GR 193854; (September, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 193854; September 24, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. DINA DULAY y PASCUAL, Appellant.
FACTS
The case involves the rape of AAA, a 12-year-old minor. Appellant Dina Dulay, introduced to AAA as a nice person, convinced AAA to accompany her to a wake. Instead, they went to several locations, ultimately arriving at the Bulungan Fish Port where they met Dulay’s boyfriend. Dulay then brought AAA to a kubuhan (hut) where a man named “Speed” was waiting. AAA witnessed Dulay receive money from Speed and heard Speed instruct Dulay to find a younger girl. Speed then tied AAA’s hands and raped her at knifepoint. AAA saw Dulay peeping into the room during the assault and pleaded for help, but Dulay ignored her. After the incident, both Speed and Dulay threatened AAA not to report the crime.
The defense presented a contradictory narrative. Dulay claimed she met AAA at a different wake days earlier. She alleged that on the night in question, she was at the fish port with a cousin and later went to a relative’s house where she saw AAA voluntarily conversing with Speed and two other men. Dulay stated she left after AAA told her to mind her own business.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the appellant, Dina Dulay, is guilty as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of rape committed against AAA.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The Court found the testimony of AAA to be credible, consistent, and worthy of belief, especially given her minority. Her detailed account of being lured, delivered to the rapist, and witnessing the financial transaction established Dulay’s active participation. The defense of denial and alibi was weak and could not overcome the positive identification and the logical sequence of events presented by the prosecution.
On the legal principle of co-principal by indispensable cooperation, the Court ruled that conspiracy was sufficiently established. Dulay’s actions—from deceiving and transporting the victim to the location, to receiving payment for delivering her, and then standing guard during the rape—were deemed indispensable to the commission of the crime. Without her cooperation in procuring and securing the victim, the rape by Speed could not have been accomplished. Her presence and actions before, during, and after the crime demonstrated a community of criminal design. The Court modified the damages awarded, imposing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, all consistent with prevailing jurisprudence for crimes of rape, particularly against a minor. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.