People vs. Sisracon

3aepublic of tbe ~bilippineS'
$upreme QCourt
;fflanila
SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 226494

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus - PERALTA,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
CAGUIOA, * and
REYES, JR., JJ.
JOMAR SISRACON y RUPISAN,
MARK VALDERAMA y RUPISAN,
ROBERTO CORTEZ y BADILLA, Promulgated:
LUIS PADUA y MITRA and
ADONIS MOTILy GOLONDRINA, 1 4 FEB 2018
Accused-Appellants. \ \~~n.Jn~ltYtl~ ~
x-.:.--------------·----------------------------------------------~--·.::..:-_~~~-------- x
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
This is to resolve the appeal of appellants Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, ·

Mark Valderama y Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra
and Adonis Motil y. Golondrina that seeks to reverse and set aside the
Decision 1 dated August 12, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR HC No. 05986 affirming the Decision dated September 13, 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of x x x, Rizal, Branch 76 finding the same
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of nine (9) counts of Qualified
Rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A and Article 266-B, par. 1,
in relation to Article 266-B, 2nct par. of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
On official business.
1
rJY
Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pedro
B. Cora!Os and Ma. Lu;sa C. Qu;jano-PadH!a; ml/o, pp. 2-44.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 226494
amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 and in further relation to Section 5
of R.A. 8369.
The facts follow.
According to the victim, AAA, she was fifteen ( 15) years old and the
President of a youth group when the incident happened on February 29, 2004.
Around 11 o'clock in the evening of that same day, AAA was about to go
home when she passed by the basketball court. She saw a group composed of
the following:
1. John Andrew Valderama alias "John John;"

2. Luis Padua alias "Buboy;"
3. Ranil Camaymayan alias "Sedeng;"
4. Rex Dandan alias "Itoy;"
5. Mark Valderama alias "Macmac;"
6. Jomar Sisracon alias "Jomar;"
7. Roberto Cortez alias "Unad;"
8. Randy Mulog alias "Randy;" and
9. Adonis Motil alias "Ulo" or "Dondon."
Appellant Roberto called AAA and asked her to approach them because
they wanted to ask her about the organization that they recently joined. AAA
agreed and discussed with them the mission and vision of the organization.
Thereafter, AAA told the group that she wanted to go home, but the latter
asked her to stay longer as they were about to have a drinking spree. AAA
told them that she could not stay longer because her mother would get angry
at her and that she had to go to school the following day. The group insisted
that she stay long and finally, AAA told them that she could stay but only until
11 :30 in the evening. The group then told AAA to go with them at the
apartment of Ranil' s aunt which is just a street away from where they were.
When they were on the way to the apartment, the group suddenly ran. AAA
inquired why they ran and they replied that a certain Pita was there and that
they didn't want the latter to go with them because he was unruly and noisy.
Pita was known in their place as "sinto sinto" or "kulang-kulang sa pag-iisip"
(mentally deranged). AAA had known Pita for a long time including Ranil,
who was a friend of her bother, BBB and who regularly went to their house
attending social affairs. Pita eventually joined the group.
The group arrived at the apartment and upon entering, Ranil lit a candle
and Adonis closed the door. Ranil then opened a bottle ofEmperador Brandy
and took a glass from which each of them had their "tagay" (shots). AAA sat
beside Jomar and since she was not used to drinking liquor, she forced herself
to swallow, the same slowly and by covering her nose. At 11 :30 p.m., AAA
told the group that she must go home. Pita also told AAA that it's time f~
them to go home. Since Pita insisted that he and AAA should both go home,
he was forced to go home alone because the group started to hurt him by
striking him in the nape ("binabatuk-batukan"). AAA also tried to leave the
apartment but appellants Jomar and Adonis blocked her way. Adonis even
proceeded to guard the door of the apartment. AAA was then threatened by
the group that they would hurt her older brother ("Kuya"), BBB, if she insisted
on leaving, thus, she decided to return to her seat. While this was happening,
the others were conversing with each other. Shortly, the group opened a
second bottle of Emperador Brandy and resumed drinking. AAA had a shot
of the liquor that was poured by Ranil and was given to her by Jomar. After
five to ten minutes from drinking the liquor, AAA felt her legs and body
turning numb, her vision turning blurry and she started feeling dizzy. As she
was closing her eyes, AAA felt that she was being carried by Jomar. AAA
was familiar with the voice of Jomar and it was the latter who said, "Dito na,
dito na." AAA was then placed in a ''papag" where Jomar proceeded to lower
her shorts. AAA tried to resist by bringing up her shorts but to no avail due to
her weakness. After successfully lowering AAA's shorts, Jomar went on top
of her and inserted his penis into her vagina causing her pain. After performing
the deed, Jomar invited the others to take their turns by saying, "Sino ang
susunod?" A person of heavier weight went on top of AAA and it was then
that the latter lost her consciousness. When AAA regained her consciousness,
she felt that somebody was putting on her dress and heard shouts that he was
coming ("Si BBB, si BBB andyan na?"). She then heard footsteps and a
commotion ensuing. When she awakened, AAA was already inside a mobile
unit with her brother and her mother on their way to a clinic in Camp Crame.
From Camp Crame, they proceeded to the Municipal Hall of x x x, Rizal and
were brought to the Office of the Prosecutor at around 1 o'clock of March 1,
2004. Thereafter, BBB was told to identify the suspects and pointed at five (5)
persons, namely, appellants Adonis, Jomar, Luis, Mark and Roberto. During
her identification of the suspects, the parents of the accused, AAA' s mother
and brother, and the fiscal were present.
Thus, the following nine (9) Informations were filed against the
appellants and their other companions:
Criminal Case No. 7693
That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

of x x x, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused Rex Dandan, Randy Mulog,
and Roberto Cortez y Badilla in conspiracy with Adonis Motil y
Golondrina, 15 years old, John Andrew Valderama y Rupisan, 16 years old,
Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, 17 years old, Mark V alderama y Rupisan, 17
years old, Luis Padua y Mitra, 16 years old and Ranil Camaymayan alias
Sedeng, 17 years old, minors, and with one another by means of force, and
intimidation, while the offended party is unconscious, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of AAA, the
offended party, a minor, fifteen (15) years of age, against her will and
without her consent, the said crime having been attended by the qualifying
17
circumstance of commission of the offense of more than two (2) persons,

which is aggravated by the circumstances of Treachery, Evident
Premeditation, Abuse of Superior Strength and Nighttime.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

of xxxx, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, 17 years old, Mark Valderama y Rupisan, 17
CONTRARY TO LAW.

J omar Sisracon y Rupisan, 17 years old, Mark Valderama y Rupisan, 17
CONTRARY TO LAW.

Golondrina, 15 years old, John Andrew V alderama y Rupisan, 16 years old,
Sedeng, 17 years old, minors, and with one another by means of force,#
CONTRARY TO LAW.

