People v. Court of Appeals

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, 21st DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION,

RAYMUND CARAMPATANA, JOEFHEL OPORTO, and MOISES ALQUIZOLA, respondents.
G.R. No. 183652. February 25, 2015.*
FACTS:
 On March 25, 2004, at 7:00 PM, AAA told her father that she would be attending a graduation dinner party with her
friends. AAA, together with Lim, Oporto, and Carampatana, ate dinner at the house of one Mark Gemeno. After
eating, they went to Alson’s Palace, they were greeted by Montesco, Alquizola, and Fiel and proceeded to a bedroom
on the second floor and had a drinking session of two (2) bottles of Emperador Brandy.
 At first AAA refused to drink but eventually took a shot because when it was her turn to share problems, she became
emotional and started crying. She consumed more or less five (5) glasses. She felt dizzy so she laid her head down on
Oporto’s lap. Oporto then started kissing her head and they would remove her baseball cap. This angered her so she
told them to stop, and simply tried to hide her face with the cap. They laughed and forced her to take another shot
with the intention of making her drunk. She leaned on Oporto’s lap again, then she fell asleep. They woke her up and
Lim gave her the Emperador Brandy bottle to drink the remaining liquor inside. She tried to refuse but they insisted,
so she drank directly from the bottle. Again, she fell asleep.
 She was carried down the stairs by Roda and Batocoy to Alquizola Lodging House where she was kissed on the
different parts of her body and raped by Oporto. She also saw Carampatana and Moises Alquizola inside the room,
watching as Oporto abused her. Carampatana also raped her and Alquizola kissed her.
 She woke up at 7:00AM without her undergarments, found blood stains on her shirt, and hailed a trisikad home. She
told her parents that she was raped, her mother started hitting her, brought her to Lala Police Station to make a
report, and proceeded to district hospital to be examined.
 Accused denied contending that it was with her consent. Trial Court found Oporto and Carampatana both guilty of
rape and Alquizola guilty as accomplice of the crime (the trial court pronounced that Alquizola was not part of the
conspiracy because his participation in the crime was uncertain) but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
acquitting all accused, thus this petition.
ISSUE: W/N Alquizola is guilty as an accomplice of the crime committed by the other two acussed. (YES)
RULING:
To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to previous agreement to commit a crime, it being
sufficient that the malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. Conspiracy is proved if there is
convincing evidence to sustain a finding that the malefactors committed an offense in furtherance of a common objective
pursued in concert.69 Proof of conspiracy need not even rest on direct evidence, as the same may be inferred from the
collective conduct of the parties before, during or after the commission of the crime indicating a common understanding
among them with respect to the commission of the offense.
As the caretaker of the Alquizola Lodging House, he provided a room so the rape could be accomplished with ease and
furtiveness. He was likewise inside the room, intently watching, while Oporto and Carampatana sexually abused AAA. He
did not do anything to stop the bestial acts of his companions. He even admitted to kissing AAA’s lips, breasts, and other
parts of her body. Indubitably, there was conspiracy among Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola to sexually abuse AAA.
Hence, the act of any one was the act of all, and each of them, Alquizola including, is equally guilty of the crime of rape.
While it is true that the RTC found Alquizola guilty as mere accomplice, when he appealed from the decision of the trial
court,74 he waived the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and threw the whole case open to the review of
the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or
unfavorable to the accused-appellant.

People v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AAA, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, 21st DIVISION, MINDANAO STATION,

You might also like