THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237978. December 10, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.XXX, 1JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN, AND JESSIE DOE, accused, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 10, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237978 (People of the Philippines v. XXX,Jerome Atizo y Apduhan, and Jessie Doe, accused; Jerome Atizo y Apduhan, accused-appellant) — This is an appeal from the Decision 2 dated November 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08822. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision 3 dated September 7, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of __________ 4 Branch 72 (RTC), finding Jerome Atizo y Apduhan (appellant) guilty of three (3) counts of qualified rape in Criminal Case Nos. 06-31670 to 06-31676. His co-accused, XXX, was found guilty of three (3) counts of qualified rape. The case against accused Jessie Doe was archived as he has remained unidentified and at large.
In the Informations dated April 17, 2006, in Criminal Case Nos. 06-31673 to 06-31676, appellant was charged with the crime of qualified rape as principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with XXX and Jessie Doe. In addition, appellant was charged with qualified rape as a principal by indispensable cooperation in Criminal Case Nos. 06-31670 to 06-31672, with XXX and Jessie Doe as co-conspirators. The accusatory portion of the informations state: DcHSEa
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31670
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of ________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and as a principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN and one JESSIE DOE, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual assault upon the person of [AAA], 5 by then and there inserting his fingers into the vagina of the victim against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31671 FOR QUALIFIED RAPE
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of ________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and as a principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN and one JESSIE DOE, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31672 FOR QUALIFIED RAPE
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of _________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused one JESSIE DOE as principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN and [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31673 FOR QUALIFIED RAPE
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of _________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN as a principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and one JESSIE DOE, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice. SCaITA
CONTRARY TO LAW. 9
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31674 FOR QUALIFIED RAPE
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of _________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and as a principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN and one JESSIE DOE, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31675 FOR OUALIFIED RAPE
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of ________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and as a principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN and one JESSIE DOE, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 06-31676 FOR OUALIFIED RAPE
That on or about the 26th day of March 2006, in the Municipality of ________ Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused [XXX], a sixteen (16)-year-old minor at the time of the commission of the offense and as a principal by direct participation, in conspiracy with two others and with one another, namely, JEROME ATIZO y APDUHAN and one JESSIE DOE, who are both principals by indispensable cooperation, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], against her will and consent, and that the crime is qualified by the fact that it was committed by three (3) persons, and aggravated by nighttime, fraud and deceit, abuse of superior strength and committed in an uninhabited place, to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 12
Upon his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Evidence of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented private complainant AAA, Dr. Maria Liza Dela Cruz 13(Dr. Dela Cruz), and Senior Police Officer I Divina Rafael (SPO1 Rafael). Their combined testimonies tended to establish the following: aTHCSE
On March 25, 2006, at around 11:45 in the evening, AAA, who was twenty (20) years old at the time, watched a motorcycle extreme show with her friends at ________ Rizal. XXX, whom AAA met a few months back, approached AAA and offered to take her home. AAA agreed and went with XXX, who was only sixteen (16) years old at the time. While they were walking, XXX told AAA that they first take a rest in a nipa hut. After arriving at the hut, XXX left while AAA waited. Appellant then arrived and told AAA to go inside the hut where it was cooler. As she had just met appellant, AAA refused but eventually gave in since appellant said that his uncle, who owned the hut, might see them. AAA sat on the bed located at the upper part of the hut and waited alone for XXX. Thereafter, XXX arrived and began to insist that he and AAA were in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. AAA denied it but XXX insisted and asked AAA to undress. When AAA asked why, XXX forcibly undressed her, unzipped her pants, and mounted her. AAA pushed XXX away, saying "huwag naman," but XXX was able to insert his fingers into AAA's vagina. Afterwards, XXX inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. At the time, appellant and a certain Jessie Doe were outside the door and watched everything that XXX did. AAA recounted that she could hear them laughing while XXX raped and ravished her.
Thereafter, XXX left AAA and called appellant in. When appellant went up to where AAA was, he laid on top of her and inserted his finger inside her vagina. AAA pushed him away while she cried, but she was too weak and appellant was bigger and stronger. Appellant then took off his clothes and inserted his penis into her vagina. XXX and Jessie Doe remained downstairs while appellant raped AAA.
After appellant had finished, Jessie Doe went up to where AAA was, undressed himself, and laid on top of AAA. AAA tried to fight back but she was already too weak and tired. Jessie Doe then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. She could still hear XXX and appellant laughing outside.