~onorable Court, the above-named accused Rex Dandan, Randy Mulog,
which is aggravated by the circumstances of Treachery,. Evident
CONTRARY TO LAW.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

and Roberto Cortez y Badilla in conspiracy with Adonis Motil {;;II

CONTRARY TO LAW.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

J omar Sisracon y Rupisan, 17 years old, Mark Valderama y Rupisan, 17
CONTRARY TO LAW.
tJY
Upon arraignment on October 14, 2004, with the assistance of counsel

de parte, appellants Jomar Sisracon, ,Mark Valderama y Rupisan, Roberto
Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra and Adonis Motil y Golondrina, all
pleaded "Not Guilty." Accused John Andrew Valderama y Rupisan, Ranil
Camaymayan alias "Sedeng," Rex Dandan and Randy Mulog are still at-large.
After pr~-trial, the trial on the merits ensued.
Aside from the testimony of AAA, the prosecution presented the

testimonies of Dr. Mamerto Bernabe, a medico-legal officer assigned at the
PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, BBB, AAA's brother,
and CCC, a barangay tanod ofBrgy. xxx, Municipality ofxxx, Rizal.
Dr. Bernabe testified that on March 1, 2004, he conducted a physical

and genital examination over the person of AAA and that the physical
examination showed an injury on the left breast of AAA akin to a suction
injury also known as "kiss mark." As to the genital examination, Dr. Bernabe
found that on the hymen, there was a shallow healing laceration at 7 to 8
o'clock positions which means that there was forcible entry, perhaps a blunt
object that passed through the hymen orifice and in the process of stretching
the said hymenal orifice, the point of resistance gave way and produced the
laceration. Dr. Bernabe, therefore, concluded that AAA is in non-virgin state
physically and that the findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity.
BBB, AAA's brother, testified that he was at the meat shop from 1 a.m.
to 1:30 a.m. on the day of the incident when a certain Rommel arrived and the
latter talked to BBB' s lady companions, Angie and Weng. Rommel told Angie
and Weng that BBB' s sister was at the apartment of appellant
Ranil' s aunt. After learning what Rommel told to his companions, BBB asked
a certain Delfin and a certain Johnrey to accompany him to the said apartment.
When they reached the place, BBB noticed that there was no light in the house
and saw Randy Mulog at the back of the door and as soon as the latter saw
BBB, he went inside the house and closed the door. BBB then entered the
house and noticed that there were men inside who were in the act of dressing
up. BBB also saw Ramil Camaymayan and Rex Dandan hurriedly coming out
from a room while fixing their clothes. BBB proceeded to the room and
noticed that it reeked of alcohol and saw Luis Padua fixing his shorts. BBB
then saw his sister, AAA, lying sideways on the bed with her underwear
lowered down .and her blouse raised up. BBB asked them why they did that to
his sister but the men ran away. Johnrey, BBB's companion, chased and
caught up with John Andrew Valderama. Thereafter, they went to the
barangay hall where BBB reported the incident. After thirty minutes, a
barangay tanod arrived accosting appellants Mark, Luis, Adonis, Jomar and
John Andrew Valderama. They all then proceeded to the municipal hall and
while thereat, BBB, his mother, AAA, and his aunt were told to go to Camp
(/"
Crame to have AAA examined by a medico-legal officer. After going to Camp

Crame, they returned to the municipal hall and gave their statements.
CCC, a 'barangay tanod, corroborated some parts of the testimony of

BBB.
On the other hand, in their testimonies, appellants Roberto, Adonis,

Luis, Jomar and Mark, all denied the allegations.
According to appellant Roberto, in the evening of February 29, 2004,

he was at the apartment of Ranil' s aunt for a ·drinking session. He started
drinking with the oth~rs around 9 o'clock in the evening. He was seated on a
chair at the back of the door. Around 12:00 midnight, AAA arrived at the
apartment and told them that she had a problem at home and that her
stepfather, who might still have been awake, might rape her
("Mapagsamantalahan"). As they were all surprised, appellant Roberto and
the others talked to AAA for about five (5) minutes until the latter went inside
the apartment and sat down. As soon as AAA entered the apartment, appellant
Roberto and the others put away the things they used during their drinking
spree. Thereafter, they were about to sleep but AAA was still inside the room.
AAA was left inside the room, while appellant Roberto slept outside the room.
Around 1 o'clock in the morning, AAA's brother, BBB, arrived at the
apartment shouting and looking for his sister. Appellant Roberto accompanied
BBB inside the room where AAA slept. AAA, however, refused to go home.
Thereafter, BBB went out of the room holding a knife and chased the other
appellants. The others ran away, while apellants Jomar, Mark, Adonis and
Luis remained with appellant Roberto insid~ the apartment. Appellant
Roberto and the other appellants did not leave the apartment because they
thought that their other companions would return. When BBB returned, he
was already with barangay tanods who arrested the appellants. After they
were arrested, the appellants were brought first to the barangay hall and then
to the police station. According to appellant Roberto, AAA was not at the
police station when he and the other appellants were told thatthey were being
charged with rape.
Appellant Adonis testified that on February 29, 2004, he was with the
group of appellant Jomar in the house of the aunt ofRanil drinking liquor. He
arrived at the place around 9 o'clock in the evening and around 10 o'clock,
they started to drink. While they were drinking, around 11 o'clock, AAA
suddenly arrived alone at the apartment. Around 12 o'clock midnight,
appellant Adonis decided to go home. The others were left behind. The others
were preparing to sleep when appellant Adonis left. It was also at that time
that AAA went inside the room alone. When appellant Adonis was already
sleeping at home, he heard noises outside around 2 o'clock. Then he was told
by a neighbor that his friends were arrested. Appellant Adonis thought of
going to the apartment of the aunt of Ranil but he was prevented by his
tfl
parents. In the morning, appellant Adonis was awakened by his parents and
was told that policemen were looking for him. Appellant Adonis talked with
the policemen and the latter invited him to the municipal hall. Appellant
Adonis went with the policemen while being accompanied by his father. At
the precinct, appellant Adonis discovered that he was being implicated in a
case but the complainant was not around.
As testified by appellant Luis, on the evening of February 29, 2004, he

was drinking Emperador Brandy in the apartment of Ranil' s aunt. They started
drinking around 9 o'clock and were able to consume two bottles by 12 o'clock
midnight. While they were drinking, AAA arrived around 10 o'clock and the
latter was met by appellant Roberto. Then AAA joined them in their drinking
spree. Appellant Luis was surprised because despite going there alone, AAA
still joined in their drinking. The drinking spree ended around 12 midnight
which was also the time when appellant Adonis left the apartment. AAA went
inside the room to sleep, while the rest of them stayed at the sala. They were
awakened around 1 o'clock when they heard the voice of BBB, AAA's
brother, who was looking for his sister. BBB and his companions forcibly
opened the door prompting appellant Luis and the others to hide at the
restroom because BBB and his companions were all carrying weapons. When
BBB learned through his companions that AAA was there, he briefly left and
then returned . in the company of barangay officials. Appellant and his
companions did not leave the place because they knew that they did not do
anything wrong. They were then arrested by the barangay tanods. Appellant
Luis and the other appellants were the ones arrested, while the rest were able
to run away. They were then brought to the barangay hall and were
investigated although their parents were not present. They were then taken to
the police station wherein AAA was not present but ~ry_the latter's mother./
Appellant Jomar also testified that on March 1, 2004, he was arrested

at the apartment of his friend Ranil after they had just finished a drinking
session. He was arrested while he was asleep at the sofa. Thereafter, he and
the other appellants were brought by the arresting officers to the barangay
hall. They were told that they were arrested due to a rape incident which
surprised appellant Jomar but decided to keep mum. At the police precinct,
they were not assisted by any lawyer and that appellant Adonis was arrested
the following day and was also detained.
Finally, according to appellant Mark, on February 29, 2004 before

midnight, he was at the house of appellant Roberto when he met with his
friends and proceeded to the apartment of the aunt of Ranil. They arrived at
the apartment around 9 o'clock in the evening and then proceeded to drink
liquor. While they were drinking, AAA arrived. Although AAA was not
offered a drink she still joined appellant Mark's group. They finished drinking
around 12 o'clock midnight. AAA then went inside the room to sleep, while
the others prepared a place to sleep outside the room. After an hour, they~
awakened by the arrival of BBB who was very angry and started to create
trouble. Appellant Roberto approached BBB and accompanied him inside the
room. When BBB and appellant Roberto went out of the room, BBB started
to thrust a knife that he was holding to the persons outside the room. Then
BBB ran after the others that ran away. Thereafter, BBB returned to the
apartment together with barangay officials around 1 o'clock a.m. of March 1,
2004 and appellant Luis and the other appellants were subsequently arrested.
They were then brought to the barangay hall before they were taken to the
police station where they were investigated and their names were taken.
According to appellant Mark, AAA was not around the police station when
he and the other appellants were being investigated.
In its Decision dated September 13, 2010, the RTC found the appellants
guilty as charged and sentenced them with the following:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered,

as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 7693, accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan,

and Adonis Motil y Golondrina are hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape as defined and penalized
under Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 2nd par. of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further relation of Sec. 5 of
R.A. 8369, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua and to indemnify [the] victim [AAA] the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.
2 .. In Criminal Case No. 7694, accused(s) Mark Valderama y

Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra, Adonis Motil y
Golondrina and Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, are hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape as defined and
penalized under Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 2nd par. of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further relation of Sec.
5 of R.A. 8369, and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify [the] victim [AAA] the amount of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos
3. In Criminal Case No. 7695, accused(s) Roberto Cortez y Badilla,

Luis Padua y Mitra, Adonis Motil y Golondrina, Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan
and Mark Valderama y Rupisan are hereby found GUILTY beyond
Thousand Pesos (PS0,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy-Five Thousand
~

4. In Criminal Case No. 7696, accused(s) Luis Padua y Mitra,

Adonis Motil y Golondrina, Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y
Rupisan and Roberto Cortez y Badilla, are hereby found GUILTY beyond
5. In Criminal Case No. 7697, accused(s) Adonis . Motil y

Golondrina, Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan,
Roberto Cortez y Badilla and Luis Padua y Mitra, are hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape as
defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 2nd
par. of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further
relation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 8369, and sentencing each of them to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify [the] victim [AAA] the
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy-
Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages.

Mark Valderama y Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y B_adilla, Luis Padua y Mitra
and Adonis Motil y Golondrina, are hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt. of the crime of Qualified Rape as defined and penalized


Mark V alderama y Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra
tfl
Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further relation of .Sec. 5 of

(PS0,000.00) as exemplary damages.

Thousand Pesos (PS0,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy-Five Thousand
(PS0,000.00) as exemplary damages.
Accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan,

Roberto Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra and Adonis · Motil y
Golondrina are hereby ordered to be committed to the National Bilibid
Prisons in Muntinlupa City for service of sentence.
Accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan,

Roberto Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra and Adonis Motil y
Golondrina are to be credited for the time spent for their preventive
detention in accordance with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code as amended
by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.
In the meantime, let the cases against accused John Andrew

Valderama y Rupisan, Rex Dandan, Ranil Camaymayan and Randy Mulog
be sent to the archives pending their apprehension. The alias Warrants of
Arrest dated January 22, 2007 issued against them remain in effect.
SO ORDERED. 2
The CA, in its Decision dated August 12, 2015, affirmed with
modification the decision of the RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated

September 13, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of xxx, Rizal, Branch 76,
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In Criminal Cases No. 7693,
7694, 7695, 7696, 7697, 7698, 7699, 7700 and 7701 appellants Jomar
Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y Badilla,
Luis Padua y Mitra and Adonis Motil y Golondrina are hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Rape as
defined and penalized under Art. 266-A, par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B, 2nd
par. of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further
relation to Sec. 5 of R.A. 8369.
ACCORDINGLY, appellants Roberto Cortez y Badilla is hereby

sentence[d] to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each criminal
CA ro/lo, pp. 65-68. {111

case he was found guilty of. Appellants Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark
Valderama y Rupisan, Luis Padua y Mitra and Adonis Motil y Golondrina
are hereby sentence[d] to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the minimum period, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as the
maximum period for each criminal case they are hereby found guilty.
Appellants are also hereby ordered to indemnify [AAA] the amount

of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity; Seventy-Five
Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as exemplary damages for each criminal case.
Appellants are further ordered to pay [AAA] interest on all damages

awarded at the legal rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum until the same are
fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 3
Hence, the present appeal.
Appellants, in their Brief, assigns the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT
AND CREDENCE TO THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT'S
TESTIMONY.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIMES· CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE IN THEIR FAVOR.
III
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
COMMITTED THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF, THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SEXUAL
MOLESTATIONS ARE QUALIFIED BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS
AND NIGHTTIME.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING CONSPIRACY
BETWEEN ACCUSED-APPELLANTS AND THEIR OTHER CO-
ACCUSED.4
It is the contention of the appellants that there are no concrete evidence

to show that AAA has been sexually abused by them, hence, it is wrong for
the trial court tb rely merely on the testimony of AAA in convicting them with
the crime charged in the Informations. They also claim that based o n #
4
CA rollo, pp. 26-27.
testimony of AAA, there was no proof of the identity of the appellants as the
perpetrators of the crime. Appellants also pointed out other matters and
statements on AAA's testimony that they claim to be inconsistent with one
another. They, likewise, assert that they cannot be convicted of rape with the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime and committed by two or more persons
becaus.e the records show that the prosecution failed to establish that they took
advantage of the same situations in the commission of the crime. They also
claim that the trial court should have appreciated the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority under par. 2, Art. 68 of the Revised Penal Code in
their favor. They further argue that the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that they acted with discernment.
The present is appeal is unmeritorious.
Article 266-A, pt paragraph of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 8353 and

R.A. 8369, to which the appellants stand charged provides the following:
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 following 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;
and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances above be present.
In relation to the above provision of the RPC, the same law provides:
ARTICLE 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next

preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
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 elements of rape committed under Article 266-A(l)(a) of the

Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (a) that the offender, who must be a
man, had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (b) that such act is accomplished
by using force or intimidation. 5
In this case, all the elements of the crime of rape have been properly
established by the prosecution and aptly appreciated by the RTC and the C1:;;(
5
People v. Aaron, 438 Phil. 296, 309 (2002). . V' '
Through the testimony of AAA, it was clearly proven that the

appellants committed the crime and, as such, an attack on her credibility is
futile. In People v. Malana, 6 this Court ruled that when the issue is one of
credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings
of the trial court, thus:
In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following well-

entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility:
it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove it; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The determination of the credibility of the offended

party's testimony is a most basic consideration in every
prosecution for rape, for the lone testimony of the victim, if
credible, is sufficient to sustain the verdict of conviction. As
in most rape cases, the ultimate issue in this case is
credibility. In this regard, when the issue is one of credibility
of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the
findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in· a
better position to decide the question as it heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during trial. The exceptions to the rule
are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily, or when
the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some facts or circumstance of weight and substance which
could affect the result of the case. None of these
circumstances are present in the case at bar to warrant its
exception from the coverage of this rule.
It is well-established that when a woman says that

she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary
to show that she has indeed been raped. A victim of rape
would not come out in the open ifher motive were anything
other than to obtain justice. Her testimony as to who abused
her is credible where she has absolutely no motive to
incriminate and testify against the accused, as in this case
where the accusations were raised by private complainant
against her own father. 7
Therefore, the CA did not err in finding merit to the findings of the
RTC, thus:
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish all the
elements of the crime of rape. First, [AAA] testified that Jomar went on top
of her and, against her will, inserted his penis in her vagina. After havi~ng
6
646 Phil. 290, 302 (2010). (Citations omitted)
Id. at 301-303. (Citations omitted)
carnal knowledge with [AAA], Jomar told the others "sino ang susunod?"
Thus, another man of heavier weight went on top of [AAA] and inserted his
penis in her vagina. [AAA] identified that it was Jomar who carried him to
another room and placed her in a ''papag" because she heard him say, "dito
na, dito na." It should be emphasized that [AAA] testified that she was
familiar with Jomar' s voice because she knew him and the other appellants
since childhood. [AAA] used to invite these appellants in their house
whenever there were occasions and sometimes in going to videoke. Hence,
this Court agrees with the findings of the court a quo as regards [AAA]' s
positive identification of Jomar, through his voice, as one of the persons
who raped her. The court a quo said in this wise:
[AAA] testified, in a manner that is clear, candid and

with unmistakable certainty, that at the time, date and place
of the incident, by means of force and intimidation and while
she is unconscious and deprived of reason, the accused took
part in sexually molesting her. During the Court hearing on
January 22, 2007, the victim pointed to each of the accused
being tried in the persons of Motil, Sisracon, Padua, Cortez
and Valderama (Mark) as the ravishers. Yet all of these
accused on trial could not ascribe any ill motive on the part
of [AAA] that might have implied her to institute the present
action.
[AAA] was detailed in her narration and remained

consistent even on rigid cross-examination. She testified on
all incidents that transpired from the beginning until the end
of her ordeal. That was, from the time when she was made
to' go with the group of the accused to the apartment up to
the time when she was eventually rescued by her brother
[BBB] and the barangay tanods. A candid and honest
narration by the victim of how she was abused must be given
full faith and credit for they contain earmarks of credibility.
When the testimony of the victim is simple and
straightforward, the same must be given full faith and credit.
The determination of the outcome of every rape case, hinges
upon the credibility of the complainant's testimony. 8
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that questions
on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court
because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable
evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is
denied to the appellate courts. 9 The trial judge has the advantage of actually
examining both real and testimonial evidence including the demeanor of the
witnesses. Hence, the judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and
findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal. In the absence of any
substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and
conclusion, as when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have
been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the
9
Rollo, pp. 24-25. (Citations omitted)
People v. Nieto, 571 Phil. 220, 233 (2008).
tf
former's findings. 10 The rule is even more stringently applied if the appellate
court has concurred with the trial court. 11
As to the finding that appellants conspired in the commission of the

crime, AAA' s testimony on the incidents before, during and after the
felonious act, 1s unambiguous, thus:
Q: After [you] drunk it, what did you do or say, if any?

A: I saw the clock and I noticed that it was almost 11 :30 in the evening so I
told them that I have to go home because my mother will get angry, ma'am.
Q: And what did they say?

A: They told me "no" and to stay for a little while because they would still
buy another bottle ofliquor, ma'am.
Q: Who said that you cannot go home?

A: Jomar,ma'am.
Q: After that, what happened?

A: Then I told them that I have to leave then Pita approached me. and told
me "let us go home," ma'am.
Q: And what happened after that?

A: After 'that, they did not allow us to go home but Pita insisted to go
outside, ma'am.
xx xx
Q: Why was he able to leave?

A: Kasi po binatok-batukan fang po sya doon sa loob ng apartment ng mga
kabarkada niya at kinakawawa fang po siya doon, ma 'am.
Q: Who allowed Pita to leave?

A: None, ma'am, he insisted to go out.
Q: And what about you, what happened to you?

A: I could not leave the apartment because they [were] blocking my way,
ma'am.
Q: And who was blocking your way?

A: Jomar, ma'am.
Q: Aside from Jomar who else was blocking your way?

A: The one who was at the door, ma'am.
Q: And who was at the door?

A: Dondon, ma'am.
Q: While this was happening, what about the others, what were they doing?
A: They were talking to each other, ma'am.
10
II
People v. Dominguez, Jr., 650 Phil. 492, 520 (20 I 0).
People v. Barcela, 734 Phil. 332, 343 (2014).
t1'
Q: So what happened after they blocked your way out of the door?
A: I returned to the place where I was seated. 12
Q: Ms. Witness, you mentioned last January 22, 2007 hearing that when
you were about to leave the apartment, your way was blocked by Jomar
Sisracon and a certain Ronron (sic), what is the real name of this Ronron
(sic)?
A: Adonis Motil, ma' am.
Q: After your way was blocked by these persons, what did you do?
A: I returned to the place where I was seated.
PROS. GONZALES
May we request that the answer of the witness be quoted on record?
A: Natatakot po kasi ako, kasi po bago pa po kami mag-inuman nung first

time po, nagbanta na po sila na babanatan nila ang kuya ko, ma 'am.
Q: After you returned to your seat, what happened, Miss Witness?

A: I just sat down and then they conversed with each other.
Q: While conversing, what happened?

A: They started making the "tagay" of the second bottle, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After your dizziness and your vision was quite blurred, could you recall
what happened next?
A: When my eyes were closed, I felt that somebody was carrying me,
ma'am.
Q: Do you know who was that somebody who was carrying you?
A: Yes, ma' am.
Q: Who?
A: Jomar Sisracon, ma' am.
Q: How did you know that the person carrying you is Jomar Sisracon?
A: Because he was uttering "dito na, dito na," ma'am.
Q: You mentioned that from your seat Jomar Sisracon carried you, in what
place did Jomar Sisracon carry you?
A: I felt that he placed me on a papag because the bed is hard, ma'am.
Q: After 'Jomar Sisracon placed you [on] the said papag, what happened
next?
A: Jomar was lowering my shorts, ma'am.
ATTY. GUANZON:
· May we make it of record that the witness is in tears.
ATTY. VICTORIA:
Q: When Jomar [was] lowering your shorts, what were you doing at that
time? tJi
12
TSN, January 22, 2007, pp. 24-26.
A: I tried to raise my shorts up, ma'am.
Q: Did you succeed in pulling up your shorts?

A: No, ma'am, because I was very weak during that time that is why I was
not able to raise up my shorts.
Q: After Jomar lowered your shorts, Miss Witness, what happened next?
A: He went on top of me then he tried to insert his penis, ma' am.
Q: Where?
A: Inside my vagina, ma' am.
Q: Did he succeed in inserting his penis?

A: Yes, ma'am, because I felt pain.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You mentioned that you felt pain?

A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: After that, what happened next?

A: He left and shouted "sino ang susunod?", ma'am.
Q: Who uttered those words "sino and susunod?"

A: Jomar Sisracon, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After Jomar Sisracon shouted "sino ang susunod?"

A: Somebody followed him, ma' am.
Q: This somebody, do you know who is this person next to Jomar?

A: No, ma'am.
Q: What ~id this person do to you?

A: He also went on top of me, ma'am.
Q: And when he went on top of you, what happened next?

A: He was heavy and he was also inserting his penis inside my vagina,
ma'am.
Q: Did he succeed in inserting his penis into your vagina?

A: I do not know because I already lost consciousness, ma'am.
Q: Were you able to identify the second person?

A: What I know is that he is heavier than Jomar, ma'am.
Q: You mentioned a while ago that you lost your consciousness, where did
you regain your consciousness?
A: When somebody was dressing me up I remember that somebody was
shouting "si BBB, si BBB andyan na," ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Do yoll recall what happened next when you were lying on the papa~
A: As if there was a commotion because I heard footsteps, ma'am. U'
Q: After hearing those footsteps and the commotion, do you still recall what
happened?
A: When I was lying on the papag, I felt that somebody was dressing me
up, ma'am.
Q: Do you know that somebody who was dressing you up?

A: No, m~'am. 13
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when

two or .more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to
commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or
after the commission of the crime which, when taken together, would be
enough to reveal a community of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy
is frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances. 14 It is apparent,
therefore, that conspiracy attended the commission of the crime and the CA
did not err finding such, thus:
Third, the commission of the crime of rape was accomplished by

appellants, in conspiracy with each other. The testimony of [AAA] reveals
that appellants conspired with one another in raping her. All of the
appellants acted in concert to achieve a common goal which was to have
carnal knowledge with [AAA]. In the instant case, Roberto invited [AAA]
to a drinking spree with the other appellants with the common plan of
intoxicating her with liquor until she was helpless to resist their desires and
satisfy their lust. While they were at the apartment, appellants prevented
[AAA] from leaving when appellants Jomar and Adonis blocked her way
out of the apartment while John guarded the door. Also, the appellants
threatened her brother with harm if she refused to stay. Thus, [AAA] was
forced to stay and take another shot of liquor given by Jomar which made
her dizzy and her vision blurry. It was at this point that appellants took
advantage of her intoxication and helplessness by taking her to a room with
the purpose ofraping her. Despite her weakness due to intoxication, [AAA]
tried to resist by pulling her shorts back up to no avail.
Conspiracy is also apparent, when Jomar was finished having carnal

knowledge with [AAA] and he told the others "Sino ang susunod?"
Moreover, when Randy saw [AAA] outside the apartment he went inside
and closed the door. He acted as a lookout for any outside intrusion. [AAA],
in fact testified that she heard someone saying "Si [BBB], si [BBB] andyan
na" referring to the complainant's brother and warning the others that
[BBB] is coming. x x x
xx xx
More, when [BBB] went inside the apartment he saw accused Ranil
and Rex fixing their clothes and hurriedly coming out of a room. When
[BBB] entered the room, he smelled liquor and he saw Luis fixing his shorts
which signify that they participated in raping [AAA]. Moreover, appellants
appear to have consented in all the acts of their co-accused taking turns in
13
TSN, March 8, 2007, pp. 3-10.
14
People v. Evangelia, 672 Phil. 229, 246 (2011), citing Co v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,
549 Phil. 783, 805 (2007).
/
raping [AAA] considering none of them prevented the commission of the

crime, but rather participated in aiding one another in their dastardly acts. 15
Appellants' contention that conspiracy was not proven because AAA

failed to identify the exact persons who raped her because she was rendered
unconscious is untenable. While it is true that there was no direct evidence to
establish that some of the appellants had carnal knowledge of AAA as the
latter was unconscious, however, proof of the commission of the crime need
not always be by direct evidence, for circumstantial evidence could also
sufficiently and competently establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 16
Indeed, the Court had affirmed convictions for rape based on circumstantial
evidence. 17
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if ( 1) there is more

than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 18 A judgment of conviction based on
circumstantial ·evidence can be sustained when the circumstances proved form
an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. 19 Again, based
on AAA's testimony, the summation of the circumstances that led to the
commission of the crime prove beyond reasonable doubt that some of the
appellants raped her and that all of them conspired in the commission of the
said crime. Furthermore, positive identification need not only mean the
identification by the use of the visual sense. It also includes other human
senses with which one could perceive. 20 In this case, AAA, was able to
positively identify appellant Jomar as the first person who raped her by
recognizing the latter's voice.
However, based on the testimony of AAA, that she recognized

appellant Jomar as the first person who raped her followed by another person
of heavier built before she passed out, it is more appropriate to convict the
appellants with just two (2) instead of nine (9) counts of rape as earlier ruled
by the RTC ~d affirmed by the CA. Those two instances of rape have been
proven beyond reasonable doubt as gleaned from AAA' s clear testimony in
court, as well as in her sworn testimony before the PNP, thus:
Pasubali: Matapos mo malaman at mabatid ang iyong mga

karapatan ayon sa ating saligang batas, ikaw ba ay nakahanda pa ring
magbigay ng iyong sinumpaang salaysay?
15 Rollo, pp. 26-27.

16
People v. Be/gar, 742 Phil. 404, 415 (2014).
17 Id., citing People v. Tabarangao, 363 Phil. 248, 261 (1999); People v. Abiera, G.R. No. 93947, May
21, 1993, 222 SCRA 378, 384; People v. Ulili, G.R. No. 103403, August 24, 1993, 225 SCRA 594, 606;
People v. Santiago, 274 Phil. 847, 859 (1991).
18
Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 4.
19
People v. Evangelia, et al., supra note 14, at 243, citing Diega v. Court ofAppeals, 629 Phil. 385,
396 (2010). //]'
20
People v. Bueza, 266 Phil. 752, 757 (1990). (;/ ,
Sagot: Opo, nakahanda po.
01 Tanong; Anong iyong pangalan, edad, hanapbuhay, tirahan at iba

pang bagay tungkol sa iyong pagkatao?
Sagot: AAA, 15 taong gulang, 3rd year high school student ng xxx
at kasalukuyang nakatira sa xxx.
02. T: Ano ang dahilan at naririto ka sa loob ng silid siyasatan ng

pulisya ng xxx, Rizal at nagbigay ng iyong slaysay?
S:, Dahil gusto ko po ireklamo itong aking mga kaibigan dahil sa
kanilang ginawang pagsasamantala sakin.
03. T: Saan at kalian nangyari itong sinasabi mong pagsasamantala

sa iyo?
. S: Doon po sa isang bakanteng bahay doon sa xxx, Rizal nitong
petsa 29 ng Pebrero 2004 bago mag-alas 12:00 ng gabi.
04. T: Maari mo bang isalaysay sa akin kung paano ka

