PEOPLE vs. MELVIN MENDOZA himself from the taxi drivers attack.

,
G.R. No. 115809. January 23, 1998 however, the trial court found the
MENDOZA, J.: testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
to be credible and rejected the accused-
FACTS: At about 10:30pm of February 15, appellants claim of self-defense. It
1992, Danilo Manalus, a taxi driver, was therefore rendered judgment finding the
stabbed to death using a fan knife in accused guilty. Hence this appeal.
Pangilinan Compound, QC. by Accused-
appellant Mendoza, who was apprehended
at the scene of the crime by a tricycle ISSUE:
driver (Bonifacio Wycoco) who hit him on
the left leg with a lead pipe, causing him (1) Whether or not the trial court erred in
to fall on his knees and preventing him giving credence to the testimony of
from fleeing from the scene, subsequently prosecution witnesses who did not have
turned over to the police and charged, personal knowledge that a robbery was
together with a certain John Doe, with committed.
robbery with homicide as penalized by
Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. (2) Whether or not the trial court erred in
concluding that the bloodied money
Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant belonged to the victim Danilo Manalus
pleaded not guilty. The other accused was considering that there was no direct
at large and so trial proceeded against the evidence that a robbery had indeed taken
accused-appellant alone. place.

Accused-appellant Mendoza testified that RULING:

on February, 1992 not being able to find a
cheap pair of shoes in SM, he hailed a taxi 1) NO. In cases of robbery with
driven by Danilo Manalus. Along the way, homicide as defined in Art. 294(1)
accused-appellant claimed he noticed the of the Revised Penal Code, the
taxis meter to be fast and he complained principal purpose of the accused
to the driver. He was asked to leave, but must be shown to be to commit
the driver suddenly held him by the left robbery, the homicide being
shoulder and angrily demanded payment committed either by reason of or
of the fare. He was called tupid (Gago ka on occasion of the robbery. Now the
pala) and stabbed by the driver. He was elements of robbery with violence
hit in the lower part of his stomach. Later,
or intimidation of persons are (a)
he then stabbed the taxi driver several
that the subject is personal
times with the knife when he had the
chance to pin the driver into the steering property belonging to another; (b)
wheel. After shouting for help, a man that such property is unlawfully
(Wycuco) hit him. His hands were tied but taken; (c) that the taking must be
he did not resist. While he was made to sit with intent to gain; and (d) that the
in the gutter, he said someone searched taking must be through violence
him and got his money amounting to against or intimidation of any
P912.00. He was told to count the money. person.

Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital It may be that Wycocos knowledge

and then to the police headquarters, is limited to the stabbing of the
where he was beaten up by the police. He victim. However, when taken in
was asked for the names of his relatives relation to the other evidence of
and told to implicate Dondon Zapanta, his the prosecution, Wycocos
cousin, in the crime.
testimony shows that the violence
resulting in homicide was
He denied that there was a hold-up. He
claimed he was merely forced to defend committed in the course of a
 robbery. The key piece of testimony to prove self-defense.
evidence clearly showing Even then, inconsistencies in the
robbery in this instance comes accused-appellants testimony are
from the accused-appellant not isolated. Accused-appellant,
himself. He was asked by Louie among other lapses, failed to deny
Jose, Why did you say it is a hold- or explain the presence of the
up? In response accused-appellant bloodstained kitchen knife found
spontaneously answered, I am inside the taxi, in addition to the
getting despondent because I do fan knife (balisong), which suggest
not have money to buy milk for my that accused-appellant had a
child. (Naaaburido ako dahil sa companion in assaulting the driver.
wala akong pambili ng gatas para
sa anak ko). Indeed, the evidence satisfies the
Rules of Court criteria for
Tested by this standard, the extra- circumstantial evidence sufficient
judicial admission of accused- to support conviction, to wit: (a)
appellant was clearly part of the there is more than one
res gestae and therefore correctly circumstance; (b) the facts from
admitted by the trial court as which the inferences are derived
evidence against the accused- are proven; and (c) the
appellant. combination of all the
2) NO. Taken together with other circumstances is such as to
evidence already considered, it is produce a conviction beyond
evident that there was strong reasonable doubt.[35]
circumstantial evidence showing
that the bloodstained money
recovered from the accused- WHEREFORE, the RTC’s decision is
appellant actually belonged to the affirmed.
victim, Danilo Manalus.

Further, the stains on the money,

which the accused admits to have
come from the blood of the victim,
can only signify that the motive
was to rob the victim of his
collected fare. The claim of the
accused that it was taken from his
left pocket and then returned to
him for counting is too contrived to
be believable. How could he have
done so when his hands were tied
at that time?

