G.R. No. 255389 . September 14, 2021.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CARLO DIEGA Y ZAPICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

Carlo Diega y Zapico, together with three unidentified “John Does” (aliases Obat, Kalbo, and Ismael), was charged with Rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on or about April 14, 2013, they conspired and, by means of force and by depriving the 12-year-old victim AAA of reason (through intoxication), had carnal knowledge of her against her will. Carlo pleaded not guilty. The prosecution established that on the said date, AAA was invited by Ismael to hang out, brought to a store, and introduced to his friends, including Carlo. The group proceeded to a riverbank and later to a vacant lot for a drinking session. AAA was made to drink liquor, felt dizzy, and laid down. Carlo removed her pants and underwear. While someone held her legs and spread them apart and another held her hands, Carlo went on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made pumping motions. Afterwards, Kalbo, Ismael, and Obat took turns having carnal knowledge with AAA. AAA cried and shouted throughout but no one came to her aid. She fell asleep and was left at the vacant lot. The next morning, she reported the incident. A medico-legal examination revealed recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to her genitalia, consistent with her narrative. Carlo denied the accusation, claiming he left the drinking session early and was at home, and was later arrested with the explanation that his companions had fled. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Carlo guilty of Rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. Carlo appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing AAA’s credibility and maintaining his defenses of denial and alibi.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Carlo Diega y Zapico’s conviction for the crime of Rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the findings of the RTC and CA on the credibility of the prosecution witness (AAA) are accorded the highest degree of respect, as the trial court had the best opportunity to observe her demeanor. AAA positively identified Carlo and vividly recounted the harrowing incident, detailing how Carlo and his three companions successively raped her. Her testimony was consistent in all material matters and was corroborated by medical findings. The elements of Rape under Article 266-A were present: Carlo had carnal knowledge of AAA, and it was accomplished through force and intimidation, as evidenced by AAA being held down and her resistance being overcome. The Court rejected Carlo’s defenses of denial and alibi, noting they are weak defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The Court also emphasized that conspiracy was present; all accused acted in concert to achieve a common purpose. Consequently, Carlo is responsible not only for the rape he personally committed but also for the rapes perpetrated by his co-conspirators. The award of damages by the CA was sustained: Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages, Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid.