Rosal Hubilla y Carillo vs.

People
G.R. No. 176102
November 26, 2014

BERSAMIN, J

Facts:

Rosal Hubille was only 17 year, 4 months and 2 days old when he killed Jayson
Espinola with a knife. He was charged with Homicide.

RTC
- convicted him of homicide and imposed the penalty of indeterminate sentence of
imprisonment of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight
years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

CA
– Rosal’s sentence was modified in that he was sentenced to six months and one day of
prision correctional as minimum, to six years and one day of prision mayor, as
maximum. The civil aspect was also modified.

On motion for reconsideration, the CA partially granted the appeal and imposed on him
the penalty of six months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA should have suspended Rosal’s sentence in accordance with RA
9344; that he is entitled to probation or suspension of sentence
Held:

Article 249 of the RPC prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for homicide. His
minority was a privileged mitigating circumstance that lowered the penalty to prision
mayor.

In Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be

within the penalty next lower than the imposable penalty, which, herein, was prision
correccional. So the CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six
months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of
prision mayor, as maximum.

Since he is over 23 years of age at the time of his conviction in the RTC, suspension
was no longer feasible. RA 9344 reveals that imprisonment of children in conflict with
the law is by no means prohibited. Restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment:

(a) the detention or imprisonment is a disposition of last resort

(b) the detention or imprisonment shall be for the shortest appropriate period of
time Imprisonment was imposed on the petitioner as a last recourse after holding
him to be disqualified from probation and from the suspension of his sentence,
and the term of his imprisonment was for the shortest duration permitted by the
law.
 People of the Philippines and AAA v. CA
G.R. No. 183652
February 25, 2015

PERALTA, J.

Facts:

- After attending a graduation dinner party, AAA, together with her friends, went to
Alson’s Palace for a drinking spree

- They shared sad stories with each other leading AAA to drink more

- After consuming more or less five glasses of drinks, she felt dizzy so she laid her
head down on Oporto’s lap. Oporto then started kissing her head and they would
remove her baseball cap. This angered her so she told them to stop, and simply
tried to hide her face with the cap. The group just laughed at her and made her drink
more causing AAA to fall asleep.

- When she regained consciousness, she saw that she was already at the Alquizola
Lodging House.

- During one of the times that she was conscious, she saw Oporto on top of her,
kissing her on different parts of her body, and having intercourse with her. At one
point, AAA woke up while Carampatana was inserting his penis into her private
organ. Alquizola then joined and started to kiss her. For the last time, she fell
unconscious.

- Accused-appellants Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola were charged with the

crime of rape of a 16-year old girl.
RTC convicted:
Carampatana and Oporto guilty as principals
Alquizola as an accomplice

CA acquitted them of the crime charged

Hence, this present appeal, alleging that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
acquitting respondents.

- Private respondents aver that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and

executory and that the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal because of the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

The OSG stated the following error

“The appellate decision of acquittal is null and void for having been rendered with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, an exception to the
principle of double jeopardy.”

Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals act with grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the private
respondents?

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the Supreme Court held that the assailed CA decision be Reversed and
Set Aside and finding private respondents guilty of the crime of rape.

YES, the Court of Appeals erred in acquitting private respondents. As a general rule,
the prosecution cannot appeal or bring error proceedings from a judgment rendered in
favor of the defendant in a criminal case. The reason is that a judgment of acquittal is
immediately final and executory, and the prosecution is barred from appealing lest the
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be violated.

The petitioner has sufficiently discharged the burden of proving that the respondent
appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting private respondents. It
appears that in reaching its judgment, the CA merely relied on the evidence presented
by the defense and utterly disregarded that of the prosecution. A more careful perusal
will reveal that it was simply lifted, if not altogether parroted, from the testimonies of the
accused, especially that of Oporto, Carampatana, and Alquizola. It presented the
private respondents’ account and allegations as though these were the established
facts of the case, which it later conveniently utilized to support its ruling of acquittal.
 People of the Philippines vs. Robert Hidalgo, et. al.
G.R. No. 203313
September 02, 2015

PEREZ, J.

Facts:

- On April 28, 2000, three sets of Information were filed against Roberto Hidalgo, his
sixteen-year-old son Don Juan Hidalgo, and Michael Bombasi alias “Kabayan” for
three counts of rape against thirteen-year-old AAA, a house help of accused
Roberto.

- AAA recalled that after putting Joshua (Roberto’s child) to sleep at around 8:00 in
the evening of January 30, 2000, she herself slept; however, she was awakened
when Roberto and Bombasi tied both of her hands at her back and had a
handkerchief tied in her mouth. The accused took turns in kissing, touching the
victim’s body and inserting their penis to AAA’s vagina. Due to threats to her life, it
took almost one month for AAA to file case and submit herself to medical
examination.