Above all, it should be borne in

mind that an accused who admits
inflicting a fatal injury on his victim
and invokes self-defense must rely
on the strength of his own evidence
against the clear and damning
evidence of the prosecution
accused-appellant in this case
offered nothing but his own sole
 PEOPLE vs. VICTOR ANGELES Y 1) Whether or not the trial court erred
RAMOS, G.R. No. 104285-86 May 21, in holding that two (2) separate
1993 felonies of robbery and rape had
FELICIANO, J.: been committed by appellant;
2) Whether or not the trial court had
FACTS: Victor Angeles appeals from the erred in believing the testimony of
RTC’s decision convicting him of two (2) Analie Baltazar to the effect that
separate offenses: one of rape and the appellant Angeles had raped her.
other of robbery against Analie Baltazar
RULING:
That on or about February 24, 1989,
Accused Ramos poked an ice pick against 1. NO. Under the doctrine of double
the victim (Analie), dragged her outside jeopardy, in general, prohibits a
her house and brought her to the Three second prosecution for the same
Bird Lodge located at Sales St., Sta. Cruz. offense as that charged in the first
The victim was brought to a room, where prosecution. However, in the case at
accused removed her t-shirt, short and bar, robbery and rape cannot properly
underwear. Later, she was made to lie be considered the same offense;
down on the bed and the accused neither is one included in the other.
removed also his clothes. The accused,
after removing his clothes, started to kiss The acts constitutive of the robbery at
her on her neck, to her bust and her the house of the Baltazars and the acts
private parts. That the accused threatened comprising the rape inflicted upon
to kill her if she resisted and succeeded in Analie Baltazar were separated both by
having carnal knowledge with her against time and space. The conspiracy
her will and consent by forcing his penis to between the three (3) malefactors
enter her private parts. That the penis, clearly covering the robbery had come
according to her, penetrated lightly on her to an end with the departure of two (2)
private parts and thereafter, she was told of the conspirators. The rape was
to dress up and let (sic) her go home. That carried out after the completion of
the two companions of the accused also the robbery and after the break up
robbed and took away (1) Betamax Sony of the malefactors. The situs of the
and (1) Typewriter Merit belonging to the rape was far away from the situs of the
victim, while she was being dragged from robbery.
their home.
We believe and so hold that under the
On February 26, 1989, at about 10:00 circumstances of this case, appellant
a.m., accused Ramos was seen in their Angeles was properly charged with two
neighborhood by Analie. Victim’s father (2) distinct offenses of robbery and of
then talked to him and gave the accused a rape.
fist blow and their neighbors apprehended
and mauled him too. Later, the accused 2. The two (2) facts submitted by
was brought to the police station and appellant are: firstly, at the motel,
charged for the present crime. Analie had failed to make an outcry
which could have attracted
Accused Victor Angeles denied intervention on the part of the
emphatically the accusation against him. roomboy; and secondly, Analie's
According to him, on February 23, 1989, at declaration that appellant Angeles had
9:00 in the evening, he was at his house returned to her home few hours after
asleep. the robbery was impossible for he
would have been risking discovery,
denunciation and arrest which in fact
ISSUES: eventually came.
 a. Angeles who had placed his ice pick physical impossibility of his being at
nearby on top of the lavatory. She laid the scene of the crime or about the
down on the bed when appellant time of the commission thereof.
threatened to kill her. She testified that
she was then already weakened, There are, however, two (2) errors on
tired and worn out and feared that the part of the trial court which need
she would be stabbed if she to be addressed.
struggled with appellant. Neither could
she seek to grab the icepick while The first error relates to the penalty
appellant was on top of her on the bed, properly imposable on appellant for the
for appellant held her hands and crime of robbery. Under Article 299 of the
continue to hold the icepick at her Revised Penal Code, the penalty
neck. This Court has many times held imposable for robbery in an inhabited
in the past that rape is committed place is reclusion temporal taking into
when intimidation is exercised upon account the provisions of the
the victim and the latter submits Indeterminate Sentence Law.
herself, against her will, to the rapist's
embrace because of the fear for life The second error relates to the proper
and personal safety. The reality of characterization of the rape offense with
continuing intimidation used against which appellant was charged. Analie had
Analie Baltazar is evident all through testified before the trial court that while at
the record of this case. the motel, the appellant had told her that
b. There is no rule of law which requires a he and the other malefactors had been
court to disregard the entirety of the "tipped off that her family residence
testimony of a witness because a portion contained many appliances and that they
thereof may be doubtful. Analie declared had planned to carry away many of them
before the trial court that she saw the but had changed their minds." Appellant
appellant at the vicinity of her house at decided to take her with him because she
least three (3) times after the robbery and was "more important to these things." The
rape and that she had immediately information had sufficiently alleged, and
informed her father of appellant's the prosecution shown at the trial, that
appearance. On the third occasion, , before Analie was raped, she was taken
Analie's father was able to chase down the from her house against her will and with
appellant Angeles and confront him about lewd designs. Taking all these
his daughter's violation. A false sense of circumstances into account, it is clear to
security born out of his having the Court that appellant Angeles
successfully eluded Analie's father twice committed the complex crime of
before, would account for appellant's forcible abduction with rape, defined
imprudent third visit to the scene of the and penalized under Article 342 (forcible
robbery. abduction) and Article 335 (rape) of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to the
Appellant's defense of denial and second clause of Article 48 (complex
alibi, it is firmly established doctrine, crimes) of the same Code.
cannot prevail over the positive
identification made by Analie The forcible abduction was, in the
Baltazar. Finally, when appellant and his circumstances of this case, a necessary
mother declared that appellant was means to commit the rape.
sleeping at their, the Court notes that this
location is only a few kilometers away In the case variance between the caption
from Baltazars' residence, such that of the information and the allegations
appellant could move from one location to set out in the body thereof, which
the other within a short period of time, allegations sufficiently described the
with public transportation. Appellant's offense(s) and its elements, the latter
defense of alibi cannot be sustained prevails over the former. Article 48 of
in view of his failure to show the the Revised Penal Code provides that in
complex crimes, the penalty for the most rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
serious crime shall be imposed in its Masbate, Masbate, Branch 46, 5th Judicial
maximum period. In the case at bar, the Region, convicting him of the crime of
more serious of the two (2) crimes Robbery with Rape.
(forcible abduction and rape) established
that rape was committed with a deadly The information against accused-appellant
weapon (here, the icepick) which is on November 27, 1995, filed by 2nd
punishable with reclusion perpetua to Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jesus C.
death. Since no modifying circumstances Castillo, reads as follows: Sppedsc
were either alleged or proved and
considering the non-enforceability of the "That on or about September 11, 1995, in
death penalty, the penalty properly the evening thereof, at Barangay Bangon,
imposable on appellant is reclusion Municipality of Aroroy, Province of
perpetua. The trial court's reference to Masbate, Philippines, within the
"life imprisonment" is, of course, wrong. jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused
confederating together and helping one
As so modified, the decision of the trial another, with intent to gain, violence and
court is hereby AFFIRMED. intimidation upon persons, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
enter the kitchen of the house of Consuelo
Arevalo and when inside, hogtied said
Consuelo Arevalo and granddaughter
Nerissa Regala (sic), take, steal, rob and
carry away cash amount of P3,000.00 and
two (2) gold rings worth P6,000.00, to the
damage and prejudice of owner Consuelo
Arevalo in the total amount of P9,000.00,
Philippine Currency; and in pursuance of
the commission of the crime of robbery
against the will and consent of the
granddaughter Nerissa Regala (sic)
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously accused
Armando Regala y Abriol has for two times
sexually abused and/or intercoursed with
her, while hogtied on the bed and in the
kitchen.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]

Accused-appellant was apprehended by

the police four days after the incident. He
was identified at a police line-up by
Nerissa and her grandmother. Calrsc
3.) G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000]
The prosecution presented three
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, witnesses: Dra. Conchita Ulanday,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy,
REGALA y ABRIOL, accused-appellant. Masbate, who personally examined the
rape victim; Nerissa Tagala, the rape
DECISION victim, 17 years old, a third year high
school student; and her grandmother,
GONZAGA_REYES, J.: Consuelo Arevalo, who was her companion
when the robbery with rape transpired at
Armando Regala appeals from the Consuelos house.
judgment in Criminal Case No. 7929
The prosecutions version is stated in testified and corroborated his defense and
Appellees Brief as follows: Sccalr stated that accused-appellant was in his
house, which is about 5 kilometers away
"On September 11, 1995, at about 9:00 from Barangay Bangon. Calrspped
oclock in the evening at Barangay Bangon,
Aroroy, Masbate, then 16-year old victim The trial court held that the defense of
Nerissa Tagala and her grandmother alibi cannot overcome the positive
(Consuelo Arevalo) were sleeping, when identification of the accused. The
appellant Armando Regala and his two dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
other companions entered the formers
house. (pp. 6-7, TSN, August 26, 1996). "WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
the Court finds accused Armando Regala y
Appellant and his companions entered the Abriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
house through the kitchen by removing the crime of Robbery with Rape, as
the pieces of wood under the stove. penalized under Par. 2 of Art. 294 of the
Appellant went to the room of Nerissa and Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences
her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion
on them, one after the other. (p. 8, TSN, perpetua; to indemnify the victim
August 26, 1996) Consuelo Arevalo the sum of P9,000.00,
the cash and value of the looted articles;
Nerissa and her grandmother were to indemnify the victim Nerissa Tagala the
hogtied by appellant and his companions. sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
Thereafter, Nerissa was raped by appellant the further sum of P25,000.00 as
Armando Regala in bed while her exemplary damages. No subsidiary
grandmother was on the floor. After the imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
rape, appellant and his two companions pay the costs."[3]
counted the money which they took from
the "aparador." (pp. 9-10, TSN, August 26, Armando has appealed to this Court
1996) pleading that: Scedp

