G.R. No.

203313 September 02, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERT HIDALGO, et. al.

PEREZ, J.:

FACTS: On April 28, 2000, three sets of Information were filed against Roberto Hidalgo, his
sixteen-year-old son Don Juan Hidalgo, and Michael Bombasi alias Kabayan for three counts
of rape against thirteen-year-old AAA, a house help of accused Roberto.

In her testimony, AAA recalled that after putting Joshua (Robertos child) to sleep at
around 8:00 in the evening of January 30, 2000, she herself slept, however, she was awakened
when Roberto and Bombasi tied both of her hands at her back and had a handkerchief tied in her
mouth. The accused took turns in kissing, touching the victims body and inserting their penis to
AAAs vagina. Due to threats to her life, it took almost one month for AAA to file case and
submit herself to medical examination.

Don Juan was arrested while Roberto allegedly surrendered to PNP Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group. Upon the other hand, Bombasi remains at large.

The RTC of Tacloban City found the accused guilty as charge. It found the victims
narration credible. It also found present the special aggravating circumstances of the victims
minority, conspiracy, use of force, superior strength, night time, and ignominy. It also ruled that
there was conspiracy among the accused in taking turns in having carnal knowledge of the
victim. On the other hand, a special mitigating circumstance of minority was appreciated in
favour of Don Juan.

On appeal, CA affirmed with the modifications the ruling of the trial court. It ruled that
there was conspiracy among the accused but disregarded the qualifying circumstance that
Roberto acted as AAAs guardian in the absence of sufficient proof. Also, the CA did not
consider the other aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, night time and
ignominy due to the fact that these were not alleged in three sets of information filed against the
accused. Only accused-appellant filed this appeal.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not conspiracy was established and the accused are guilty of the crime of rape
2. Whether or not the provisions of R.A. No. 9344 is applicable to accused Don Juan despite the
fact that he is no longer minor at the time his conviction is promulgated

HELD:
1. AFFIRMATIVE. The prosecution was able to prove that the three accused conspired with
one another to commit carnal knowledge of the victim through the use of force and threat. The
failure of AAA to specifically point out the overt acts committed by him indicating conspiracy in
raping her is not fatal. The Court ruled that the acts of Roberto, Don Juan and Bombasi clearly
showed unity of action to have carnal knowledge of AAA: (1) both Roberto and Bombasi tied
AAAs hands at her back, while a handkerchief was already tied in her mouth; (2) both men
turned her around, touched her body and started to take her clothes off; (3) the accused took turns
in kissing AAA and inserting their penis inside her vagina; (4) and when they satiated their
sexual desires, the accused untied the rope binding the victim and threatened her if she would tell
anybody of what happened.

2. AFFIRMATIVE. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of the judgment of
conviction is not material. What matters is that the accused committed the offense while he/she
was still of tender age. In the case, even if Don Juan has already exceeded the age limit of 21
years, he shall be entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance
with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 for him to be given the chance to live a normal
life and become a productive member of the community.

Don Juan is ordered to serve sentence in an agricultural camp and other training facilities
that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections, in
coordination with the DSWD.