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 Summary (G.R. No. 252578)

Procedural History

  • Arraignment (Oct. 14, 2004): the five appellants pleaded not guilty. Four other accused remained at-large.
  • Trial court (RTC, Branch 76, Rizal) convicted the five appellants of nine counts of Qualified Rape (Sept. 13, 2010) and imposed reclusion perpetua and specified damages per count.
  • Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified penalties for the minor appellants to indeterminate terms (Aug. 12, 2015).
  • Supreme Court review resulted in the present decision affirming conviction with modification (Feb. 14, 2018).

Core Facts Established at Trial

  • AAA, then 15 and president of a youth group, met a group of youth near a basketball court and was invited to an apartment for a drinking spree. She agreed to stay only until 11:30 p.m. but was pressured to remain.
  • The group drank Emperador Brandy; AAA took shots and shortly thereafter experienced numbness, blurred vision and dizziness. She felt herself carried by a person whose voice she identified as Jomar; she was laid on a papag, had her shorts lowered and, while weak, was penetrated by Jomar. Jomar allegedly called, “Sino ang susunod?” and another heavier man then also assaulted her; AAA lost consciousness during the second assault.
  • BBB arrived, forced entry, saw AAA semi‑undressed; several men ran out of the room fixing their clothes. Barangay tanods later apprehended several suspects; AAA was examined at Camp Crame and a medico‑legal report was prepared.

Charges and Informations

  • Nine separate Informations (Crim. Nos. 7693–7701) charged multiple accused, including the appellants, with rape of a minor (AAA) on or about February 29, 2004, alleging use of force/intimidation, victim unconsciousness, commission by more than two persons, and aggravating circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and nighttime.

Trial Evidence — Prosecution

  • Victim AAA testified in detail and identified Jomar by voice; she recounted being intoxicated, restrained from leaving, threatened, carried to a room, and raped first by Jomar and then by another heavier male. She described efforts to resist and loss of consciousness. Her sworn police statement corroborated the court testimony.
  • Medico‑legal officer (Dr. Mamerto Bernabe) conducted physical and genital examination: noted ecchymosis (kiss mark) on left breast, shallow healing lacerations of the hymen at 7–8 o’clock, abrasions on the posterior fourchette, and findings compatible with recent loss of virginity and forcible entry. Dr. Bernabe confirmed penetration but could not specify number of penetrations or perpetrators.
  • BBB and a barangay tanod corroborated events surrounding BBB’s arrival, the scene of apparent disturbance, presence of men hurriedly fixing clothes, and subsequent apprehension of several suspects.

Trial Evidence — Defense

  • Appellants uniformly denied commission of the rapes. Their accounts described a drinking session, AAA’s presence, her going to sleep in a room, BBB’s arrival and disturbance, flight of some companions, and the appellants’ subsequent arrest. They denied that AAA was at the police station during their interrogation and maintained they did not commit the sexual assaults.

Legal Issues Raised on Appeal

  • Whether the trial court improperly credited AAA’s testimony and failed to properly weigh inconsistencies.
  • Whether the prosecution failed to overthrow the presumption of innocence.
  • Whether the aggravating circumstances (commission by two or more persons; nighttime) and conspiracy were proven.
  • Whether the minor appellants were entitled to mitigation (privileged mitigating circumstance of minority) and whether they acted with discernment.
  • Whether Section 38 and Section 51 of R.A. No. 9344 (juvenile justice statute) were properly applied.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Proof

  • Deference to trial court: The Supreme Court reiterated the well‑established rule that credibility determinations made by the trial court, which observed witnesses’ demeanor, are entitled to great weight on appeal; reversal is warranted only if the trial court’s evaluation was arbitrary or overlooked material facts. The Court found no such exceptional circumstances.
  • Victim’s testimony: AAA’s testimony was detailed, consistent with her prior sworn statement, and contained specific identifiers (recognition of Jomar’s voice and circumstances of restraint and intoxication). The Court held that her testimony, when credible and uncontradicted in material points, sufficed to establish rape.
  • Medico‑legal corroboration: Dr. Bernabe’s findings supported that penetration occurred and that forcible entry was probable; although the medico‑legal report did not establish nine separate penetrations, it corroborated the essential elements of rape (penetration and absence of consent).
  • Denial/alibi defense: The Court emphasized that denials and alibis are inherently weak; a categorical, positive identification by the victim, when not motivated by malice, prevails over mere denial unless the defense produces clear and convincing rebuttal evidence.

Conspiracy and Circumstantial Evidence

  • Proof of conspiracy: The Court found that conspiracy could be inferred from the surrounding facts—acts before, during and after the incident showed concerted behavior (preventing AAA from leaving, threats against BBB, serving additional liquor, use of a lookout, and coordinated flight when BBB arrived). The existence of a common plan and community of criminal design was supported by the victim’s narrative and corroborative circumstantial facts.
  • Circumstantial evidence doctrine: The Court applied the three‑pronged test for circumstantial evidence convictions: (1) multiple circumstances, (2) each fact proven, and (3) the combined circumstances produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The facts established an unbroken chain pointing to the accuseds’ involvement and conspiracy.

Determination of Number of Proven Rape Counts

  • While the prosecution charged nine counts, the Supreme Court concluded that only two separate instances of rape were proven beyond reasonable doubt: the first by Jomar (identified by voice) and a subsequent assault by another heavier male before the victim lost consciousness. The medico‑legal findings did not sustain nine penetrations; thus seven counts lacked sufficient proof and were dismissed as unproven beyond reasonable doubt.

Minors, Discernment, and Applicable Juvenile Law

  • Ages at time of offense: Jomar (17 years, 4 months), Mark (17 years, 10 months), Adonis (15 years, 11 months), Luis (16 years, 11 months). All except Roberto were minors at the time of the offense.
  • Discernment analysis: Under R.A. No. 9344, minors over 15 and under 18 are exempt from criminal liability unless they acted with discernment. The Court concluded the minors acted with discernment, considering the collective and purposeful acts (e.g., blocking exit, threats, lookout role, intoxication strategy) showing awareness of wrongdoing. Consequently, the minors were not exempt from criminal liability.
  • Impact on penalty: Pursuant to Article 68(2) RPC and related provisions, the Court adjusted the penalty for minors to the next lower penalty than reclusion perpetua — resulting in indeterminate sentences with a minimum of six years and one day (prision mayor) to a maximum of 14 years, eight months and one day (reclusion temporal) for each proven count.

Application of R.A. No. 9344 Sections 38 and 51 (Suspension and Disposition)

  • Section 38 (automatic suspension of sentence): The Supreme Court recognized that where the offender was under 18 at the time of the offense and found guilty, the court must place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence and impose appropriate disposition measures under the Rules on Children in Conflict with the Law. The Court found that the trial court and CA erred in not applying Section 38 and remanded the case for action consistent with R.A. No. 9344.
  • Section 51 (alternative confinement): The Court ordered remand to the trial court to determine appropriate disposition, including confinement in agricultural camps or training facilities under Section 51 for convicted children, noting that benefits of disposition may extend to those older than 21 insofar as the offense was committed while they were children.

Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty Implications

  • Nighttime and commission by more than two persons: The Court agreed that nighttime and commission by two or more persons were properly recognized as aggravating circumstances. Abuse of superior strength was treated as inherent in the existence of conspiracy and thus not separately considered an aggravating factor.
  • Death penalty abolished: Because R.A. No. 9346 abolished the death penalty, where the aggravating circumstances would otherwise permit death, reclusion perpetua is the applicable extreme penalty for an adult convict. The Court applied statutory penalty adjustment

    ...continue reading

    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.

    About Privacy Terms