Appellant and his companions then ran (1) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
away with P3,000 in cash, 2 pieces of ring FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
valued at P6,000 and two wrist watches EXIST TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY THE
worth P5,000. (pp. 11-13, TSN, August 26, IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS
1996) PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

The following day, September 12, 1995, (2) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
Nerissa went to the Rural Health Clinic of FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
Aroroy, Masbate for medical examination. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
In the Medical Report presented by CRIME CHARGED.[4]
Municipal Health Officer Dr. Conchita S.
Ulanday, it was shown that Nerissa which alleged errors were discussed
sustained laceration of the hymen at 4:00 jointly.
oclock and 7:00 oclock positions (fresh
wounds), indicating a possible sexual In essence, accused-appellant questions
assault upon the victim. (p. 16, TSN, the sufficiency of the prosecutions
August 26, 1996)[2] evidence in identifying him as one of the
perpetrators of the crime charged. He
The defense presented accused-appellant claims that the complaining witness could
who testified that on September 11, 1995, not have positively identified him as there
he was staying in the house of Antonio was no electricity nor any light in the
Ramilo at barangay Syndicate, Aroroy, place of the incident which took place at
Masbate. Ramilo was the manager in the 9:00 oclock in the evening. Consuelo
gold panning business where accused- Arevalo was able to identify accused-
appellant was employed. Antonio Ramilo appellant only after he was pinpointed by
Nerissa, and made contradictory the kitchen, still hogtied, and raped again.
statements in court when she stated that [5] On cross-examination, Nerissa stated
accused-appellant removed his mask after that although there was no electricity, and
she was hogtied, and later stated that the light in the house was already off, she
accused-appellant removed his mask was able to see the face of Regala
before she was hogtied. The medico-legal because at the time Regala was counting
officer, Dr. Ulanday, herself testified that the money, one of his companions was
the complaining witness either voluntarily holding the flashlight "beamed to the
submitted to a sexual act or was forced money" and there was "some reflection"
into one. Edpsc on the face of Regala[6] She remembered
the face of Regala because of an earring
The appellee insists that appellants lame on his left ear[7] which he was wearing
defense of alibi cannot stand against the when presented at the police line-up.[8]
positive identification made by the victim,
and avers that the victim, a 16 year old Consuelo Arevalo testified and
barrio lass at the time the rape was corroborated the testimony of her
committed, was motivated by a sincere granddaughter. Armando Regala entered
desire to seek and obtain justice. The the house with two companions, hogtied
Solicitor General also recommends an her and Nerissa, and were asking for
additional award of compensatory money. After having sexual intercourse
damages of P50,000.00 in favor of Nerissa with Nerissa, Regala took P3,000.00 in
Tagala. Edp paper bills and coins from her aparador,
and got a stainless Seiko wristwatch and
We affirm the judgment of conviction. two gold rings valued at P6,000.00. She
was able to recognize Regala because of
There was sufficient evidence to establish his earring on his left ear, and because he
the identity of accused-appellant as the was pinpointed by Nerissa at the police
perpetrator of the crime. Misedp station. She was not able to shout at the
time because her mouth was gagged with
Nerissa positively recounted the incident a piece of cloth by Regala.[9] On cross-
on the witness stand. She was sleeping examination, Consuelo Arevalo declared
with her grandmother in the latters house that she was able to see Regala because
when the accused-appellant Regala, he used her flashlight, and he took off the
together with the unidentified companions mask he was wearing; she recognized
entered the house. Regala pointed a gun, Regala because of his earring and his flat
about 8 inches long, at her grandmother, top hair cut.[10]
and then at her, and hogtied both of them.
Regala took off her panty and her shorts, The Court gives its approbation to the
and removed his own "porontong" pants, finding of the trial court that the evidence
and made sexual intercourse ("itot") with was sufficient to clearly establish the
her while she was hogtied in bed. Her identity of Armando Regala as the person
grandmother was at the floor. She saw the who, with two companions, committed the
aparador of her grandmother being crime of robbery accompanied by rape on
opened. She could not shout because the the night of September 11, 1995. Nerissa
gun was pointed at her, and she was Tagala positively identified Armando
afraid. Two companions of the accused- Regala because at the time he was
appellant entered the room as she was counting the money on her bed, the other
being raped. Two rings valued at about companion of the accused beamed the
P6,000.00 and 2 wrist watches (one flashlight towards the money and there
"Seiko" and the other "Citizen") and was a reflection on the face of Regala.
money was taken by the accused- Although the three intruders were wearing
appellant and his companions. After raping masks when they entered the house, they
her in bed, Nerissa saw accused-appellant removed their masks later.[11]
counting the money taken from the
aparador. Thereafter, she was brought to
Our cases have held that wicklamps, have the culprit apprehended and
flashlights, even moonlight and starlight punished.[15]
may, in proper situations, be sufficient
illumination, making the attack on the The crime of robbery with rape was
credibility of witnesses solely on this committed in 1995 when RA 7659 was
ground unmeritorious.[12] already in force. Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended now provides,
We are not persuaded by the contention of under paragraph 1 thereof: Edpmis
accused-appellant that the contradictory
replies of Consuelo Arevalo when asked "1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
whether Regala removed his mask death, when for any reason of or on
"before"[13] or "after"[14] she and Nerissa occasion of the robbery, the crime of
were hogtied exposed the fact that she homicide shall have been committed, or
was not able to identify the accused- when the robbery shall have been
appellant. The contradiction referred to a accompanied by rape or intentional
minor detail and cannot detract from the mutilation or arson."
fact that both Nerissa and Consuelo
positively identified Regala as there was a The victim in the case at bar was raped
flashlight used to focus at the money while twice on the occasion of the robbery.
it was being counted and there was a There are cases[16] holding that the
reflection on the face of Regala. Both additional rapes committed on the same
Nerissa and Consuelo remembered the occasion of robbery will not increase the
earring on his left ear, which he was still penalty. In People vs. Martinez,[17]
wearing at the time of the police line-up accused Martinez and two (2) other
inside the police station. Misoedp unidentified persons, who remained at
large, were charged with the special
Dr. Conchita Ulandays testimony does not complex crime of robbery with rape where
support the contention of accused- all three raped the victim. The Court
appellant that Nerissa voluntarily imposed the penalty of death after
submitted to the sexual advances of considering two (2) aggravating
Regala. The admission of Dr. Ulanday that circumstances, namely, nocturnidad and
her findings point to the fact that Nerissa use of a deadly weapon. However, the
"either voluntarily or was forced into Court did not consider the two (2) other
sexual act" does not prove that Nerissa rapes as aggravating holding that "(T)he
voluntarily submitted to the sexual act. Dr. special complex crime of robbery with
Ulanday testified that there was suggested rape has, therefore, been committed by
evidence of penetration as shown by the the felonious acts of appellant and his
two lacerations at 4 oclock and at 7 oclock cohorts, with all acts or rape on that
which were fresh wounds. That the act occasion being integrated in one
was involuntary was clearly established by composite crime." Jjsc
the fact that Nerissa was hogtied when
she was sexually attacked. As correctly There are likewise cases[18] which held
pointed out by appellee, Nerissa was a 16- that the multiplicity of rapes committed
year old barrio lass, not exposed to the could be appreciated as an aggravating
ways of the world and was not shown to circumstance. In People vs. Candelario[19]
have any ill-motive to falsely implicate where three (3) of the four (4) armed men
accused-appellant, who was a stranger. who robbed the victim "alternately raped
And as repeatedly pronounced by this her twice for each of them", this Court,
Court, it simply would be unnatural for a citing People vs. Obtinalia,[20] ruled that
young and innocent girl to concoct a story "(T)he characterization of the offense as
of defloration, allow an examination of her robbery with rape, however, is not
private parts and thereafter subject changed simply because there were
herself to a public trial or ridicule if she several rapes committed. The multiplicity
was not, in fact, a victim of rape and of rapes should instead be taken into
deeply motivated by a sincere desire to
account in raising the penalty to death." reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery
Scjj with Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that Nerissa Tagala is
It should be noted that there is no law entitled to an additional award of
providing that the additional rape/s or P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Court
homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The SO ORDERED.
enumeration of aggravating circumstances
under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,
is exclusive as opposed to the Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
enumeration in Article 13 of the same Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
code regarding mitigating circumstances Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
where there is a specific paragraph concur.
(paragraph 10) providing for analogous
circumstances. Sjcj

