By Gerome Dalipe IV
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the conviction of three men for gang rape and increased their penalties to reclusión perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count, citing their “mocking laughter” as an aggravating factor that intensified the victim’s humiliation.
In its Oct. 23, 2024 decision, the SC Second Division modified the original 2019 conviction of Andre Gayanilo, Aldrin Gayanilo, and Stephen Lumanog.
Initially found guilty of one count of rape each, the court ruled they were guilty of three counts each due to their conspiracy and collective actions.
The ruling also increased the damages the men must pay the victim.
They are now ordered to jointly and severally pay PHP100,000 as civil indemnity, PHP100,000 as moral damages, and PHP100,000 as exemplary damages for each count of rape, with a 6% annual interest from the finality of the decision until full payment.
The tribunal found that the coordinated and sustained assault, including two of the perpetrators laughing while restraining the victim, aggravated the crime by adding psychological torture to the physical harm inflicted.
The ruling referenced Associate Justice Mario Lopez’s comment that the attackers’ mocking behavior deliberately intensified the victim’s humiliation and sense of powerlessness.
The accused appealed their conviction, arguing that the lack of a medical report and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony raised doubts about their guilt.
They also claimed the victim’s calm demeanor when reporting the incident undermined her allegations.
However, the court rejected these arguments, ruling that the victim’s testimony was credible, candid, and categorical.
It emphasized that medical evidence is not indispensable to prove rape, particularly when the assailants used intimidation to force submission.
The court also noted that victims of sexual assault respond differently, and no specific reaction can be expected.
“The coordinated actions, accompanied by mocking laughter, undeniably added ignominy to the crime,” the court stated, noting that the attack was committed in full view of the perpetrators.
