FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 208066, April 12, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN GLEN WILE, EFREN BUENAFE, JR., MARK ROBERT LARIOSA AND JAYPEE PINEDA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before Us on appeal is the Decision1 dated February 25, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00912, which affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated January 24, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Silay City, Branch 69 in Criminal Case Nos. 5931-69 to 5938-69, finding accused-appellants John Glen Wile (John),3 Mark Robert Lariosa (Mark),4 Jaypee Pineda (Jaypee), and Efren Buenafe, Jr. (Efren)5 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of several counts of rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
In eight (8) Informations, all dated December 2, 2005, accused-appellants were charged before the RTC with the rapes of minors AAA and BBB,6 as follows:
1) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5931-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS, in conspiracy and with the help of EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN and JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAAj, a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.7
2) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5932-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, in conspiracy and with the help of MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE and JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a 15-year-old minor against the latter's will.8
3) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5933-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE, in conspiracy and with the help of JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS, EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO and MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAAJ, a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.9
4) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5934-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, in conspiracy and with the help of JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE, JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS and EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.10
5) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5935-69
That on September 12, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS, in conspiracy with MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.11
6) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5936-69
That on September 12, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, in conspiracy with JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [AAA], a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.12
7) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5937-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, in conspiracy and with the help of MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE and JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [BBB], a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.13
8) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5938-69
That on July 26, 2005, in Silay City, Philippines, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused MARK ROBERT LARIOSA y JUEN, in conspiracy and with the help of EFREN BUENAFE, JR. y AQUINO, JAYPEE PINEDA y WILE and JOHN GLENN WILE y VILLALOBOS with force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with [BBB], a fifteen-year-old minor against her will.14
Thereafter, trial ensued.
- This Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant criminal actions;
- The [accused-appellants] in this case are John Glenn Wile, Efren Buenafe[, Jr.], Mark Robert Lariosa, and Jaypee Pineda;
- Private complainants, [AAA] and [BBB], are all minors;
- Private complainants were all students of x x x Memorial High School16 on the date of the submitted incidents giving rise to the present criminal actions;
- Private complainants, [AAA] and [BBB], know the [accused- appellants] named;
- [Accused-appellants] belong to a fraternity known as "Sana Wala Akong Kaaway" or "SWAK;" and
- [Accused-appellants] John Glenn Wile, Jaypee Pineda, and Mark Robert Lariosa, were all minors at the time of the incidents giving rise to the present criminal actions.17
Mart, I am writing you this I have something important to tell you. I can no longer go out of our house. Mart, you have to flee now because the father of [BBB] wanted you in jail. He already knew about the initiation. I wanted you to flee because when we meet in court, what will come out would be all lies. They would not tell the truth in Court, that is why, I want to help you now because if you would be apprehended, I can no longer do anything because the father of [BBB] is putting pressure on me. Please flee now because I can no longer leave the house. Last Monday, we filed a case against you. After you read this, please tear this. You must leave and go to other places outside Negros.25cralawredThe letter was not fully signed but only bore the first letter of AAA's name. Accused-appellant Mark did not heed AAA's advice to flee, asserting that he did nothing wrong.26
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in Criminal Case No. 5931-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpelua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00, as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5932-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa j; Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5933-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the Crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00, as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5934-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P] 50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5935-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, Guilty of the Crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5936-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos and Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen, to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [AAA], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5937-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [BBB], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In Criminal Case No. 5938-69, this Court finds [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, Guilty of the crime of Rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, as the prosecution had established their guilts (sic) beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the privilege mitigating circumstance of Minority, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences [accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile to each suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of from TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, the same to be served by them at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellant] Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino is sentenced by this Court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, the same to be served by him at the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
[Accused-appellants] are, further, ordered by this Court to jointly and severally pay private complainant, [BBB], the sums of [P]50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and [P]50,000.00 as moral damages, all in Philippine currency.
In the service of the sentence imposed upon them by this Court, [accused-appellants] shall be given credit for the entire period of their detention pending trial.
[Accused-appellants] John Glen Wile y Villalobos, Efren Buenafe, Jr. y Aquino, Mark Robert Lariosa y Juen and Jaypee Pineda y Wile, are remanded to the custody of the Jail Warden of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology of Silay City, Negros Occidental, pending their commitment to the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, Rizal, where they shall served (sic) the penalties of imprisonment imposed on them by this Court.27
Sec. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976," is hereby amended accordingly.
The provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No. 9344) are not applicable to [accused-appellants] named. The penalty imposed by this Court on them was imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years of Prision Mayor to Fourteen (14) Years of Reclusion Temporal. Under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, as amended, offenders sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Law. The amendment made by Republic Act No. 9344, Section 42, refers only to the filing of the application for probation even beyond the period for filing an appeal.
Minor [accused-appellants] named, likewise, cannot avail of suspended sentence under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No. 9344). The imposable penalty for the crime of Rape committed by two or more persons (Art. 266-A in relation to Art. 266-B, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended) is Reclusion Perpetua to Death. Republic Act No. 9344 merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344. Evidently, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended (Declarador vs. Gubaton, G.R. No. 159208, August 18, 2006).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The 24 January 2007 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City convicting accused-appellants for the crime of rape as defined in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 8353, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
JOHN GLEN WILE and MARK ROBERT LARIOSA are sentenced to a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion temporal, as maximum for each of the six (6) counts of rape committed against AAA and for each of the two (2) counts of rape against BBB.
JAYPEE PINEDA is sentenced to a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of Reclusion temporal, as maximum for each of the four (4) counts of rape against AAA and for each of the two (2) counts of rape against BBB.
EFREN BUENAFE, JR. is sentenced to a penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA for each of the four (4) counts of rape against AAA and for each of the two (2) counts of rape against BBB.
Accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape where each is convicted.
Upon finality of this Decision, the accused-appellants John Glen Wile, Mark Robert Lariosa and Jaypee Pineda shall be confined pursuant to Section 51 of Republic Act 9344.34ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR THE [CRIMES] CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE [THEIR] GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.39ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, describes how the crime of rape can be committed:
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed. - Rape is committed -
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances:a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
When a woman, moreso if she is a minor, as [AAA] and [BBB] are, says that she had been raped she, in effect, says all that is necessary to show that rape was, in fact, committed on her. Normally, their testimonies must be given full weight and credit. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. No woman, lest a minor, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial and ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her (People vs. Guambor, G.R. No. 152183, 22 January 2004). The private complainants were minors, fifteen (15) years of ages and were third year high school students of the x x x Memorial High School, Silay City, Negros Occidental at that time of the submitted incidents of sexual molestations on their persons. The declarations they gave of the acts done on them by the [accused-appellants] had been consistent, logical, straightforward, thorough, detailed, candid and to this Court's appreciation, taken in sum, credible. Their narrative accounts of the details of acts done on them by each of the [accused-appellants] stood unshaken in the face of rigid cross-examinations and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in their material points as their declarations were, likewise, devoid of omissions/lapses in basic facts. They positively identified the four (4) [accused-appellants], Efren Buenafe, Jr., Mark Robert Lariosa, John Glen Wile, and Jaypee Pineda, as the very persons who perpetrated the sexual molestations on them on the dates and places given. They detailed what each of the [accused-appellants] had done and their collective participations in the referred molestations.42
We uphold the conviction of the accused-appellants.
x x x x
A careful reading and evaluation of the evidence on record [reveal] that the foregoing elements are sufficiently established by the prosecution. The records, supported by the medical results of the examination conducted on the victims, would show that the four (4) accused-appellants committed carnal knowledge of AAA and BBB with the use of force and intimidation.
When AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a thorough, detailed and straightforward narration of the incidents that happened on July 26, 2005 and September 12, 2005. She recalled how each of the four (4) accused-appellants successively abused her while the others were holding her legs and hands. She positively identified the four (4) accused-appellants to be the same perpetrators who had carnal knowledge and took advantage of her against her will. The same thing happened with BBB. She categorically recounted eacn and every detail of the abuses committed against her by the perpetrators.
Thus, contrary to the posturing of the accused-appellants, the corroborative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crimes charged herein.
Accused-appellants' insistence that it is highly improbable for the victims to be raped in the presence of all the members of the group and within the premises of the hut which is described to be open, located along the highway and had neighboring houses nearby are misplaced. Records are very clear and it was even admitted by the accused-appellants that they conducted the initiation not inside the hut in the presence of all the members of the fraternity, but in the cane field on top of a hill with the presence of the four (4) accused-appellants and the two (2) victims. The pertinent portion of the testimony of Efren Buenafe states:
Q: And after that, what happened? A: Mart told us to stand. Q: And what else happened after that? A: AAA was made to choose from among us. Q: And what was the purpose of choosing the one of you? A: We were instructed to stand, the she chose made (sic) that one should be the one to conduct the initiation on her. Q: After that, what happened, Mr. Witness? A: They ascended to near the top of the hill. Q: Who went to the upper portion of the hill? A: The five of them. Q: Who were they? A: BBB, AAA, friend, Mark Robert, and John Glen. Q: How about you, when these individuals you mentioned went to the upper portion, where were you at the time? A: I was in the hut. Q: And then, what did you do after these five persons you mentioned went to the hilly portion? A: Mark called me. Q: And what did you do after you were summoned by Mark? A: They went after us to the cane field. Q: When you said they, who was with you when they conducted you inside this sugarcane field? A: The five of them.