After a while, someone told Jessie Doe to come down because appellant's uncle was about to arrive. Jessie Doe went down and AAA got dressed. When AAA came out of the room, appellant and the other two accused threw ice at her and shouted at her. AAA's mind was blank and her body was aching, particularly, her hips and her back. She did not know where she was going and went missing for days. AAA's parents then sought the assistance of the barangay to search for her whereabouts. She was found after a few days by her mother at a market in ______ as she sat and looked shocked. AAA's mother brought her to the barangay and to the police station. She executed her Sinumpaang Salaysay before SPO1 Rafael.
Upon examination, Dr. Dela Cruz, a medico-legal officer at the Crime Laboratory of Camp Crame, found a blunt penetrating trauma on AAA's hymen which could have been produced by an erect penis or any blunt object.
Evidence of the Defense
The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. His testimony sought to establish the following: cAaDHT
Appellant testified that he did not know AAA and only knew XXX for a year from the time of the incident. He said that, on March 25, 2006, he saw XXX and AAA talking for about an hour. Since he was a barangay volunteer and he had a shift at the time, he told XXX and AAA to go home as they might be caught in the curfew. He saw the two leave and go inside the nipa hut, which was under the care and maintenance of appellant. Appellant went to the barangay hall and finished his shift. At around 1 o'clock in the morning, he checked on XXX and AAA in the hut and saw them talking. XXX and AAA then ran away and left. Appellant went home and went to bed at around 1:30 in the morning until 7 o'clock.
The RTC Ruling
In its decision dated September 7, 2015, the RTC found appellant and XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of qualified rape by sexual assault in Criminal Case No. 06-31670 and six (6) counts of qualified rape by carnal knowledge in Criminal Case Nos. 06-31671 to 06-31676. In Criminal Case No. 06-31670, 14 XXX was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. In Criminal Case Nos. 06-31671 to 06-31676, appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and XXX was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor, as maximum.
With respect to Jessie Doe, who remained unidentified and at large, the RTC ordered the archiving of the case against him and the issuance of an alias warrant of arrest. Similarly, a warrant was issued for the arrest of XXX who escaped confinement during trial.
The RTC noted that AAA positively identified appellant and that she had no ill motive against appellant, while the latter could only interpose the defenses of alibi and denial. It ruled that there was conspiracy as the clear and unequivocal acts of all three accused are more than enough proof of their joint or common desire to rape AAA. It held that there was force employed against AAA.
Appellant alone appealed to the CA. In his brief, appellant argued that AAA's identification should be given scant consideration as AAA claimed that the crime occurred during nighttime, thus giving her limited opportunity to recognize her perpetrators. He asserted that there were inconsistencies in the number of the assailants claimed by AAA; and that the prosecution was not able to clearly prove that there was conspiracy among XXX, appellant, and Jessie Doe. Lastly, he claimed that the examination of Dr. Dela Cruz was inconsistent with the testimony of AAA and that there was no force or intimidation.
The CA Ruling
In its decision dated November 21, 2017, the CA modified the RTC decision and found appellant and XXX guilty of three (3) counts of rape qualified by the commission thereof by two or more persons. Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole for each count and 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, plus a six percent (6%) interest from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid. XXX was sentenced to suffer six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count, and to pay the same amount of damages as appellant. HCaDIS
The CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that there was conspiracy among appellant, XXX, and Jessie Doe to commit rape. It held that appellant's argument on the visibility condition at the crime scene is untenable as AAA saw appellant even before going in the hut and that she could still clearly see despite the darkness. It noted AAA's reaction during her confrontation with appellant. It gave credibility and weight to AAA's testimony based on her disposition and reactions during the trial. The CA also pointed out the weakness of appellant's defense of denial and the absence of any ill motive on the part of AAA to falsely charge appellant. It ruled that the inconsistency pointed out by appellant is more apparent than real and is, in fact, minor and insignificant.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
WHETHER THE GUILT OF APPELLANT FOR THE CRIMES CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
In a Resolution 15 dated June 6, 2018, the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its Manifestation and Motion 16 dated August 9, 2018, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief to avoid a repetition of arguments considering that the guilt of appellant had been exhaustively discussed in the appellee's brief. In his Manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief) 17 dated September 4, 2018, appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had thoroughly discussed the assigned errors in his brief.
Likewise, in his brief before the CA, appellant reiterates that AAA's identification of appellant should be given scant consideration; that there was no conspiracy; and that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of rape.
THE COURT'S RULING
The appeal lacks merit. However, the CA decision dated November 21, 2017 must be modified.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the arguments raised by appellant are a mere rehash of his previous arguments, all of which have been considered and found without merit by the CA in its decision dated November 21, 2017. A careful review of the records of this case leads the Court to conclude that there exists no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and the CA.
Qualified Rape
The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. In this case, both the RTC and the CA found that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish all the foregoing elements of rape, giving weight and credence to AAA's testimony. The well-entrenched rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record, when affirmed on appeal by the appellate court, are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court, in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings. 18 AHCETa
Further, AAA narrated how appellant, XXX, and Jessie Doe took turns in sexually abusing her and that force was used upon her person in order for each of them to succeed in committing the crimes charged. Despite AAA's attempts to fight back each time she was raped, appellant and the other accused were bigger and stronger than her, not to mention her weaker state each time she was raped and abused by the accused.
The qualifying circumstance that the crime was committed by two or more persons is also present because appellant, XXX, and Jessie Doe consecutively raped AAA in the nipa hut. Thus, the crime committed is qualified rape.
Since appellant failed to show any cogent reason to disturb the findings of fact of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, the testimony of AAA as to the actual commission of the rape and the identity of appellant and his co-accused, must be upheld.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy implies a concert of design that may be inferred from the acts of the malefactors which point to a joint purpose and a common design. Conspiracy does not require any overt agreement for an appreciable period prior to the perpetration of the crime. From the legal vantage point, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused would appear to have acted in concert with one another indicating a community of intent. 19 Evidence of actual cooperation, not only mere cognizance, approval, or mere presence, must be shown. 20
Appellant's claim that there was no conspiracy to commit rape against AAA is untenable. Although there was no direct proof of a previous agreement to rape AAA, it was nonetheless clear from XXX, appellant, and Jessie Doe's conduct that they acted in a concerted effort and were united in intent, aim, and purpose in executing their criminal design. This was established by AAA's testimony that appellant, XXX, and Jessie Doe took turns in raping her while the others stood by the door to watch. Appellant, the caretaker of the hut where AAA was raped several times, was the one who led AAA to go to the upper floor of the hut. He was also among those who laughed outside the hut while she was raped by the other accused. He also shouted and threw ice at her after all three accused were done raping her.
Thus, the CA is correct in ruling that the evidence adduced by the prosecution overwhelmingly established the existence of conspiracy among appellant, XXX, and Jessie Doe. Accordingly, the act of one is the act of all, such that appellant is similarly liable for the crimes committed by his co-conspirators. However, as Jessie Doe had not yet been arrested and therefore no trial was conducted against him, appellant cannot be held liable for the crimes of the former. Accordingly, appellant is guilty of two (2) counts of qualified rape charged against him in Criminal Case No. 06-31673 and charged against his co-conspirator XXX.
It is worthy to note that there were three additional charges of qualified rape filed against appellant, which are all similarly worded. As correctly observed by the CA, the prosecution failed to show that AAA was raped three more times by appellant. Though she alleged this fact in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, AAA nonetheless failed to substantiate the three other counts of qualified rape against appellant during trial. Hence, these three additional counts of qualified rape against appellant should be dismissed.
Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault
Rape by sexual assault is committed by any person who, under the same set of circumstances in Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), inserts his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. 21 Here, AAA testified that XXX inserted his fingers into her vagina, which is tantamount to the crime of rape by sexual assault. The testimony of AAA showed that she was able to establish with clear and candid detail the identity and the bestial acts committed by XXX, appellant, and Jessie Doe. There is also a qualifying circumstance because XXX was able to consummate the sexual assault with the indispensable cooperation of appellant and Jessie Doe. Thus, the crime is qualified rape by sexual assault because two or more persons committed the crime.
However, the CA erred when it stated that the sexual assault committed by XXX against AAA should be included in the charge of qualified rape. In People v. Agoncillo, 22 the Court ruled that it is possible to convict an offender for both rape by sexual assault and statutory rape for one incident, as long as these crimes are properly alleged in the informations. ScHADI
In the present case, there is a separate information against XXX for the crime of qualified rape by sexual assault. During trial, the prosecution was able to prove the elements for the crime charged, which is distinct and separate from the charge of qualified rape. Hence, appellant, as the co-conspirator of XXX, must also be liable for one (1) count of rape by sexual assault, qualified by the commission of two or more persons under Article 266-B of the RPC.