- Don Juan was arrested while Roberto allegedly surrendered to PNP Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group. Upon the other hand, Bombasi remains at large.

RTC of Tacloban
- accused guilty as charged

- It found the victim’s narration credible. It also found present the special aggravating
circumstances of the victim’s minority, conspiracy, use of force, superior strength,
 night time, and ignominy. It also ruled that there was conspiracy among the accused
in taking turns in having carnal knowledge of the victim. On the other hand, a special
mitigating circumstance of minority was appreciated in favor of Don Juan.

- On appeal, CA affirmed with the modifications the ruling of the trial court. It ruled that
there was conspiracy among the accused but disregarded the qualifying
circumstance that Roberto acted as AAA’s guardian in the absence of sufficient
proof. Also, the CA did not consider the other aggravating circumstances of abuse of
superior strength, night time and ignominy due to the fact that these were not
alleged in three sets of information filed against the accused. Only accused-
appellant filed this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not conspiracy was established and the accused are guilty of the crime of
rape

Whether or not the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 is applicable to accused Don Juan
despite the fact that he is no longer minor at the time his conviction is promulgated

Ruling:

1. AFFIRMATIVE. The prosecution was able to prove that the three accused conspired
with one another to commit carnal knowledge of the victim through the use of force
and threat. The failure of AAA to specifically point out the overt acts committed by
him indicating conspiracy in raping her is not fatal.

The Court ruled that the acts of Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi clearly showed unity
of action to have carnal knowledge of AAA:
(1) both Roberto and Bombasi tied AAA’s hands at her back, while a handkerchief
was already tied in her mouth

(2) both men turned her around, touched her body and started to take her clothes
off;

(3) the accused took turns in kissing AAA and inserting their penis inside her
vagina

(4) and when they satiated their sexual desires, the accused untied the rope
binding the victim and threatened her if she would tell anybody of what
happened.

2. AFFIRMATIVE. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the
judgment of conviction is not material. What matters is that the accused committed the
offense while he/she was still of tender age. In the case, even if Don Juan has already
exceeded the age limit of 21 years, he shall be entitled to the right to restoration,
rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006 for him to be given the chance to live a normal life and become a productive
member of the community.

Don Juan is ordered to serve sentence in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau
of Corrections, in coordination with the DSWD.
 People of The Philippines vs. Vergel Ancajas and Allain Ancajas
G.R. No. 199270
October 21, 2015

PERALTA, J.

Facts:

- AAA, nineteen years old, is a household help of the spouses Constantino and Elvira
Cueva. At around 8 o'clock in the evening of July 16, 1998, she asked permission
from her employers to go to her parents' house. AAA's house is located in Barangay
Taytayan, Bogo, Ceb. On her way to her parents' house, she met appellants Vergel
and Allain who wanted to go with her but she refused. They suddenly held her hands
but she was able to get free from their hold.

- Thinking that appellants had already left, she continued walking to her parents'
house but appellants reappeared and held her hands again. She shouted for help
and struggled to be freed from their hold but the appellants persisted

- At about 1 o'clock in the morning of July 17, 1998, AAA regained her consciousness
and she noticed that she was only wearing her t-shirt as her bra, panty and maong
pants were on her side. She felt' pain all over her body. Her vagina hurt and it was
covered with blood. Her panty and maong pants were also stained with blood. She
went back to her employers' house and told them that she was raped by appellants.

- At around 9 o'clock in the morning of the same day, AAA was accompanied by the
Spouses Cuevas to the police station in Bogo, Cebu to report the rape incident. The
rape incident was contained in a police blotter and AAA was later instructed to
undergo a physical examination which she did.
- On March 28, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision convicted the accused. The
accused appealed to the CA. On April 27, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision
affirming the RTC decision.

Issue/s:

Whether or not there is a presence of conspiracy between the appellants in this case.

Ruling:

We find the presence of conspiracy in this case between the appellants. 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.

The prosecution had established that appellants held AAA's hands, and when she tried
to shout, appellant Allain covered her mouth with a handkerchief and appellant Vergel
punched her in the abdomen which caused her to lose consciousness. It is fundamental
for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution of
the unlawful objective which were present in this case.
 People v. John Glen Wile

G.R. No. 208066

April 12, 2016

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Facts:

- On July 26, 2005, Juvelyn,  a common friend, invited AAA and BBB to join a
fraternity called Sana Wala Akong Kaaway or SWAK

- Accused-appellants Efren and Mark blindfolded AAA and BBB, respectively, with
handkerchiefs. Thus blindfolded, AAA and BBB were guided to a nearby canefield
and instructed to sit on a towel.