It is true that the additional rapes (or

killings in the case of multiple homicide on
the occasion of the robbery) would result
in an "anomalous situation" where from
the standpoint of the gravity of the
offense, robbery with one rape would be
on the same level as robbery with multiple
rapes.[21] However, the remedy lies with
the legislature. A penal law is liberally
construed in favor of the offender[22] and
no person should be brought within its
terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.[23]

In view of the foregoing, the additional

rape committed by herein accused-
appellant should not be considered as
aggravating. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial court is
proper. Supreme

As regards the civil indemnity, we find

well-taken the recommendation of the
Solicitor General that compensatory
damages should be awarded in the
amount of P50,000.00. Nerissa Tagala is
entitled to an award of civil indemnity ex
delicto of P50,000.00, which is given in
favor of the offended party in rape.[24]
Also a conviction for rape carries with it
the award of moral damages to the victim
since it is recognized that the victims
injury is concomitant with and necessarily
results from the ordinary crime of rape to
warrant per se an award of P50,000.00 as
moral damages.[25]

WHEREFORE, the judgment convicting

Armando Regala y Abriol guilty beyond
4.) [G.R. No. 135034. January 18, feloniously have carnal knowledge of Juliet
2001] A. Magamayo, while the latter was already
sleeping, by taking turns in raping her
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, against her will and without her consent
plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADRIANO and on same occasion, accused with intent
SEGUIS a.k.a. JUNIOR, ROSALITO to gain and by means of violence and
ESTEBE a.k.a. DODONG, RODRIGO intimidation, took, stole and carried away
DOQUILA a.k.a. LOLONG (At Large), the following personal belongings of Juliet
ELMER CANICO (At Large), LOLOY A. Magamayo, to wit:
GIBERTAS (At Large), BERFEL DELA
CRUZ (At Large), and JOHN DOE (At 1. Gold bracelet ----------------------------- P
Large), accused. 500.00

ADRIANO SEGUIS and ROSALITO 2. Gold ring ----------------------------- 4,000.00

ESTEBE, accused-appellants.
3. Cash money ------------------------------
DECISION 50.00

PUNO, J.: T O T A L P 4,550.00

Juliet A. Magamayo, a nineteen-year-old in the total amount of FOUR THOUSAND

barrio lass from an obscure town in FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY (P4,550.00) PESOS,
Surigao del Norte complains that she has Philippine currency, to the damage and
been ravished, then robbed by seven men, prejudice of said Juliet A. Magamayo in the
who, following her accounts, were aforesaid amount of P4,550.00 and such
definitely no Romeos. She claims they did other damages as may be allowed by law.
not only forcibly take her gold ring, they
stole her innocence as well. She claims Contrary to law.
they did not only dispossess her of a gold
bracelet, they also divested her of her Surigao City, Philippines, August 21, 1995.
sense of security. She claims they did not [1]
only deprive her of her last remaining fifty
pesos, they denied her furthermore a Of the seven accused, the record reveals
future. that five of them remain at large. Only the
first two were placed under the custody of
Juliet pointed to the following men as the the authorities: Seguis and Estebe, and
ones who committed the outrage against they are the appellants in this case.
her womanhood: Adriano Seguis a.k.a. During arraignment, both entered a plea
Junior, Rosalito Estebe a.k.a. Dodong, of NOT GUILTY. Trial then proceeded.
Rodrigo Doquila a.k.a. Lolong, Elmer
Canico, Loloy Gibertas, Berfel dela Cruz, The prosecutions version of the story is
and a certain John Doe. They were based mainly on the private complainants
charged with the crime of robbery with recollection of what happened that
multiple rape and were indicted in an dreadful night. The offended party is one
Amended Information which reads: Juliet A. Magamayo, a nineteen-year old
unmarried girl residing at San Jose, Mainit,
That on or about August 19, 1995, in Surigao del Norte. According to her, in the
Barangay Togbongon, City of Surigao, afternoon of August 18, 1995 at about 3 o
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of clock, she went to Barangay Togbongon,
this Honorable Court, the above named Surigao City, a few kilometers away from
accused, conspiring, confederating the city proper. Her purpose was to collect
together and with mutual understanding a loan of fifty pesos from Michael
with one another, with lewd designs and Balantucas, a friend of long standing
by means of force and intimidations (sic), whom she met when she was still staying
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and with her elder sister in Togbongon. She
arrived there after approximately one hour movement. Feeling pain, she fought to
of travel. As customary with friends, they free herself. She kicked her legs but
exchanged pleasantries and stories, and Canico did not seem to mind a bit. After
basically caught up with old times. A while satisfying his lust, he stood up and put on
later, accused Loloy Gibertas and Elmer his pants. He replaced Lolong Doquila in
Canico who were on their way to fetch guarding Michael with a knife.
water passed by the house. Michael
introduced them to Juliet. They shook The next time, it was Doquila who
hands and talked a little before the two introduced his penis into the ladys private
eventually left. Michael then invited Juliet part. Perhaps realizing the futility of her
to stay in their home for the night because struggle, Juliet tried to appeal to their
darkness was closing in. Michael was living sense of mercy. She begged him to stop,
with his younger brother Rolando and mainly because of the pain. This also
younger sister Lilibeth since their parents proved fruitless. He made the same push
already died. Juliet agreed as she has slept and pull movements stopping only
in the place before. She thought that it afterwards when he was able to satisfy his
was too late and perilous to go back lust. Doquila was replaced by Loloy
home. Gibertas who had coital intercourse with
the hapless victim. Again she resisted and
Little did Juliet know that, in a cruel twist shouted for help. The men around her told
of fate, danger would visit her in the very her to remain silent if she does not want to
refuge where she sought safety. Following get killed. Shortly, Gibertas stood up and
a dinner of cooked bananas plus a few informed Berfel dela Cruz that it was his
more stories, she and the Balantucas turn. Like the others before him, and like
siblings prepared to retire. Juliet and the others soon to follow, he forced
Lilibeth slept in the houses only bedroom, himself on Juliet. When he had his fill, the
which was lighted by a kerosene lamp. unidentified man also had sexual contact
Michael was just outside the rooms with her.
doorway while Rolando stayed in the sala.
At about midnight, Juliet was awakened by Almost after the five predators finished
the noise brought about by the commotion ravaging their prey, Adriano Seguis and
of five men who entered the house. She Rosalito Estebe came into the room. Juliet
got up and saw Rodrigo Doquila pointing a already knew them even before this
knife at the throat of a crouching Michael. incident. She recognized the two that
She noticed that Lilibeth was not beside night by means of a flashlight which
her anymore as it turned out that the Estebe brought to illuminate the area.
young girl went to the kitchen to relieve Earlier, the small kerosene lamp had been
herself. Afraid, she shouted for help to extinguished by the five men. As
Michael who understandably could not do expected, Estebe laid himself on top of the
anything being himself mentally girl, who fought weakly against her new
preoccupied with, in a manner of tormentor. He rammed his penis into her
speaking, saving his own neck. vagina. He got up on his feet only after
some minutes of sexual activity. Then
At this juncture, Elmer Canico grabbed the Elmer Canico returned to the bedroom and
hair of Juliet and commanded her to lie Juliet heard him announce that it was his
down on the floor. Loloy Gibertas held her turn again. For the second time that early
right hand even as someone else was morning, he succeeded in copulating with
holding her left. She struggled and twisted her. The last one to have carnal knowledge
her body, so another man had to restrain of Juliet against her will was Adriano
her legs. Elmer Canico removed his pants Seguis. The latter inserted his male organ
and brief, and knelt in front of her. He into her private part and performed the
stripped Juliet of her pants and underwear same push and pull maneuverings using
before continuing to place himself on top his buttocks. The victim begged him to
of the woman. He inserted his penis into stop for she could not bear it anymore.
her vagina then made a push and pull Seguis told her to keep quiet.
 For her part, Lilibeth Balantucas
When Seguis was done, he rose to his feet recounted, among other things, that she
and went to the kitchen. He came back woke up at around midnight to answer a
with a plate of rice which he gave to the call of nature. She went to the kitchen to
sobbing lady. Juliet pretended to eat the urinate when five men suddenly entered
rice only so that she would not be raped the bedroom. She identified them to be
anymore. She did not utter a word but the accused Elmer Canico, Lolong Doquila,
cried a river of tears over her Loloy Gibertas and Berfel dela Cruz.
heartbreaking experience. She requested However, she did not know the fifth
Seguis to help her up and she sat down in person. Tagging along were Adriano Seguis
a corner. Rosalito Estebe was seated on a and Rosalito Estebe who pulled and
nearby trunk. When Seguis tried to blame dragged her out of the house. She was
her for what took place, she answered that able to recognize them because of the
the five men sexually abused her. Michael light coming from an electric bulb located
appeared and Juliet asked him how it in the kitchen. Outside, Seguis and Estebe
happened. Michael replied that he also did ordered her to keep quiet, or else they
not know because they were all asleep would kill her. Out of extreme fear, she did
when the incident started. Seguis and not make any sound. After about one hour,
Estebe warned them not to tell anybody of they also went inside the room. Lilibeth
what transpired otherwise they might all remained where she was as they told her
be killed. It was about one oclock in the not to move.
morning when the two remaining accused
left. Going back to Juliets testimony, it appears
that later in the morning of August 19,
Juliet discovered later on that she had 1995, someone fetched Francisco Pecante,
been despoiled of her gold ring worth a member of the local CVO, who initially
P4,000.00 and her gold bracelet worth investigated the incident. Then he sought
P500.00. Furthermore, her cash money Perfecto Pagas, the barangay captain of
amounting to P50.00 was no longer in her Togbongon. Together, they brought the
pants pocket. She admitted though that victim to the Surigao Provincial Hospital
she was not aware who among the where she was physically examined and
accused carried away the aforementioned medically treated.
personal belongings while she was being
assaulted by them. The attending physician, Dr. Panfilo Jorge
Tremedal III, testified that on August 19,
The prosecution presented two other 1995, he was a resident doctor of the
witnesses who corroborated Juliets hospital. He checked up the person of
testimony. Michael Balantucas confirmed Juliet Magamayo who complained that she
that the seven accused indeed illegally has been raped. Among his findings was
entered their house and took turns in an abrasion of the labia majora. In his
sexually defiling Juliet. The rapes were expert opinion, the injury could have
committed right before his eyes. He probably been caused by a blunt object
observed how one by one each of them like an erect human penis. Another
was able to impose his own bestial will member of the medical staff was also
against the lady. He very much wanted to presented by the prosecution: Elsa
help his visitor whom he only invited that Adlawan who was employed as a medical
night. But as much as he wanted to, he technologist by the hospital. She declared
could not do anything, since all the while that on the same date, she received a
that the rape was going on, somebody was vaginal specimen taken from Juliet for a
pointing a knife at his throat. He was laboratory evaluation for the presence of
practically rendered impotent by the spermatozoa. After conducting the
threat that something bad might happen required tests, she determined the said
to him or his siblings. specimen to be positive for spermatozoa.
With the prosecution resting its case, the five men. She did not identify any names.
defense made its counter-presentation of The complaint was not pursued as he
the facts. It first offered Nilda Cabug-os, heard later on that she has been paid. He
who, per her own declaration, is a friend of admitted too that he failed to enter the
the victim but not related to her. She complaint in the official records on the
recalled that Juliet arrived at her house in excuse that Juliet anyway did not return
Togbongon at about four oclock in the anymore.
afternoon of August 18, 1995, purportedly
to collect a sum of money Michael In his defense, the accused Adriano Seguis
Balantucas owed her. They have only testified that on March 9, 1995, Juliet
conversed for a brief moment when Juliet approached him and made a request for
went her way, returning after about two him to bear witness in a rape case she was
hours in the company of a male escort, about to file. It was not clear whether this
one Jeffrey Lerio. Later, Juliet would again is the same incident of the alleged rape
leave the house with Jeffrey for an that she complained to Kagawad Pagas.
undisclosed destination. By the time the He claimed that it was the first time that
clock struck eight, Juliet came back to the they met, although they became
house. As a matter of hospitality, Nilda acquaintances after. At any rate this is not
extended an invitation to her guest to the reason why he refused her. He simply
spend the night in their abode, which had no knowledge of the incident.
invitation Juliet readily accepted. The
latter was already sleeping when some Seguis must have felt history repeating
young men came to drop by. She rose to itself right before his very eyes. On the
entertain her visitors. More than that, she morning of August 19, 1995, at 6 a.m., he
went out with them. And although she arrived at the residence of Michael
asked Nildas permission, she did not say Balantucas. He went there together with
where they were going. It was the last his co-accused Rosalito Estebe pursuant to
time she saw her that night. a prior agreement that they would help
Michael in harvesting his crop of palay. In
The next morning greeted Nilda with a the uncanniest of coincidences, Juliet, who
neighbors story that Juliet allowed herself was already there when he arrived, again
to have sexual intercourse with several was apparently involved in another case of
men in the house of Michael Balantucas. rape which happened the previous night,
She replied that she and her husband and once more asked him to testify for her.
cautioned her about going out so late in This time the request was coupled with a
the night but Juliets persistence made threat that she would implicate him in the
them yield. She remembered that Juliet legal action if he refused to cooperate. For
was wearing maong pants and a blouse on the second time in as many instance, he
the day of the incident. She also wore a rejected her plea. For scorning her twice,
cheap wristwatch worth about P35.00, a he incurred her fury. She made good her
small belt worth approximately P30.00, a threat and implicated him.
headband and shoes made of cloth. She
did not notice any fancy jewelry. In an unexpected turn of events, the
defense called to the witness stand
Another witness, Perfecto Pagas, gave Michael Balantucas who previously
evidence that he is a barangay kagawad testified for the prosecution. He was this
of Togbongon for three years, although a time singing a different tune. He claimed
tricycle driver by vocation. He came to that his conscience was bothering him,
know of Juliet not only because she is a and he could not suffer the burden of
frequent passenger but allegedly due to seeing two innocent men go to jail. That is
her reputation in the locality of associating why he elected to testify even though he
herself with different men. According to was aware that he was courting criminal
Pagas, sometime in March 1995, Juliet prosecution in changing his testimony.
complained to him in the office of the Michael recanted his former testimony by
barangay council that she was raped by declaring that in the evening of August 18,
1995, he was staying at his house with After trial, the lower court pronounced the
Juliet and his siblings, Rolando and following sentence:[4]
Lilibeth, when at around ten oclock, five
men arrived. These five were the accused WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Lolong Doquila, Elmer Canico, Loloy Court finds each of the accused, Adriano
Gibertas, Berfel dela Cruz, and a certain Seguis or Adriano Seguis Jr. and Rosalito
Rolando Ezperanza. They had a talk with Estebe, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
Juliet wherein it was agreed that they a principal (sic) of the crime of simple rape
would rent[2] her (i.e., have sex with her) under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
that night for a fee of one thousand pesos. Code, and hereby sentences each of them
While the lady supposedly kept her part of to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
the bargain, the men did not. Instead they and to pay one-half of the costs.
even had the audacity to take her bracelet
and wristwatch when they left at about Each of the said accused is ordered to
two oclock dawn. Juliet was enraged. She indemnify the victim, Juliet Magamayo, in
wanted to bring her customers[3] to court the amount of P50,000.00 for the rape
not to collect the bill but to charge them committed by him.[5]
with rape. When Seguis and Estebe
arrived the next day, she asked the three Hence, the present appeal. In their brief,
of them (including Michael) to testify in appellants raised the lone assigned error,
her behalf, otherwise she would implicate to wit:
them. As far as Michael knows, he was the
only one who acceded to the ladys THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING
demand. THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY
THOUGH NOT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
Rosalito Estebe basically towed the same BUT ONLY OF SIMPLE RAPE WITHOUT
story line as the two other witnesses. He THEIR GUILT HAVING BEEN PROVED
testified that he knows Juliet as she often BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
comes to Togbongon where he lives. One
time, on March 1995, he saw her engage It is to be noted that the accused in this
in sexual intercourse with multiple case were originally indicted for the felony
partners in their barrio. He himself did not of robbery with multiple rape, a special
take part in the orgy. Later, she asked him complex crime punishable under Art. 294,
to be her witness as she intended to file par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and
rape charges against the persons who had which is committed when the robbery shall
sex with her. He refused as he heard that have been accompanied by rape. The said
she has been paid the sum of P1,000.00. provision, needless to say, covers cases of
Subsequently on May 14, 1995, which was multiple rapes.[6] This is primarily due to
the fiesta in Togbongon, Juliet again the fact that the juridical concept of this
requested him to be a witness in the crime does not limit the consummation of
complaint for rape she has filed against rape against one single victim or to one
Ricky Antallan, Michael Balantucas, Jeffrey single act, making other rapes in excess of
Lerio, Lolong Doquila, Elmer Canico and that number as separate, independent
Berfel dela Cruz. When he rejected her, offense or offenses. All the rapes are
she implicated him in the present case. merged in the composite, integrated
whole that is robbery with rape, so long as
In rebuttal, Juliet denied that she agreed to the rapes accompanied the robbery. It
have sex with anyone for P1,000.00. She does not matter too whether the rape
reiterated her stand that she was abused occurred before, during, or after the
by all seven men. Furthermore, it is not robbery.
true that she merely implicated Seguis
and Estebe after the two declined to be Still and all, this does not change the
her witnesses. Both also had sex with her. nature of the felony. It is essentially a
crime against property. The following are
its elements: (1) the taking of personal
property is committed with violence or where the prosecution failed to prove the
intimidation against persons; (2) the robo or the participation of the accused in
property taken belongs to another; (3) the it, the latter may still be convicted for the
taking is done with animo lucrandi; and, rape. As already mentioned, the trial court
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. To has ruled that the appellants had carnal
sustain a conviction, it is imperative that knowledge of the private complainant by
the robbery itself must be conclusively using force and intimidation. It convicted
established; just as the fact that it was the them of one count of rape each because
accused who committed it be proved there was no showing that they conspired
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution or assisted each other in committing those
must be able to demonstrate the level of rapes.
their participation with legal and moral
certainty, including the existence of a We affirm the conviction.
conspiracy, if any. Otherwise, those who
were charged should be acquitted, at least This Court has steadfastly adhered to the
for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone is rule that when a woman testifies that she
not sufficient to support a conviction for has been raped, and if her testimony
the crime of robbery with rape. meets the test of credibility, the accused
may be convicted on the basis thereof.[8]
This is exactly the factual conclusion of A rape victim who testifies in a
the trial court, whose findings, to reiterate, categorical, straightforward, spontaneous
are accorded great weight and respect as and frank manner, and remains consistent,
trial judges are undeniably in the best is a credible witness.[9] If her story had
position to weigh the declaration of only been contrived, she would not have
witnesses in light of their opportunity to been so composed and consistent
observe physically the witnesses conduct throughout her entire testimony in the
and attitude during trial.[7] Thus said the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.
court: [10] In the case at bar, the victim gave a
direct and straight narration of the events
x x x However there is no sufficient which only evinces the truthfulness of her
evidence pointing to the herein two testimony. Her story is corroborated on its
accused as the ones who divested the material points by an impartial and
victim of her money and valuables. The unbiased witness, Lilibeth Balantucas, who
complainant herself admitted that she did has absolutely no personal interest in the
not know who among the many accused outcome of this suit. Also, the medical
took her gold ring, bracelet and cash. All evidence is consistent with the theory that
that she became aware of after her the complainant had been a victim of
horrible experience was she no longer had rape.
the aforementioned items.
In addition, Juliets credibility is bolstered
x x x There is a complete lack of evidence by her instantaneous report of the crime
pointing to Adriano Seguis or Rosalito to the police. The incident occurred in the
Estebe as the ones who took the valuables early morning of August 19, 1995, and the
in question. In the absence of proof of very next day, or on August 20, 1995, she
conspiracy among the accused to commit executed her affidavit before the
the crime of robbery, they are liable only authorities of the Surigao City Police.
for their own separate and individual acts.
Besides, the appellants failed to prove any
But the lower courts finding of their non- ulterior or improper motive which could
participation in the robbery does not mean have induced the victim and her witness
that they are totally guiltless. They will still to testify against or falsely implicate them
be held accountable for whatever unlawful in the commission of the crime.[11]
acts they may have committed, and for Indeed, if an accused had really nothing to
which acts they were charged. In a do with the crime, it is against the natural
criminal action for robbery with rape, order of events and human nature and
against the presumption of good faith that at the scene of the incident and were the
the prosecution witness would falsely victims assailants and perpetrators of the
testify against the former.[12] Thus, we crime.[15] In the present case, the
adhere to the established rule that in the appellants were positively identified by the
absence of any evidence to show that the victim, thus:
witnesses for the prosecution were
actuated by any improper motive, their Prosec. Menor : After that person was
identification of the accused-appellants finished, what happened next?
should be given full faith and credit.[13]
Juliet : Then Adriano Seguis and Rosalito
Appellants defense that they were merely Estebe went up the house.
implicated by Juliet as they refused to
testify in her favor is far from convincing. Q : Did they enter the room?
Both of them testified that they are not
even close friends of Juliet. As correctly A : Yes, sir. Rosalito entered the room first.
pointed out by the Solicitor-General, It is
quite contrary to human experience that a Q : By the way, do you know personally
woman would narrate to somebody how Rosalito Estebe?
she was used sexually for a fee (and was
not paid) and thereafter request said A : Yes, sir.
person whom she hardly knew to testify in
her favor to support her complaint.[14] Q : For how long have you known him prior
Also, such motive if availing is attributable to the incident?
only to Juliet. The same cannot be imputed
to the other vital witness Lilibeth, who, to A : A long time, sir.
repeat, does not have any interest in this
case and yet explicitly declared that Q : In Barangay Togbongon?
appellants were among the seven men
who went to their house the night of A : Yes, sir.
August 18, 1995.
Q : You knew him because you have
In support of their lone assignment of stayed in Togbongon, Surigao City?
error, the accused advanced several
arguments designed to destroy the A : Yes, sir. It was Jolly who introduced (sic)
credibility of the witness herself and then to me.
her testimony. We are not impressed by
these arguments. Q : How were you able to recognize that it
was Rosalito Estebe and Adriano Seguis
I who entered the room?