pinagsamantalahan ng sinasabi mong mga kaibigan mo?
S: Opo, noong mga bandang mag-aalas 11:00 ng gabi ako pauwi na
sa amin ng madaanan ko itong aking mga kaibigan na sina JOMAR
SISRACON y Rupisan, MARK ANTHONY VALDERAMA y Rupisan,
ROBERTO CORTEZ y Badilla, LUIS BADUA y Mitra, ROMMEL
MARIANO y Angeles, JOHN ANDREW VALDERA y Rupisan, ADONIS
MOTIL y Guladrina, REX DANDAN at RAMIL CAMAYMA YAN at isa
pang nagngangalang alias ITOY. At ako nga ay kanilang tinawag at
kinausap tungkol sa aming samahan. At ako ay kanilang niyayang uminom
subalit ako ay tumanggi. At ako nga ay kanilang hinarang at ayaw nila
akong pauwiin. At ako nga ay napilitan sa kanila na sumama at sinabi ko sa
kanila na hanggang 11 :30 lang ako ng gabi dahil ako ay pagagalitan sa
amin. At pagdating namin doon sa sinasabing apartment kung saan walang
nakatira, ako ay niyaya nilang uminom at ako nga ay tumanggi subalit sinabi
nila sa akin na kung hindi daw ako iinom ay kanilang babanatan ang kuya.
Kaya ako ay natakot at napilitan ding uminom at sinabi ko sa kanila na
hanggang sa isang bote lang ako. At ng maubos na namin iyong isang bote
ay nagpaalam na akong uuwi subalit ayaw nila akong pauwiin at sila ay nag-
ambag ambagan pa ng pera at muling bumili ng isa pang bote ng alak. At
ayaw ko ng uminom at nagpapaalam na ako subalit ayaw nga nila at sinasabi
nga nila sa akin na hindi daw sila kaya ng aking kuya at kanilang paulit ulit
na sinasabi na babanatan daw ang aking kuya. At ako ay pilit nilang
pinainom pa at nang ako ay maka-dalawang tagay pa ay nakaramdam na
ako ng pagkahilo at nagdilim na ang aking paningin. At naramdaman ko na
lang na ako ay binubuhat na papasok doon sa isang kuwarto at ako ay
inihiga sa isang papag. At naramdaman ko din na habang ako ay
nakahiga na ay may naghuhubad sa aking suot na short at nabobosesan
ko ito na si Jomar Sisracon at pilit ko ngang itinataas ang aking short
subalit binaba ito ni Jomar. At wala na nga akong magawa dahil
nahihilo na nga ako. At naramdaman ko na lang na pinatungan na ako
nitong si,Jomar at pilit na ipinapasok ang kaniyang ari sa aking ari at
ako nga ay nanlaban subalit wala na akong magawa dahil na rin sa ako
ay nahihilo na. At naramdaman ko na lang na naipasok din niya ang
kanyang pagkalalaki sa aking ari. At nang siya ay makatayo na ay
narinig ko na nagsalita na siya ng kung sino daw ang susunod. At
pagkatapos niyang sabihin niya iyon ay may naramdaman na lang
akong may pumasok na namang isang lalaki na mas malaki dito kay
(//
Jomar at ako ay kanyang pinatungan at nagawa ngang maipasok ang

kanyang ari sa aking pagkababae. At wala na nga akong magawa pa at
habang siya ay nakapatong sa akin ay nawalan na ako ng malay.
05. T: Mayroon ka bang narinig sa kanila habang .ikaw ay

pinagsasamantalahan nitong taong iyong tinutukoy?
S: Naririnig ko na lang po sa kanila habang ako nga ay nakahiga ang
mga salitang sino ang susunod sabay tawanan sila ng tawanan.
06. T: Hang ulit mo bang narinig iyang salitang iyong sinasabi na

kung sino ang susunod?
S: Bali isang beses lang po.
07. T: Matapos ka ngang patungan nitong pangalawang lalaking

iyong sinasabi ano pa ang nangyari?
S: Nawalan na po ako ng malay noong nakapatong po sa akin tong
sinasabi kong pangalawang lalaki na pumatong sa akin.
08. T: Nakilala mo ba itong sinasabi mong pangalawang lalaki na

pumatong at gumamit sa iyo?
S: Hindi ko na po siya nakilala pero napansin ko na mas matangkad
siya doon kay Jomar na aking nakilala na unang gumamit sa akin.
09. T: Paano ka nagkamalay?

S: Naramdaman ko na lang na may nagsasalita na ito daw aking
kuya ay nandiyan na at naramdaman ko na lang na parang nagtakbuhan na
sila.
10. T: Noong matapos ninyong maubos iyong isang boteng alak na

inyong nainom napag-alaman mo ba kung anong oras na iyon?
S: Ang alam ko po bago mag alas 12:00 ng gabi ay naubos na namin
iyong isang bote ng alak at doon nga ako nagpaalam subalit ako ay kanilang
pinigilan.
11. T: Anong klaseng alak ba itong sinasabi mong pinainom sa iyo?

S: Long neck na Emperador Brandy.
12. T: Ano ba ang naramdaman mo ming dadatnan ka ng iyong

kuya?
S: Wala ria po, talagang hindi na kaya ng katawan ko, hinang-hina
na ako.
13. T: Pansamantala ay wala akong itatanong sa iyo mayroon ka pa

bang gustong idagdag o ibawas sa salaysay mong ito?
S: Wala na po. 21
Needles·s to say, the other seven counts of rape have not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the medico-legal officer also cast
doubt as to the possibility that the victim was raped nine times. His testimony
reads as follows:
21
17
Records, pp. 17-18.
Q: What kind of examination have you conducted on this person,

Mr. Witness?
A: We have conducted a physical and genital examination, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that you conducted the physical

examination, what was the result of the said physical examination?
A: The physical examination alone shows injury on the left breast,
and let me read from the report, "ecchymosis, left breast measuring 0.5 cm.
x 0.05 cm. From the anterior midline, ma'am.
Q: What do you mean by the word "ecchymosis?"

A: It means type of injury akin to the sanctioned injury as identified
by other agency, ma'am.
Q: In layman's term?
A: Kissmark, ma'am.
Q: How about the genital examination you conducted, what is the

result of the said examination?
A: For the genital, we have pubic hair, moderate, labia majora are
full, convex, coaptated and erythematous. Labia minora, pinkish, brown,
congested. Hymen shallow healing lacerations at 7 and 8 o'clock positions.
The posterior fourchette, abraded. The external vaginal orifice offers strong
resistance of the examining index finger. The rest of the organs were not
examined because it would no longer permit further examination, ma' am.
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned on the portion of the hymen, shallow

healing laceration at 7 and 8 o'clock positions, could you please explain this
finding in layman's term?
A: That shallow healing laceration at 7 and 8 o'clock positions
would mean injury at the hymen and the position, that would refer to the
face of the clock when we view in front, which means the injury would be
at the posterior part and right side of the hymen, sir.
Q: This 7 to 8 injury?
A: In the clock, 7 and 8 o'clock would refer to the position of the
clock, the hymenal is the face.
Q: This laceration at 7 and 8 o'clock positions, what is the

significance of these positions?
A: It would mean that there was a forcible entry, perhaps a blunt
object, passed thru this hymenal orifice. In the process of stretching this
hymenal orifice, the point of resistance gave way and produced this
laceration, sir.
Q: In short, there is a forcible entry on the hymen of the victim?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: On the posterior fourchette, what do you mean by that?