Notably, AAA also testified that appellant inserted his finger into her vagina while inside the nipa hut, which also constitutes rape by sexual assault. Unfortunately, this accusation of rape by sexual assault was not alleged in any of the Informations filed against appellant, thus, he cannot be convicted for the said allegation.
Defenses of denial and alibi
Appellant's denial must crumble in light of AAA's positive testimony. For alibi to prosper as a defense, accused must be able to prove that he could not possibly have been in the vicinity of the crime at the time of its occurrence. 23 In the present case, appellant's testimony cannot overthrow the conclusion that it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. In fact, appellant consistently admitted that he was the caretaker of the hut and that he went to the hut at the time and on the day the crime was committed. The Court has consistently held that positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the mere denial of the appellant whose testimony is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. 24
Thus, the CA is correct in giving no credence to appellant's defense of denial. Appellant simply denied the charges against him without presenting any supporting evidence. The positive testimony of AAA outweighs the denial proffered by appellant. 25
Proper Penalties
As to the penalties, the CA is correct in imposing upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC and Republic Act No. 9346, 26 for the two (2) counts of Qualified Rape. Further, appellant was properly ordered to pay AAA for each count the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of judgment until fully paid. 27
With respect to the qualified rape by sexual assault that appellant committed as principal by indispensable cooperation, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was proven, thus, the maximum penalty should be imposed against appellant. The prescribed penalty for qualified rape by sexual assault under Article 266-B of the RPC is prision mayor to reclusion temporal. Thus, the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, was correctly imposed upon appellant.
As to XXX, he escaped confinement during trial. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country, he loses his standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. 28 Hence, the RTC properly conducted a trial in absentia against XXX. The RTC decision is final and executory against him and he had effectively waived his right to appeal.
Only when the penalty imposed was outside the range prescribed by law, shall the court modify the penalty in favor of an offender at large. 29 However, as it does not appear that the penalties imposed are beyond or outside the range prescribed by law, there is no need to modify the judgment against XXX.
Finally, the amounts imposed by the CA as to the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are sustained.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated November 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08822 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION, as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 06-31670, appellant Jerome Atizo y Apduhan is found GUILTY of one (1) count of qualified rape by sexual assault under Paragraph 2, Article 266-A in relation to Paragraph 1, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and is ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.
2. In Criminal Case Nos. 06-31671 to 06-31676, appellant Jerome Atizo y Apduhan is found GUILTY of two (2) counts of qualified rape under Paragraph 1 (a), Article 266-A in relation to Paragraph 1, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and is ordered 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.
3. All awards and damages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of judgment until fully paid. HSCATc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The complete name and personal circumstances of accused XXX, a minor, at the time of the commission of the crime, have been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances).
2.Rollo, pp. 2-31; penned by Acting Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 56-70; penned by Judge Ruth D. Cruz-Santos.
4. The city where the crime was committed is blotted to protect the identity of the victim pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 issued on 27 July 2015.
5. The true name of the victim has been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). The confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); R.A. No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998); R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); and R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
6. CA rollo, p. 57.
7.Id. at 58.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 58-59.
10.Id. at 59.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 60.
13. The CA referred to Dr. Maria Liza Dela Cruz as "Dr. Maria Anna Lissa Dela Cruz."
14. Notwithstanding the finding of conspiracy among the accused, the RTC did not impose a penalty for appellant with respect to the Qualified Rape by Sexual Assault committed by XXX.
15.Rollo, p. 39.
16.Id. at 40-42.
17.Id. at 48-51.
18.People v. Punzalan, Jr., 700 Phil. 793, 808 (2012).
19.People v. Ubaldo, et al., 396 Phil. 509, 521 (2000).
20.People v. Comadre, et al., 475 Phil. 293, 306 (2004).
21. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
22. G.R. No. 229100, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 335.
23.People v. Villaver, et al., 422 Phil. 207, 212 (2001).
24.People v. Mercado, 664 Phil. 747, 752 (2011).
25.People v. Agoncillo, supra note 22, at 359.
26. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
27.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
28.People v. Piad, et al., 779 Phil. 136, 150 (2016).
29.Almuete v. People, 706 Phil. 166, 187 (2013).