G.R. No. 184170 February 2, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

JERWIN QUINTAL, VICENTE BONGAT, FELIPEQUINTAL and LARRY PANTI, accused.

FACTS: On 2 May 2001, appellant Vicente, together with 15-year old Jerwin Quintal, 16-yearold Felipe
Quintal and Larry Panti were charged in Information for Rape. The victim is a 16-yearold girl, AAA. Of all the accused, only Felipe and Jerwin were arrested. The victim testified that in August 2002, as she was leaving a wake at around 10 pm, she noticed that Jerwin was following her. She recognized Jerwin because he was her schoolmate. As AAA was about to go into her grandmother s House, the both of the accused invited her to go to a birthday party, to which she acceded. She was then led to a rice field where the other accused were and all four of them took turns to rape her.AAA reported the incident after 2 days. The parents of Jerwin accompanied their son and there were talks of Jerwin proposing marriage to the victim and there was an admission of the rape put in writing. For the defence, Jerwin claimed that the victim was his girlfriend and they had sexual intercourse before. In 2006, the RTC convicted all the accused of rape and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but mitigated the penalty imposed on Jerwin and Felipe for they were minors. Pursuant to R.A. No. 9344, the judgment of conviction against Jerwin Quintal and Felipe Quintal was suspended and they were confined at the Home for Boys in Naga City for rehabilitation. In 2009, the RTC ordered the dismissal of the cases against Jerwin and Felipe upon reconsideration upon the recommendation of the DSWD. The only appellant in this case is Vicente, who was not a minor at the time of the commission of the crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient evidence for conviction. HELD/RATIO: No.
The credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the inconclusive medical finding, tends to create doubt if AAA was indeed raped. The RTC and the Court of Appeals relied largely on the testimony of AAA that she was raped. The SC doubted the credibility of AAA s testimony, which was inconsistent with the testimonies she told the barangay tanod and barangay kagawad, the purported confession put into writing and signed by all the accused; and the subsequent incidents relating to the case. The combination of all the circumstances are more than sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to whether first, rape was actually committed and second, whether the accused were the perpetrators.

Omine asked Angel Pulido permission to open a new road through the plantation. Acdg to Omine, Pulido did give his permission thats why he began working on the new road. But acdg to Pulido, he refused to grant this request because there was already an unfinished road. As Pulido and his son along w/ 2 others

were returning home from a cockpit, they noticed that a considerable number of hemp plants were destroyed by the construction of the new road. Angered by this, they went to the defendants house and there happened a violent altercation resulting to the owner Pulidos death from a wound by a bolo struck in his breast.

HELD: Although it is alleged that Kiichi Omine uttered words of inducement to Eduardo Autor, it would
be insufficient to make him a principal by induction. Eduardo Autor though working under the direction of Omine was still being paid by Pulido. Moreover, it is necessary that inducement be made directly w/ the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that such inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime. It must be precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the criminal act that w/o it the act wouldnt have been performed. Moreover, as words of direct inducement, it is essential that such advice or words have great dominance and great influence over the person who acts, that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion or as violence itself. Hence, the 3 co-defendants of Autor are not responsible for the injury inflicted by him on Angel Pulido. Judging from the nature of the wound, w/c was abt 11 inches in length, it is probable that it was caused by the point of the bolo on a downward stroke. It was not a stab wound, and was probably given during a commotion and w/o being aimed at any particular part of the body. Moreover, as Autor struck the offended only once, it is indicative that it was not his intention to take the offended partys life. Wherefore, Eduardo Autor is guilty of lesiones graves w/ a sentence of 1yr 8 mos & 21 days of prision correccional, since the offended party was incapacitated for the performance of his usual work for a period of more than 90 days, and not of frustrated homicide. The rest of the codefendants are acquitted.