A: It is the back part of the vestibule, it is intersection of the labia
minora. This would be equivalent with the floor of the vestibule or front
part of the vagina, sir.
ti
Q: What is this abraded?

A: It is also sustained injury due to the passage of a blunt object,
ma'am.
Q: Meaning, the passage is with force also?

A: Yes, ma' am.
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned here in your conclusion the subject

is in non-virgin state physically, and the rest, can you please explain the
conclusion indicated in this medico-legal report?
A: The conclusion reads, subject is in non-virgin state physically.
Findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity. Barring unforeseen
complication, it is estimated that the above injuries will resolve within 1
(sic) (1) to two (2) days. Although at the present time we no longer use the
word virgin or non-virgin. The report was made on March 8, 2004 and the
protocol still use this term non-virgin which would only mean that the
hymen has already been lacerated. So it is no longer intact. That is the
meaning of non-virgin, wherein this injury in the hymen based on the
second statement is compatible with recent loss of virginity and the third
statement would refer to the injury sustained by the left breast that will
resolve within 1 (sic) (1) to two (2) days, ma'am.
Q: Based on your findings, both on the genital and extragenital,

could you make a conclusion or opinion that the victim was a victim of
rape?
A: Because rape is a question which I believe could have been
resolved by the Court and rape has two (2) general elements of which is, as
alleged by the disclosure of the victim, which is loss of consent and the other
would be the presence of sexual intercourse, I can confirm to this Court that
~here was penetration of the vagina, ma'am.
Q: How about the item here on the physical injuries, and you
mentioned here, strong resistance?
A: That was the strong resistance of the vaginal musculature of the
victim during my examination, this also did not permit me to go further in
the vaginal wall, ma'am. 22
The above findings of the medico-legal officer is merely an affirmation

that there was penetration on AAA's vagina but is inconclusive as to the
number of times or number of persons that caused such penetration. On the
basis of the medico-legal officer's findings, one can even surmise that the
victim should have incurred far greater injuries if she had been raped nine
times in a span of a little more than one hour. As such, there is the existence
of doubt on the other seven counts of rape charged against the appellants.
Nevertheless, due to the aforementioned, appellants' defense of denial

is inconsequential. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and must be
brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained
the identity of the accused. 23 And as often stressed, a categorical and positive
identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of
22
23
TSN, March 17, 2005, pp. 4-7.
People v. Barberan, G.R. No. 208759, June 22, 2016, 794 SCRA 348, 360.
rJY
the witness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial, which is a negative
and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 24
It is indisputable and proven in court that the appellants, except

appellant Roberto, are all minors when the crime was committed. Jomar was
then 17 years and 4 months old, Mark was 17 years and 10 months old, Adonis
was 15 years and 11 months old, and Luis was 16 years and 11 months old.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 provides:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen

( 15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to
an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of
i;tge shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which
case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not

include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.
According to the above provision, the minor appellants herein, all

above 15 but below 18 years of age, shall only be exempt from criminal
liability if they did not act with discernment. In Madali, et al. v. People, 25 this
Court held that 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. In this particular case, the
prosecution was able to prove the presence of discernment. As ruled by the
RTC:
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand between right and

wrong. It would be recalled from the testimony of victim [AAA] that the
accused being tried in Court took steps in guarding the premises to ensure
that she is prevented from leaving the apartment. Victim [AAA] was unable
to leave the apartment because they blocked her way. The group even
threatened to harm the brother of the victim if she persists on leaving the
place. Furthermore, when the brother of the victim discovered the beastly
act committed upon his sister and in a shouting manner questioned them as
to why they raped his sister, they ran away. Which acts are clearly
indicative that they were aware that what they've done is wrong. Therefore,
the close participation of the accused that led to the consummation of t h ?
24
Peoplev. Alberto FortunaAlberca, G.R. No. 217459, June 7, 2017.
25
612 Phil. 582, 606 (2009).
evil designs undoubtedly supports the belief that they acted with
discernment. 26
The CA, as well, aptly ruled that the minors in this case acted with
discernment, thus:
Moreover, in the instant case, We rule that the appellants committed

the crime of rape with discernment taking into consideration the following
circumstances, namely: 1. appellants took advantage of [AAA]'s
helplessness when she was intoxicated resulting to her unconsciousness; 2.
appellants prevented her from going home when appellants Jomar and
Adonis blocked her way out of the apartment while John guarded the door;
3. Randy acted as lookout to warn his co-accused of any intrusion as would
prevent the commission of the crime; and 4. appellants are fully aware that
the crime they were about to commit is rape, which is a heinous crime. All
these circumstances point to a conclusion that the appellants were all aware
that they were committing a wrongful act.
In determining if such a minor acted with discernment, the High

Court's pronouncement in Valentin v. Duquena is instructive:
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the

exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen
years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited
by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong, and 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, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before
and during the commission of the act, but also after and even
during the trial. 27
The CA, therefore, did not err modifying the penalties imposable on the
same minor appellants. As ruled by the CA:
Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of the RPC, when the offender is over 15

and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
law is imposed. Based on Article 61 (2) of the RPC, reclusion temporal is
the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law and Article 64 of the RPC, therefore, the range
of the penalty of imprisonment imposable on appellants Jomar, Mark,
Adonis, and Luis should be prision mayor in any of its periods, as the
minimum period, to reclusion temporal in its medium period, as the
maximum period. Accordingly, the proper indeterminate penalty that
should be imposed upon the herein minor appellants should range from six
tfY
(6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the minimum period, to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day ofreclusion temporal,
as the maximum period.
26
CA rollo, p. 64. (Citations omitted)
27
Rollo, p. 33.
Anent the aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the

crime, We agree with the findings of the court a quo when it ruled that:
Anent the qualifying circumstance stated in each

information of two or more persons that committed the
offense - in the case of People v. Lamberte, G.R. No. L-
65153, July 11, 1986, it was held that the "use of deadly
weapon" or "by two or more persons" - qualifies the crime.
In this regard the aggravating circumstances

mentioned in the Informations, the Court appreciates the
presence of nighttime, as strong indications show that the
accused specifically sought it to facilitate the commission of
the crime. Abuse of superior strength is not to be considered
as an aggravating circumstance in view of the existence of
conspiracy, thus the same is deemed inherent. 28
It is error, however, for the RTC and the CA to not have applied Section
38 of R.A. 9344. Section 38 of RA No. 9344 provides that when the child
below 18 years of age who committed a crime and was found guilty, the court
shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence even if
such child has reached 18 years or more at the time of judgment. Thus:
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Senterzce. - Once the child who

is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction,
the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, That suspension
of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18)
years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various

circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles
in Conflict with the Law.
The applicability of the above provision has already been thoroughly

discussed by this Court in People v. Ancajas, et al., 29 thus:
In People v. Sarcia, we ruled on the appl~cability of Section 38, RA