The foregoing testimony indubitably showed that indeed the four (4) accused-appellants and two (2) victims went on top of the hill. While accused-appellants' version of the story would show that it was only [accused-appellant Efren] and AAA who were left in the cane field while the others immediately went back to the hut, still it was not physically impossible for the four (4) accused-appellants to be at the scene of the crime and commit the same against the two (2) victims.
xxxx
The testimonies of AAA and BBB were consistent and positive that the commission of the rape unto each of them was consecutive, not simultaneous. Records showed that AAA, who was blindfolded, was raped first while BBB was seated at a distance of about two (2) meters without any blindfolds. Hence, BBB can clearly see the felonious and obscene acts of the four (4) accused-appellants as they took turns in consummating carnal knowledge of AAA. On the other hand, when BBB was raped by the two (2) [accused-appellants], AAA was also present at the scene of the crime and was not blindfolded. Thus, she can clearly see the vulgar and lewd acts committed unto her friend.
xxxx
The presentation of [Juvelyn] is not vital for the case of the prosecution. The Supreme Court has ruled that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial consideration. It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.
The Supreme Court has likewise ruled that when the offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this case, Courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed if the matter about which they testified were not true. A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration; publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted; allow the examination of her private parts; and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.
Hence, the Court is convinced to give the badge of belief and approval to the categorical, consistent and straightforward testimonies of the two (2) victims.
Accused-appellants' allegation that case record made no mention of any force or intimidation upon the victims during the commission of the crime is also unacceptable. AAA and BBB were consistent and candid in their declarations that they were threatened to be struck with a bamboo pole if they resist the lewd intentions of the four (4) perpetrators. AAA's testimony states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAdded to that and as discussed earlier, the prosecution clearly showed that during the incident, both hands and legs of both victims were held by the other accused-appellants while the other one consummates the sexual act. This manifested the element of force and intimidation which attended the rape committed unto AAA and BBB.
Q: While these things were happened to you, what did you do? A: I was also crying, I was pleading not to do these things to me but they did not [heed] me and they threatened that they would [strike] me with the bamboo pole.
x x x x
The trial court found the presence of conspiracy between the perpetrators and We concur to such findings. The trial court ruled in this wise:"[Accused-appellants] -named did perform specific individual acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to force the private complainants into sexual intercourse with each of them. They decided on the mode, method and manner on how they intended the sexual molestation of named private complainants was to be done and/or perpetrated as may be inferred from the acts they committed, which unmistakably show a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Each of them did their parts so that their acts were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiments that cannot lead to any conclusion but a conspiracy to commit the offense."
x x x x
In this case, records revealed a common design to commit the crime. The four (4) accused-appellants mutually helped each other so that each of them can consummate the crime against the victims. There was indeed a community of purpose as manifested by the holding of the hands and legs of the victims while the other commits the illicit act. Verily, conspiracy is implied when the accused persons had a common purpose and were united in its execution. Spontaneous agreements or active cooperation by all perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint criminal responsibility. Such acts are extant in the case at bench.
In sum, this Court hereby finds no reversible error on the part of the RTC, in finding accused-appellants Efren Buenafe Jr., Jaypee Pineda, John Glen Wile and Mark Robert Pineda guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the commission of rape against victims AAA and BBB. For the rape committed on July 26, 2005 and September 12, 2005, conspiracy among the four (4) accused-appellants was established. The act of any one was the act of all and each of them is equally guilty of all the crimes committed. Thus, each accused-appellant shall be guilty of rape for each sexual act they each committed against the victims.43(Citations omitted.)
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the CA sustained said findings, as in this case. (Citations omitted.)
Denial is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed upon with disfavor by the courts due to the ease with which it can be concocted. Denial as a defense crumbles in the light of positive identification of the accused, as in this case. The defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution's evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Verily, mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative self-serving evidence which Cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of the complaining witness who testified on affirmative matters. (Citation omitted.)
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case.
xxx The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance: includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor's cunning and shrewdness.
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo pp. 123-152; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concurring.
2 CA rollo pp. 55-73.
3 Accused-appellant John Glen Wile's first two names were also sometimes spelled as "Jhon Glen" and "John Glenn."
4 Accused-appellant Mark Robert Lariosa's first name was also sometimes spelled as "Marc" and "Mart."
5 Accused-appellant Efren Buenafe, Jr. was also referred to as "Jay-R."
6 The victims real names are withheld pursuant to People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006])
7 Records (Crim. Case No, 5931-69), p. 1.
8 Records (Crim. Case No. 5932-69), p. 1
9 Records (Crim Case No. 5033-69), p. 1
10 Records (Crim. Case No. 5934-69), p 1.
11 Records (Crim. Case No. 5935-69), p. 1.
12 Records (Crim. Case No. 5936-69), p. 1.
13 Records (Crim. Case No. 5937-69), p. 1.
14 Records (Crim. Case No. 5938-69), p. 1.
15 Id. at 30.
16 Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, requires the confidentiality of all records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children. Per said section, all public officers and employees are prohibited from publishing or causing to be published in any format the name and other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member. The penalty of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon those who violate the provision. Pursuant thereto, in the courts' promulgation of decisions, final resolutions and/or final orders, the names of women and children victims shall be replaced by fictitious initials, and their personal circumstances or any information, which tend to identify them, shall likewise not be disclosed. (Resolution in BBB v. AAA, G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015)
17 Records (Crim. Case No. 5938-69), p. 36
18 BBB v. AAA, supra note 16. Id.
20 Variously referred to in the TSN as "Juvelyn Bellega" (TSN, March 13, 2006, p. 7), "Gebelyn Gelbaliega" (TSN, May 8, 2006, p. 6), and "Jevielyn Gilbalega" (TSN, August 14, 2006, p. 11).
21 TSN, March 13, 2006, pp. 10-12.
22 TSM, February 13,2006, pp. 4-9.
23 TSN, September 11, 2006, pp. 10-14.
24 AAA asked a certain Richelle, a SWAK member, to hand the letter to accused-appellant Lariosa (TSM, August 14, 2006, pp. 20-21.)
25 TSN, August 7, 2006, pp. 29-30.
26 Id.cralawred
27 CA rollo, pp. 68-73.
28 Accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee filed a Notice of Appeal on February 5, 2007 while accused-appellant Efren filed his Notice of Appeal on February 13, 2007. (Records [Crim Case No. 5938-69], pp. 152-153.)
29 Based on their Certificates of Live Birth, accused-appellants John, Mark, and Jaypee were born on May 24, 1988, March 29, 1988, and December 9, 1988, respectively. Thus, John and Mark were both seventeen (17) years old and Jaypee was sixteen (16) years old when they committed the crimes. (Id. at 123-125.)
30 Records (Crim. Case No. 5938-69), pp. 158-159.
31 Id. at 154-155.
32 Id. at 160-161.
33 Id. at 162.
34 CA rollo, pp. 151-152.
35 Sec. 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court. - x x x
x x x x
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
36Rollo, p. 37
37 Plaintiff-appellee's Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) (Rollo, pp. 38-40); Accused-appellants' Manifestation In Lieu of Supplemental Brief (Rollo, pp. 45-47).
38 CA rollo, pp. 31-54.
39 Id. at 33.cralawred
40People v. Aaron, 438 Phil. 296, 309 (2002).
41People v. Balino, G.R. No. 194833, July 2, 2014, 729 SCRA 52, 62.
42 CA rollo, pp. 64-65.
43 CA rollo, pp. 140-147.
44People v. Flora, 585 Phil. 626, 644-645 (2008).
43 G.R. No. 198309, September 7, 2015.
46People v. Ancajas, G.R. No. 199270, October 21 2015.
47 448 Phil. 539, 550-551 (2003).
48 702 Phil. 643,664(2013).
49 People v. Juarez and Sabal, 394 Phil. 345, 363 (2000).
50 661 Phil. 224,249-250 (2011).
51 Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age, — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
x x x x
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
52See People v. Ancajas, supra note 46.
53 Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain' specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
54People v. Ancajas, supra note 46, citing People v. Jacinto, supra note 50. See also People v. Sarcia, 615 Phil. 97, 129-130 (2009).
55 Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. - A child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the [Bureau of Corrections], in coordination with the [Department of Social Welfare and Development].
56People v. Ancajas, supra note 46, citing People v. Jacinto, supra note 50. See also People v. Sarcia, supra note 54.
57People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016.
58 The amount of exemplary damages for simple rape is now set at P75,000.00 (People v. Jugueta, id.).
59People v. Ancajas, supra note 46.