Title
People vs. Sisracon y Rupisan
Case
G.R. No. 226494
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2018
A 15-year-old minor was coerced into drinking, rendered unconscious, and raped by a group, including minors. The Supreme Court affirmed their conviction for Qualified Rape but modified penalties under juvenile justice laws, emphasizing rehabilitation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116437)

Facts:

  • Parties and background
    • Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
    • Accused-Appellants: Jomar Sisracon y Rupisan (17 y/o), Mark Valderama y Rupisan (17 y/o), Roberto Cortez y Badilla (adult), Luis Padua y Mitra (16 y/o), Adonis Motil y Golondrina (15 y/o), and four others at large.
    • Victim: “AAA,” a 15-year-old female and youth‐group president.
  • Commission of crime (Feb. 29, 2004)
    • AAA was invited by appellants to an apartment for a drinking spree. They insisted she stay, blocked her egress, and threatened her brother if she left.
    • She drank liquor until dizzy and semi‐unconscious. Jomar carried her to a “papag,” lowered her shorts and raped her, then called “Sino ang susunod?” A heavier unidentified man likewise raped her, after which she lost consciousness.
  • Discovery, identification, and charges
    • AAA’s brother (BBB) forcibly entered, found AAA half-dressed on the bed, and saw several appellants adjusting clothes. Barangay tanods arrested five of them.
    • Medico‐legal exam (Mar. 1, 2004): suction mark on left breast; shallow hymenal lacerations at 7-8 o’clock positions indicating forcible entry.
    • AAA and BBB identified five accused before the prosecutor. Nine Informations were filed for nine counts of qualified rape (RPC Arts. 266-A, 266-B, R.A. 8353, R.A. 8369), alleging force, victim unconsciousness, nighttime, treachery, premeditation, abuse of superior strength, and multiple offenders.

Issues:

  • Whether the trial court erred in fully crediting AAA’s testimony.
  • Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Whether the qualifying circumstances (“by two or more persons” and nighttime) were established.
  • Whether conspiracy among all appellants was proven.
  • Whether appellants below 18 are exempt from criminal liability or entitled to minority mitigation.
  • Proper penalties, application of indeterminate sentence law, and juvenile justice provisions (R.A. 9344, Secs. 6, 38, 51).

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.