G.R. No. 250128, November 24, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAY CORDIAL Y BREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jay Cordial y Brez, together with Jimmy Irinco, Victor Eva, Jr., Marvin Apilyedo, and a househelp known as “Gina,” were charged with Robbery with Rape. The Information alleged that on March 12, 2012, in Mandaluyong City, the accused, conspiring and using force, intimidation, firearms, and knives, robbed the house of BBB and CCC. During the robbery, accused Victor Eva, Jr. inserted his fingers into the vagina of AAA, and accused Jay Cordial mashed her breasts against her will. All accused pleaded not guilty. During trial, accused Eva passed away.
The prosecution evidence established that on the evening of March 12, 2012, the househelp left the gate open, allowing four men (Cordial, Irinco, Eva, and Apilyedo) to enter. Eva pointed a gun at BBB, tied him up, and took his belongings. Cordial and Apilyedo restrained CCC. The accused then went to the second floor where AAA was. Eva pointed a gun at AAA, threatened her, and Cordial tied her hands with packaging tape. Eva then pulled down AAA’s shorts and panties, touched her vagina, and inserted his fingers inside. While tying AAA’s hands, Cordial repeatedly paused to mash her breasts. AAA begged them to stop and offered to show them the vault in exchange. Barangay tanods responded to a report, arrested Cordial and Apilyedo, and later arrested Eva and Irinco. The defense presented no evidence.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Cordial guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape, holding him equally liable for rape as he was in a position to prevent it but instead participated by sexually molesting AAA. The RTC sentenced him to 20 years and 1 day to 40 years of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to the indivisible penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and increased the damages.
Cordial appealed, arguing inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and a lack of evidence to prove conspiracy for the rape. He contended that his act of tying AAA’s hands was part of the robbery plan, not to facilitate rape, and that only the actual perpetrator (Eva) should be liable for rape.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellant Jay Cordial can be held liable for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, finding Cordial guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape. The Court held that minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding details such as the exact time of the robbery, who untied BBB, how the accused entered, and the sequence of going upstairs do not affect their credibility, as these are inconsequential matters that do not touch upon the elements of the crime. The evidence conclusively established the robbery.
On the issue of conspiracy for rape, the Court ruled that conspiracy was proven. The acts of Cordial and Eva demonstrated a common purpose to commit robbery and, on the occasion thereof, to sexually abuse AAA. Cordial’s act of tying AAA’s hands while Eva sexually assaulted her, and his own act of mashing her breasts, showed concerted action and mutual support in carrying out the rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from their conduct before, during, and after the crime. Since the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code is applicable. The penalty for this crime is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is erroneous for this indivisible penalty. Thus, the penalty imposed by the CA of Reclusion Perpetua is correct.
The Court also affirmed the award of damages: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with legal interest of 6% per annum from finality until full payment.