Case Summary (G.R. No. 208146)
Factual Background
On March 12, 2012, around 8:00 PM, the victims, identified as BBB, CCC, and their grandchildren, were at home when the perpetrators entered their dwelling. The house help, known as Gina, had left the gate open, allowing Cordial and his co-accused to enter. Armed with firearms and knives, they restrained BBB and CCC while committing theft of valuable items, including jewelry, electronics, and cash.
Judicial Proceedings
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Following the trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cordial guilty of robbery with rape, reasoning that although only Eva committed the rape, Cordial's participation constituted complicity because he could have prevented the assault. Irinco and Apilyedo were convicted for robbery only, as there was insufficient evidence that they were aware of any rape occurring.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC imposed a penalty of reclusion perpetua on Cordial for robbery with rape, along with substantial monetary damages for the victims. Conversely, Irinco and Apilyedo received shorter sentences for simple robbery only.
Appeal and Court of Appeals Ruling
Cordial appealed the RTC decision, arguing various inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of evidence for conspiracy regarding the rape charge. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently upheld the RTC's conviction but modified the penalties, emphasizing the complexities surrounding the robbery and sexual assault committed during the incident.
Legal Principles Addressed
The appellate court reiterated that minor inconsistencies in testimonies do not automatically discredit witnesses, particularly in traumatic cases. The crime of robbery requires proof of intent to gain, unlawful taking, and violence or intimidation, all of which were established in this case. The court also clarified the nuances of conspiracy, highlighting that all conspirators are liable for acts committed in furtherance of their shared objective unless they take steps to prevent the crime.
Conspiracy and Criminal Liability
The CA asserted that under Philippine law, when conspiracy is established, individuals are held equally accountable for all crimes committed during the execution of that conspiracy. Therefore, Cordial's failure to act against the sexual assault while aiding in the robbery rendered him equally culpable for the rape.
Separation of Crimes
While the court acknowledged the gravity of Cordial's participation, it determined he should be held accountable for both robbery and sexual assault rather than being convicted of the complex crime of robbery with rape. Historical context around the definitions of rape and sexual assault underscored the distinction necessary for charges of this nature, emphasizing that the original legislative intent did not encompa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208146)
Facts of the Case
- On or about March 12, 2012, in Mandaluyong City, Philippines, accused Jay Cordial y Brez (Cordial), together with Jimmy Irinco y Lagitan (Irinco), Victor Eva Jr. y Corcoto (Eva), Marvin Apilyedo y Vililia (Apilyedo), and Jane Doe aka "Gina," were charged with robbery with rape.
- The accused allegedly conspired to unlawfully enter the dwelling of victims, forcibly took personal property valued at approximately Php 300,000, including a gold wedding ring, laptops, cellphones, cash, and other valuables.
- During the robbery, Victor Eva Jr. sexually assaulted AAA, inserting fingers into her vagina; Cordial simultaneously tied AAA’s hands and repeatedly mashed her breasts against her will.
- The robbery occurred while victims and their grandchildren were inside the residence, with BBB and CCC restrained by the accused.
- Barangay tanods and police intervened around 9:00 p.m.; Cordial, Irinco, Apilyedo, and Eva were arrested, with Eva dying during the trial.
- The defense did not present evidence.
Lower Court Rulings
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213, in Crim. Case No. MC12-14308, found Cordial guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape on March 17, 2017.
- The RTC held Cordial liable for rape as he participated in sexual molestation and failed to prevent Eva’s assault on AAA.
- Irinco and Apilyedo were convicted only for robbery due to lack of evidence of their awareness of the rape.
- Aggravating circumstances of dwelling and commission by a band were recognized.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification on May 27, 2019, sentencing Cordial to reclusion perpetua with increased damages: Php 100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus 6% interest.
Accused-Appellant’s Arguments
- Cordial argued the prosecution’s evidence suffered from inconsistencies (time of robbery, entry method, who untied BBB, order of accused going upstairs).
- He claimed insufficient proof of conspiracy to rape, asserting his acts in tying AAA were intended to facilitate only robbery.
- Maintained that only Eva, the actual sexual assailant, should be convicted of robbery with rape; Cordial should not be held liable for rape.
Issue
- Whether accused Jay Cordial y Brez can be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Court’s Legal Analysis and Ruling
On Credibility and Minor Inconsistencies
- Minor inconsistencies in victim testimony, especially under traumatic circumstances, do not automatically discredit credibility.
- Inconsequential disparities regarding timelines or sequence of events do not negate the occurrence of robbery.
On Proof of Robbery
- The prosecution establ