Conspiracy

; concept;
proof of
conspiracy
need not
rest on
direct
evidence

Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas and Evad argue in their

respective briefs that conspiracy, insofar as they were
concerned, was not convincingly established. Dukilman
hinges his argument on the fact that he was not one of those
arrested during the rescue operation based on the testimony
of Inspector Ouano. On the
other hand, Ronas and Evad base their argument on the fact
that they had no participation whatsoever
in the negotiation for the ransom money. The Supreme Court
held otherwise. Although Dukilman was
not one of those apprehended at the cottage during the
rescue operation, the testimony of Police
Inspector Arnado sufficiently established that he was one of
the four people apprehended when the
police intercepted the Tamaraw FX at the Nichols Tollgate.
Likewise, the testimony of Police Inspector
Ouano sufficiently established that Ronas and Evad were two
of those who were arrested during the
rescue operation. It has been held that to be a conspirator,
one need not participate in every detail of the
execution; he need not even take part in every act or need
not even know the exact part to be performed
by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Once
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all
the conspirators. Further, proof of the conspiracy need not
rest on direct evidence, as the same may be
inferred from the collective conduct of the parties before,
during or after the commission of the crime
indicating a common understanding among them with respect
to the commission of the offense. The
testimonies, when taken together, reveal the common
purpose of the accused-appellants and how they
were all united in its execution from beginning to end. There
were testimonies proving that (1) before the
incident, two of the accused-appellants kept coming back to
the victims house; (2) during the
kidnapping, accused-appellants changed shifts in guarding

Murder;
treachery.

the victim; and (3) the accused appellants

were those present when the ransom money was recovered
and when the rescue operation was
conducted. Seeing that conspiracy among Gambao, Karim,
Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen,
Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established beyond
reasonable doubt based on the proffered evidence
of the prosecution, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators. People of the Philippines v. Halil Gambao,
et al, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/october2013/17
2707.pdf).
The Supreme Court (SC) found that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was properly appreciated by the
lower courts. There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof that tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense that the offended
party might make. The SC has ruled that treachery is present
when an assailant takes advantage of a
situation in which the victim is asleep, unaware of the evil
design, or has just awakened. It has been
established by the prosecution, and even confirmed by the
defense, that the victims were sleeping when
they were shot. To be precise, it was Emeterio who was asleep
when he was shot, considering that the
women were able to cry for help before the rapid firing that
silenced them. In any case, it was clear that
the women were in no position to defend themselves, having
been rudely awakened by the shooting of
their companion. The fact that they shouted for help also
showed their loss of hope in the face of what
was coming rapid gunfire from long firearms. Thus, it has
been established that appellants killed
Emeterio, Porferia and Analiza. Appreciating treachery as a

qualifying circumstance, the crime is

properly denominated as murder. People of the Philippines v.
Ricardo Dearo, Paulino Luage and Wilfredo
Toledo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/179845205/190862-pdf).
Rape;
The failure of AAA to report her ordeal is not unique in her
delay in
case.
reporting
Many victims of rape would choose to suffer in silence rather
the crime.
than put the life of their loved ones in
danger. It is well entrenched that delay in reporting rape
cases does not by itself undermine the charge,
where the delay is grounded in threats from the accused.
Delay in revealing the commission of a crime
such as rape does not necessarily render such charge
unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may
choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the
harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when
the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to
discredit the complainant. People of the
Philippines v. Florentino Galagar, Jr., G.R. No. 202842, October
9, 2013
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/179845159/202842-pdf).
Rape;
The Supreme Court did
medical
not give credence to appellants imputation that the
examinatio examining physician was unsure as to what caused
n as
AAAs hymenal lacerations. It must be stressed that the
corroborati examining physician was presented to testify
ve
only on the fact that he examined the victim and on the
evidence;
results of such examination. He is thus expected
the
to testify on the nature, extent and location of the wounds. Dr.
examining Arnulfo Imperial (Dr. Imperial) found,
physician
among others, that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations. This
is expected refers to the location and nature of the
to testify
wounds suffered by the victim. Dr. Imperial could not be
only
expected to establish the cause of such
on the fact lacerations with particularity because he has no personal
that he
knowledge of how these hymenal lacerations

examined
the victim
and on the
results of
the
examinatio
n.

Rape;
statutory
rape;
elements.

were inflicted on AAA. He could only surmise that the

lacerations could have been caused by
activities like cycling, horseback riding or the insertion of [a]
hard object into the vagina of the victim
such as the penis. In any case, a medical examination is not
even indispensable in prosecuting a rape
charge. In fact, an accuseds conviction for rape may be
anchored solely on the testimony of the victim.
At best, the medical examination would only serve as
corroborative evidence. People of the Philippines v.
Marciano Cial y Lorena, G.R. No. 191362, October 9, 2013
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/october2013/19
1362.pdf).
Rape of a minor under 12 years of age is statutory rape. The
elements
of statutory rape are that: (a) the victim is a female under 12
years or is demented; and (b) the offender
has carnal knowledge of the victim. Neither the use of force,
threat or intimidation on the female, nor the
females deprivation of reason or being otherwise
unconscious, nor the employment on the female
of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority is
necessary to commit statutory rape. In
statutory rape, there are only two elements that need to be
established, to wit: 1) carnal knowledge or
sexual intercourse; and 2) that the woman is below 12 years
of age. In this case, the prosecution
satisfactorily established the fact of carnal knowledge. It is
likewise beyond dispute that AAA was
only 11 years of age at the time she was raped. Her
Certificate of Live Birth showed that she was born on
November 26, 1992. The lower courts therefore correctly held
appellant guilty of the crime of statutory
rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo De Jesus
y Mendoza, G.R. No. 190622, October 7, 2013
(http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/october2013/19

0622.pdf).