- (How AAA was raped) Accused-appellant Jaypee watched over BBB. With
accused-appellants John and Mark restraining AAA's hands and legs, respectively,
accused-appellant Efren kissed AAA's lips, opened her blouse, removed her bra,
lifted her skirt, removed her underwear, and inserted ljiis penis into her vagina. After
accused-appellant Efren had satisfied his lust, accused-appellant John followed in
having coitus with AAA as accused-appellant Efren held AAA's hands and accused-
appellant Mark gripped AAA's legs. When accused-appellant John was done, he
substituted accused-appellant Jaypee in guarding BBB so that accused-appellant
Jaypee could take his turn in copulating with AAA while accused-appellants Efren
and Mark continued to hold AAA down. Once he was finished, accused-appellant
Jaypee went back to guarding BBB. Accused-appellant John pinned down AAA's
legs and accused-appellant Efren kept his hold on AAA's hands, as accused-
appellant Mark lastly had sexual intercourse with AAA. All the while, AAA was crying
 and pleading for accused-appellants to stop but accused-appellants threatened to hit
her with a bamboo pole. After all of the accused-appellants had their turns with AAA,
they removed AAA's blindfold, so AAA was able to see accused-appellants' faces.
When AAA was putting on her clothes, she noticed blood stains on her shirt.
Accused-appellants helped AAA to stand up and instructed her to proceed to where
BBB was.

- (HOW BBB was raped) Accused-appellant Efren blindfolded BBB and ordered her
to lie down. Accused-appellant Efren kissed BBB's lips and breasts, lifted her bra
and skirt, and removed her underwear. After accused-appellant Efren finished
having sexual intercourse with BBB, BBB was already trying to stand up but
accused-appellant Mark also lied on top of her and copulated with her. Meanwhile,
AAA was being guarded by accused-appellants John and Jaypee. AAA tried to fight
back and escape, but she was already weak. After raping BBB, accused-appellants
Efren and Mark removed BBB's blindfold, giving BBB the chance to see their faces.

- Accused-appellants brought AAA and BBB to the house of accused-appellant John's

cousin. There, the right pinky fingers of AAA and BBB were burned, a ritual to
welcome AAA and BBB to the fraternity. AAA and BBB went home afterwards.

- After the initiation, AAA and BBB would go home at unusual time periods and had a
sudden change in behavior, according to observance

- AAA was again raped by accused-appellants John and Mark on September 12, 2005

- AAA and BBB subjected themselves to separate medical examinations by Dr. Ortiz
on September 26 and 27, 2005, which revealed that both girls had healed hymenal
lacerations. According to Dr. Ortiz, hymenal lacerations could be caused by an
object inserted into the vagina, most commonly a penis. On September 27, 2005,
 AAA and BBB went to the Women's Desk of the Silay City Police Station and
disclosed the rape incidents to PO2 Laurilla.

- Accused-appellant Mark denied ever having sexual intercourse with AAA and
brought up a letter, purportedly from AAA, advising him to flee because EEE, BBB's
father, already knew about the initiation, filed a case against him, and wanted to put
him in jail. 

- After receiving all of the evidence, the RTC promulgated its Decision on January 24,
2007 ruling that accused-appellants' guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt

Issues:

The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants for the crimes charged
despite the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the respondents’ guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

Accused-appellants' appeal is bereft of merit.

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

(b) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation

The testimonies of AAA and BBB were consistent and positive that the commission of
the rape unto each of them was consecutive, not simultaneous. Records showed that
AAA, who was blindfolded, was raped first while BBB was seated at a distance of about
two (2) meters without any blindfolds. Hence, BBB can clearly see the felonious and
obscene acts of the four (4) accused-appellants as they took turns in consummating
carnal knowledge of AAA. On the other hand, when BBB was raped by the two (2)
accused-appellants, AAA was also present at the scene of the crime and was not
blindfolded. Thus, she can clearly see the vulgar and lewd acts committed unto her
friend.

In this case, records revealed a common design to commit the crime. The four (4)
accused-appellants mutually helped each other so that each of them can consummate
the crime against the victims. There was indeed a community of purpose as manifested
by the holding of the hands and legs of the victims while the other commits the illicit act.
Verily, conspiracy is implied when the accused persons had a common purpose and
were united in its execution. Spontaneous agreements or active cooperation by all
perpetrators at the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create joint
criminal responsibility. Such acts are extant in the case at bench.