The Court cited People vs. Jugueta for the proposition that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved. In rape, a conspirator is guilty not only of the sexual assault he personally commits but also of the separate and distinct crimes of rape perpetrated by his co-conspirators. Since conspiracy among accused-appellants was established during trial—from their unified and conscious design to sexually violate AAA—each accused was held responsible for their individual acts as well as for the acts committed by the others, resulting in three counts of rape each.

• Ignominy as Aggravating Circumstance: Ignominy is defined as a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The act of laughing by Andre and Stephen while restraining AAA demonstrates a deliberate effort to add disgrace on her ordeal during the rape, indicative of an intent to inflict psychological torture in addition to physical harm. The Court also noted another ignominious circumstance—where the rape was committed by two or more persons in view of one another. The Information clearly showed that accused-appellants successively and in the presence of one another had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. These circumstances were alleged in the Information and proven during trial without objection, making the effect of the crime against AAA more humiliating and disgraceful. Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the prescribed penalty for rape committed by two or more persons is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the RPC, the presence of the aggravating circumstance of ignominy warrants the imposition of the higher penalty of death. However, pursuant to RA 9346, in relation to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, accused-appellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape.

• Conspiracy in Rape — Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode or manner in which the crime was perpetrated and may be inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. In rape, a conspirator is guilty not only of the sexual assault he personally commits but also of the separate and distinct crimes of rape perpetrated by his co-conspirators; he may have had carnal knowledge of the offended woman only once but his liability includes that pertaining to all the rapes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Court applied this doctrine to hold each accused liable for three counts of rape.

• Duplicitous Information and Waiver — A complaint or information must charge only one offense; otherwise, it is defective and may be quashed under Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The rationale is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense. However, if the accused fails to move to quash before entering a plea, the defect is deemed waived, and the accused may be convicted of as many offenses as were charged and proven. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the conviction of each accused for three counts of rape despite only one Information being filed.

• Ignominy as Aggravating Circumstance — Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. It is present where the rape is committed by two or more persons in view of one another, or where the accused's acts demonstrate a deliberate effort to add disgrace to the victim's ordeal, indicative of an intent to inflict psychological torture in addition to physical harm. The Court applied this doctrine to find the aggravating circumstance present, warranting the higher penalty.

• Credibility of Rape Victim's Testimony — When a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that a rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof. The absence of external signs of injury does not negate rape because proof of injury is not an element of the crime. Expert testimony is not essential in proving rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. No clear-cut behavior can be expected of a rape victim, and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.

• "when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that a rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof." — This passage from People vs. Amper states the canonical rule on the sufficiency of a rape victim's testimony alone to support a conviction, which the Court applied in affirming the conviction.

• "It is a well-entrenched principle that 'the force used in the commission of rape need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible.' Certainly, 'tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary.' After all, resistance is not an element of rape." — This passage from People vs. Tamano defines the standard for force in rape, which the Court applied to reject accused-appellants' argument that the absence of physical injury negates rape.

• "As a general rule, a complaint or information must charge only one offense, otherwise, the same is defective. The reason for the rule is stated in People of the Philippines and AAA v. Court of Appeals, 21st Division, Mindanao Station, et al., thus: 'The rationale behind this rule prohibiting duplicitous complaints or informations is to give the accused the necessary knowledge of the charge against him and enable him to sufficiently prepare for his defense.'" — This passage from People vs. Jugueta articulates the rule on duplicitous informations and the waiver doctrine, which the Court applied to convict each accused of three counts of rape.

• "In rape, a conspirator is guilty not only of the sexual assault he personally commits but also of the separate and distinct crimes of rape perpetrated by his co-conspirators. He may have had carnal knowledge of the offended woman only once but his liability includes that pertaining to all the rapes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy." — This passage states the doctrine of conspiratorial liability in rape, which the Court applied to hold each accused liable for all three counts of rape.

• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the rule that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose the proper penalty for each offense.
• People vs. Wile, 784 Phil. 418 (2016) — Followed for the proposition that the finding of conspiracy makes accused responsible not only for their own unlawful acts but also for those of the other accused, and that under paragraph 2 of Article 266-B, the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons is reclusion perpetua to death.
• People vs. Amper, G.R. No. 239334, June 16, 2021 — Followed for the rule that when a woman says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that a rape was committed, and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, conviction may issue on the basis thereof.
• People vs. Tamano, 876 Phil. 726 (2020) — Followed for the principle that force in rape need not be overpowering or absolutely irresistible, and that resistance is not an element of rape.
• People vs. XXX, 886 Phil. 155 (2020) — Followed for the rule that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.
• People vs. Cortezano, 458 Phil. 304 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that the act of laughing by Andre and Stephen while restraining AAA demonstrates a deliberate effort to add disgrace on her ordeal during the rape, indicative of an intent to inflict psychological torture in addition to physical harm.
• People vs. Bacule, 380 Phil. 698 (2000) — Cited for the definition of ignominy as a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime, and for the proposition that rape committed by two or more persons in view of one another constitutes ignominy.
• People vs. Peralta, 134 Phil. 703 (1968) — Cited for the doctrine that in rape, a conspirator is guilty not only of the sexual assault he personally commits but also of the separate and distinct crimes of rape perpetrated by his co-conspirators.

• Article 266-A(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines rape as committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented. The Court applied this provision to the facts, finding that accused-appellants had carnal knowledge of AAA through force.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A as reclusion perpetua, and provides that whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. The Court applied this provision to impose the higher penalty due to the commission of rape by two or more persons.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties, including the imposition of the higher penalty when an aggravating circumstance is present. The Court applied this provision to impose the higher penalty of death, which was commuted to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
• RA 9346 — Prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole in lieu thereof. The Court applied this provision to sentence accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count of rape.
• A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC — The Court applied this administrative matter in relation to RA 9346 in sentencing accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
• Section 9, Rule 117, Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that the failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of the Rule. The Court applied this provision to find that accused-appellants waived their right to question the duplicitous Information.
• RA 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998) — The Court directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development to refer the victim to the appropriate rape crisis center for necessary assistance in line with this Act.

• Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson) — Concurred in the decision.
• M. Lopez, J. — Concurred in the decision.
• J. Lopez, J. — Concurred in the decision.

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