No. 8344 even ifthe minor therein was convicted ofreclusion perpetua and
we ratiocinated as follows:
The above-quoted (Section 38 of RA No. 9344)

provision makes no distinction as to the nature of the offense
committed by the child in conflict with the law, unlike P.D.
No. 603 and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. The said P.D. and
28
29
Id. at 41-42.
772 Phil. 166 (2015).
tJI
Supreme Court (SC) Rule provide that the benefit of

stispended sentence would not apply to a child in conflict
with the law if, among others, he/she has been convicted of
an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. In construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the
Court is guided by the basic principle of statutory
construction that when the law does not distinguish, we
should not distinguish. Since R.A. No. 9344 does not
distinguish between a minor who has been convicted of a
capital offense and another who has been convicted of a
lesser offense, the Court should also not distinguish and
should apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child
in conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a
heinous crime.
Moreover, the legislative intent, to apply to heinous crimes the

automatic suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law can be
gleaned from the Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 1402 {Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2005), the pertinent portion of
which is quoted below:
If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below 18

years old is charged, accused with, or may have committed
a serious offense, and may have acted with discernment, then
the child could be recommended by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), by the Local
Council for the Protection of Children (LCPC), or by my
proposed Office of Juvenile Welfare and Restoration to go
through a judicial proceeding; but the welfare, best interests,
and restoration of the child should still be a primordial or
primary consideration. Even in heinous crimes, the intention
should still be the child's restoration, rehabilitation and
reintegration. x x x
In fact, the Court En Banc promulgated on November 24, 2009, the

Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law, which echoed such
legislative intent.
Although suspension of sentence still applies even if the child in

conflict with the law is already 18 years of age or more at the time the
judgment of conviction was rendered, however, such suspension is only
until the minor reaches the maximum age of 21 as provided under Section
40 of RA No. 9344, to wit:
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 chi!~
accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or

to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or \llltil the child reaches the maximum age oftwenty-
one (21) years.
The RTC did not suspend the sentence of appellant Allain pursuant
to Section 38 of RA No. 9344. Appellant is now 34 years old, thus, Section
40 is also no longer applicable. Nonetheless, we have extended the
application of RA No. 9344 beyond the age of21 years old to give meaning
to the legislative intent of the said law.
In People v. Jacinto, we ruled:
These developments notwithstanding, we find that

the benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to
appellant. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the
child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years. Section 40 of the law and Section 48
of the Rule are clear on the matter. Unfortunately, appellant
is now twenty-five (25) years old.
Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative

intent of the Act, the promotion of the welfare of a child in
conflict with the law should extend even to one who has
exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as
he/she committed the crime when he/she was still a child.
The offen<ler shall be entitled to the right to restoration,
rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Act
in order that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life
and become a productive member of the community. The
age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the
promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material.
What matters is that the offender committed the offense
when he/she was still of tender age.
Thus, appellant may be confined in an agricultural

camp or any other training facility in accordance with Sec.
51 of Republic Act No. 9344.
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in

Agricultw:al 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 BUCOR, in
coordination with the DSWD.
Following the pronouncement in Sarcia, the case

shall be remanded to the court of origin to effect appellant's
confinement in an agricultural camp or other training
facility.
30
"'tJY
30
Id. at 187-190. (Citations omitted).
Necessarily, herein minor appellants shall be entitled to appropriate

disposition under Section 51, R.A. No. 9344, w~ich extends even to one who
has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he committed
the crime when he was still a child, and provides for the confinement of
convicted children. 31
As to the award of damages, the same must be modified in accordance

with People v. Jugueta. 32 Since the imposable penalty is death, due to the
presence of an aggravating circumstance, but due to R.A. No. 9346, the actual
penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity shall be
Pl00,000.00, moral damages shall be Pl00,000.00 and exemplary damages
shall be Pl00,000.00 for every information filed against appellants.
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark

Valderama y Rupisan, Roberto Cortez y Badilla, Luis Padua y Mitra and
Adonis Motil y Golondrina is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Consequently, the Decision dated August 12, 2015 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05986, affirming the Decision dated September 13,
2010 of the Regional Trial Court of x x x, Rizal, Branch 76, finding each
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Rape as defined and
penalized under Article 266-A and Article 266-B, par. 1, in relation to
Article 266-B, 2nd par. of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 8353 and in further relation to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8369,
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the same crime on two (2) counts only and that the same
appellants shall indemnify AAA the amount of Pl00,000.00 as civil
indemnity, P.100,000.00 as moral damages and P.100,000.00 as exemplary
damages per People v. Jugueta 33 for each count. Furthermore, this case is
REMANDED to the court of origin for its appropriate action in accordance
with Section 51 of Republic Act No. 9344.
SO ORDERED.
31
People, eta!. v. CA, eta!., 755 Phil. 80, 118-119(2015).
32
G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
33
Id.
WE CONCUR:
~
ANTONIO T. !~
Associate Justice
Chairperson
JAJI.~ On official business

ESTELA ~.)>ERLAS-BERNABE ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANDRE~fiEYES, JR.
Ass~ciflte Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
~I~
ANTONIO T. CA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY:
Chief Justice
MA~\~!~O
Second Divison

People vs. Sisracon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Sisracon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Sisracon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3aepublic of tbe ~bilippineS'

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 226494

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

This is to resolve the appeal of appellants Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, ·

The facts follow.

1. John Andrew Valderama alias "John John;"

Criminal Case No. 7693

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

circumstance of commission of the offense of more than two (2) persons,

Criminal Case No. 7694

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Criminal Case No. 7695

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Criminal Case No. 7696

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Criminal Case No. 7697

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Criminal Case No. 7698

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Criminal Case No. 7699

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Golondrina, 15 years old, John Andrew Valderama y Rupisan, 16 years old,

Criminal Case No. 7700

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Criminal Case No. 7701

That on or about the 29th day of February 2004, in the Municipality

Upon arraignment on October 14, 2004, with the assistance of counsel

After pr~-trial, the trial on the merits ensued.

Aside from the testimony of AAA, the prosecution presented the

Dr. Bernabe testified that on March 1, 2004, he conducted a physical

Crame to have AAA examined by a medico-legal officer. After going to Camp

CCC, a 'barangay tanod, corroborated some parts of the testimony of

On the other hand, in their testimonies, appellants Roberto, Adonis,

According to appellant Roberto, in the evening of February 29, 2004,

As testified by appellant Luis, on the evening of February 29, 2004, he

Appellant Jomar also testified that on March 1, 2004, he was arrested

Finally, according to appellant Mark, on February 29, 2004 before

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered,

1. In Criminal Case No. 7693, accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan,

2 .. In Criminal Case No. 7694, accused(s) Mark Valderama y

3. In Criminal Case No. 7695, accused(s) Roberto Cortez y Badilla,

Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages; and Fifty Thousand Pesos

4. In Criminal Case No. 7696, accused(s) Luis Padua y Mitra,

5. In Criminal Case No. 7697, accused(s) Adonis . Motil y

6. In Criminal Case No. 7698, accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan,

7. In Criminal Case No. 7699, accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan,

8. In Criminal Case No. 7700, accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan,

Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353 and in further relation of .Sec. 5 of

9. In Criminal Case No. 7701, accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan,

Accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan,

Accused(s) Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan, Mark Valderama y Rupisan,

In the meantime, let the cases against accused John Andrew

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated

ACCORDINGLY, appellants Roberto Cortez y Badilla is hereby

CA ro/lo, pp. 65-68. {111

Appellants are also hereby ordered to indemnify [AAA] the amount

Appellants are further ordered to pay [AAA] interest on all damages

Hence, the present appeal.

Appellants, in their Brief, assigns the following errors: