G.R. No. 170477; August 7, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. HAROLD WALLY CABIERTE, Appellant.

FACTS

On December 2, 1997, AAA sneaked out to meet her boyfriend and encountered her “barkada,” including appellant Harold Cabierte and co-accused Jerry Macabio and Norbert Viernes, who were drinking. After an incident where Viernes was accidentally hit by AAA’s cigarette, he dragged her into a tent, pinned her down, and raped her. Appellant Cabierte held AAA’s hands during this act. Subsequently, appellant and Macabio also had sexual intercourse with AAA in succession, all while she protested and struggled physically. The following day, after being confronted by her boyfriend, AAA reported the incident, leading to a medico-legal examination which documented extra-genital injuries consistent with the alleged assault.
Appellant, admitting sexual intercourse, claimed it was consensual. The defense presented witnesses who testified that AAA later bragged about the act and portrayed her as promiscuous, attributing her physical injuries to a prior fall. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant and his co-accused of three counts of rape, finding conspiracy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of rape through conspiracy.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found AAA’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. Her detailed account of being forcibly dragged, held down by appellant, and successively raped by three men was corroborated by the medico-legal findings of fresh contusions and abrasions, which were incompatible with the defense’s claim of injuries from an earlier fall. The defense of consent was implausible given the violent circumstances and AAA’s immediate report and physical condition.
On conspiracy, the Court ruled it was sufficiently established. Appellant’s act of holding AAA’s hands while Viernes initiated the rape demonstrated a community of criminal purpose. This mutual aid and cooperation facilitated the commission of the crime by all accused. Each rapist, by their coordinated actions, became a co-conspirator liable for the acts of the others. The successive rape by all three was a direct result of this conspiracy. The defense’s attack on AAA’s character was irrelevant, as a victim’s sexual history does not constitute consent to a specific violent act. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count was thus upheld.