G.R. No. 255389 - People vs. Carlo Diega y Zapico

Case Summary (G.R. No. 255389)

Factual Background

The complainant, anonymized as AAA pursuant to protective statutes, was a twelve-year-old minor on April 14, 2013. The prosecution alleged that AAA, while walking home after work, was accosted by Ismael who brought her to a store and introduced her to three companions including Carlo Diega y Zapico. The group drank liquor, led AAA to a riverbank and later to a vacant lot. AAA became dizzy, lay down, and then felt her garments removed. She testified that one person held her hands, another held her legs, someone spat on her vagina, and that Carlo went on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made pumping motions. AAA said the other three men thereafter took turns in having carnal knowledge of her while she cried and resisted. She later returned home the following morning and reported the incident to her parents, barangay officials, and the police.

Medical Examination and Evidence

Police Senior Inspector Ma. Felicidad Mercedes A. Aulida performed a physical and genital examination of AAA and produced Medico-Legal Report No. R-13-359 dated April 16, 2013. The report recorded anogenital findings that showed recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the genitalia and injuries consistent with penetration by an erected penis or an instrument with soft smooth edges. The examining officer stated that these findings were consistent with AAA’s account in the Sexual Crimes Protocol.

Trial Court Proceedings

The case against CARLO and three unnamed companions proceeded before the RTC in Criminal Case No. C-89752. CARLO pleaded not guilty and presented a defense of denial and alibi, asserting that he left the drinking spree at approximately 10:00 p.m., returned briefly, and slept at home prior to the commission of the alleged crime. The RTC heard the testimony of AAA, assessed the medical evidence, and credited the prosecution’s version. On April 16, 2018, the RTC found CARLO guilty of Rape, concluded that he conspired with three others, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua while adjudging him civilly liable to AAA for damages.

Contentions on Appeal to the Court of Appeals

CARLO appealed to the Court of Appeals challenging the credibility of AAA and reiterating his alibi. He argued inconsistency between his accuser’s initial Sinumpaang Salaysay and her in-court testimony, particularly regarding the sequence of perpetrators after him. The Office of the Solicitor General countered that AAA’s testimony was consistent in all material particulars and that CARLO’s proximity to the crime scene made his alibi implausible.

Court of Appeals Decision

On June 29, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the award of damages, increasing the amounts to Php100,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with six percent per annum interest from finality.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

CARLO sought review of the CA decision, principally contesting the credibility of AAA and renewing his defenses of denial and alibi. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the CA and RTC correctly evaluated the evidence, whether conspiracy was established, and whether CARLO should be held accountable for the rapes committed by his co-conspirators.

Credibility Assessment and Evidentiary Finding

The Supreme Court accorded substantial respect to the trial court’s and appellate court’s credibility determinations, noting that the trial judge observed the witness’s demeanor and had the best opportunity to evaluate veracity. The Court reproduced salient portions of AAA’s direct testimony in which she positively identified CARLO as the first person who forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, described resistance, the holding of her limbs, spitting on her genitalia, and the successive rapes by the other three men. The Court found this testimony consistent and supported by the medico-legal findings.

Conspiracy, Mode of Commission, and Liability for Co-conspirators

The Supreme Court reviewed established doctrine that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner of commission and that when a conspiracy is proven, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. Applying precedents including People v. Plurad, People v. Catubig, Jr., People v. Sabal, and People v. Rondina, the Court concluded that the manner in which AAA was restrained and raped in succession evidenced a common purpose and coordinated execution. Consequently, CARLO was held liable not only for the rape he personally committed but also for the three subsequent rapes perpetrated by his co-conspirators.

Treatment of Alibi and Denial Defenses

The Supreme Court reiterated that uncorroborated denial and alibi are self-serving and inadequate to overcome positive prosecution testimony absent clear, convincing, and corroborative proof of impossibility of presence at the scene. The Court observed that CARLO failed to offer evidence establishing his presence elsewhere or physical impossibility of attending the crime, and that the short distance between his home and the crime scene undermined his alibi.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision with modifications. The Court found CARLO guilty of four counts of Simple Rape and imposed the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count. The Court directed that CARLO be held solidarily liable to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, with legal interest at six percent per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The conviction rested on the elements of Rape under Article 266-A — carnal knowledge accomplished through force — and on Article 266-D which allows any physical overt act manifesting resistance as evidence. The Court applied the principle that force need not be irresistible and that resistance may be shown by any physical act. It applied conspiracy doctrine to attribute successive rapes to all participants, relying on contr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 255389)

Parties and Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the case for Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code against Carlo Diega y Zapico and three unnamed companions designated as John Does.
Carlo Diega y Zapico pleaded not guilty at trial and appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11398.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision with modification on damages, and the matter reached the Supreme Court, First Division, in G.R. No. 255389.

Key Facts

On April 14, 2013, the minor victim AAA and her friend were intercepted by Ismael who introduced AAA to his companions including alias Obat, alias Kalbo, and Carlo Diega y Zapico.
The group drank liquor at a riverbank and later continued drinking at a vacant lot where AAA grew dizzy and drowsed off.
While AAA lay face-up, she testified that her pants and underwear were removed, her legs and hands were held by companions, someone spat on her vagina, and Carlo Diega y Zapico went on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina.
AAA testified that the other three men thereafter successively had carnal knowledge of her while she resisted and cried, and that she later awoke, reported the incident to her parents and authorities, and underwent medico-legal examination.

Evidence

The trial court received the victim’s oral testimony identifying Carlo Diega y Zapico and describing the sequence of events with demonstrative gestures in court.
The medico-legal report by PSI Aulida documented that the “anogenital findings show[ed] recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the genitalia.”
The prosecution presented the victim’s Sinumpaang Salaysay and contemporaneous reports to barangay and police authorities.
Carlo Diega y Zapico offered a denial and an alibi that he had gone home during the drinking session, but he did not present corroborative evidence to support the alibi.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court, Criminal Case No. C-89752, convicted Carlo Diega y Zapico of Rape on April 16, 2018 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated June 29, 2020, affirmed the conviction but increased the awards of damages to Php100,000.00 each.
The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and rendered judgment affirming with modifications and specifying convictions for four counts of Simple Rape.

Issues

Whether the testimony of AAA was credible and sufficient to establish the elements of Rape under Article 266-A.
Whether there was a conspiracy among the perpetrators that rendered Carlo Diega y Zapico criminally liable for the rapes committed by unidentified coconspirators.
Whether Carlo Diega y Zapico’s denial and alibi sufficiently rebutted the prosecution’s case.

Contentions

Carlo Diega y Zapico contended that AAA’s testimony was i