Appellants basic submission is a mere A : Because Rosalito and Adriano called for
restatement of their defense. They assert Michael Tol.
that they were not present at the scene of
the crime during the supposed moment Q : My question, how were you able to
that it was unfolding. On the contrary, recognize Rosalito Estebe and Adriano
they arrived there only at six oclock the Seguis.
following morning allegedly to help
Michael Balantucas harvest his palay. A : Estebe was bringing (sic) a flashlight.

Such submission must fail for obvious Q : How about Adriano Seguis?
reasons. We have ruled that the defense
of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in A : He was there sitting near the head of
the light of positive declarations of truthful Michael.
witnesses who testified on affirmative
matters that the accused-appellants were Q : Was the room still lighted at that time.
A : No more, sir, only the flashlight. Q : How about you?

Q : Did you see the face of Rosalito A : I was outside because I was afraid and
Estebe? I was pulled.

A : Yes, sir. Q : By whom?

Q : How were you able to see the faces of A : Dodong Estebe, Adriano Seguis.
Adriano Seguis and Rosalito Estebe?
Q : Including Estebe and Seguis, how
A : The light from the flashlight was many persons were there in the house, all
moving around. in all?

Q : Are you very sure that the two persons A : Seven persons.
who came late were Adriano Seguis and
Rosalito Estebe? Q : What did Seguis and Estebe do to you?

A : Yes, sir.[16] A : Seguis and Estebe held my hands and

told me to keep quite or they would kill
In addition, there is the testimony of me.
Lilibeth Balantucas, pointing to the two
appellants as among those who entered xxx
their house at around midnight. Her
testimonial narrative proved that Seguis Q : Considering that it was nighttime, how
and Estebe were in the Balantucas were you able to recognize them when
residence at precisely or about the same they were able to drag you outside?
time Juliet was being raped. It forthrightly
contradicted the assertions of the two that A : Because there was a light.
they arrived there only about six oclock in
the morning of the next day. According to Q : Light from what?
her:
A : From electric bulb.
xxx
Q : And where was that electric bulb
Prosec. Menor: You said you slept at about located or placed?
12:00 (sic) oclock in the evening, what
time did you awake up? A : Outside.

Lilibeth: At 12:00 because I want to Q : Are you referring to the post?

urinate.
A : No, sir, it was came from our kitchen.
Q : Where did you go after you wake (sic)
up? Q : Kitchen of your house?

A : To the kitchen. A : Yes, sir.[17]

Q : When you reached the kitchen of your Moreover, the defense of alibi is an issue
house, what happened next? of fact that hinges on credibility, the
relative weight of which the trial court
A : Then some men entered our room. assigns to the testimony of the witnesses.
Such assessment, unless patently and
Q : How many were they? clearly inconsistent, must be accepted, for
verily a careful evaluation of the record
A : Five persons. does not reveal that the trial courts
rejection of the defense of alibi is to get even for their failure to pay.
inconsistent with the evidence on record. Obviously, the reason why Juliet went to
[18] court and opted to suffer the ordeal of
being interrogated on her harrowing
Lastly, it puzzles this court why the experience is to obtain justice.
appellants, despite their plea of alibi,
never testified as to their whereabouts the III
night of August 18, 1995. Neither did they
present any witness who can plausibly Appellants next call our attention on the
confirm that they were indeed in another so-called badges or telltale signs of a
place at that period. For the defense of perfected contract for sexual services
alibi to be appreciated, it is not enough to between Juliet and the accused. The
prove that the accused was somewhere appellants would like to impress upon this
else when the offense was committed. It Court that an agreement would lend
must likewise be shown that he was so far credence to their theory that she allowed
away that it was not possible for him to be herself to be used that night by five men
physically present at the place of the who in turn reneged on their word of
crime or its immediate vicinity at the time paying her. As a consequence of which,
of its commission. The rule is settled that she was left with no choice but to file this
for the defense of alibi to prosper, the action and include the appellants as well
requirement of time and place must be for refusing her request to be her
strictly met.[19] witnesses. In the alternative, the
agreement should demonstrate that if
II there was any sexual activity participated
in by the woman and the appellants, it
Appellants contend that private was at least consensual.
complainant is not credible as she is
known in the locality as a scheming 19- First. They argue that if it were true that
year old woman, of loose morals, engaged Juliet was raped no less than eight times
in the oldest trade, and wise in her ways and by seven different men, she should
with the world.[20] Consequently, it is a have sustained more injuries than mere
misplaced gesture of sympathy and superficial linear abrasion on the labia
compassion to consider her truthful and a majora. This should manifest that every
paragon of a Filipinas inbred modesty and intercourse was done, not with force and
Christian virtues. The record, however, is intimidation, but with care and finesse.
bereft of any evidence that Juliet is a Suffice it to say that the absence of
woman for hire, except for the statements external signs of physical injuries does not
of witnesses Nilda Cabug-os, Perfecto negate rape.[21] This is especially true if
Pagas, and appellant Rosalito Estebe to we take into consideration that two men
the effect that she is often seen in the held Juliets hands while she was being
company of men. These recitals by raped in succession. Be that as it may,
themselves cannot be made sufficient whatever wounds she might have suffered
basis for accepting the veracity of the is consistent with the hypothesis that she
allegation. Greater amount of quantitative was raped. As opined by Dr. Tremedal, an
and qualitative proof is needed. acknowledged expert witness, her scars,
by their very nature, must have been
Moreover, it is unlikely that even a caused by a blunt object hitting the vagina
prostitute would agree to have sex with force, such as an erect male penis
continuously with five to seven men for during sexual intercourse.
one night for a fee of P1,000.00. And it is
even more unlikely that she would go to Second. Appellants ask how come Seguis
the extent of filing a case against them, and Estebe preferred not to rape Lilibeth
two of whom are acquaintances, have her Balantucas herself who was already at
parts physically examined, and testify in their complete control during the time that
court how she was ravaged by them just complainant was allegedly being gang-
raped by the other five accused inside the On another point, appellants keep harping
room? Why did they wait for the five to on the one hundred eighty-degree turn
finish and leave behind in the process a around made by Michael on the stand.
fresh, sweeter, and younger[22] Lilibeth? They say that if the alleged sexual
They claim that this is unnatural for people congresses were true, and witnessed by
driven by lust and bestial desire, unless Michael, it is highly unthinkable that,
there was a prior arrangement made by despite the risk of facing criminal
them with the victim. We are not prosecution for false testimony and
persuaded. Lust is not a respecter of time, perjury, he would still recant his previous
place and circumstances, nor of persons testimony in court in favor of the two.
and relationships,[23] and neither is it a They stress that Juliet and Michael are
conformist to reason and good taste, nor more than good friends; and, the latter by
common sense even. When a man is force of circumstance should not hesitate
overcome by lustful passions, certainly it to defend the complainants position.
would be too much to expect that he will
still concern himself with the age, scent or The Court fails to be impressed with the
appearance of his prospect. recantation of Michael Balantucas for
several reasons. A recantation does not
Third. Appellants contend that Juliets act necessarily cancel an earlier declaration.
of telling Adriano Seguis, before she was [25] Like any other testimony, it is subject
raped by the latter, that she could not to the test of credibility based on the
take it anymore is indicative of the relevant circumstances and especially the
existence of a prior agreement with the demeanor of the witness on the stand.
seven accused for a fee of P1,000. Again, Moreover, it should be received with
the argument lacks merit. When Juliet told caution as otherwise it could make solemn
Seguis that she could not take it, she was trials a mockery and place the
not asking for a recess or timeout[24] as investigation of truth at the mercy of
they insist, but was actually pleading that unscrupulous witnesses.[26]
he no longer rape her as she has suffered
enough in the hands of the other accused. In any event, the eyewitness accounts of
Juliet herself and Lilibeth are more than
Fourth. They assert that the subsequent sufficient to prove beyond doubt the
act of Seguis and Estebe in socializing with participation of the appellants in the
the victim and the Balantucas siblings commission of the assault. Even if the trial
negates any idea of a misdeed. A reality court had not given credence to the first
check, however, would show that the testimony of Michael, there still is enough
accused stayed for a while after raping indication to ascertain their culpability. His
Juliet not to socialize with them, as in fact declaration is merely cumulative, or
the two warned them not to tell anybody additional evidence of the same kind
of what happened or they would be killed. tending to establish the same point or
Although it is correct that Seguis later factual issue.
showed some signs of remorse towards
the victim, his acts were belated and could V
no longer erase his crime. The ambiguous
attitude of Seguis is understandable. While Lastly, appellants put private complainant
succumbing to his uncontrollable lust, he to task for alleged marked contradictions
remained quite sympathetic to the plight and pure improbabilities surrounding her
of Juliet, who was an old acquaintance. story. For instance, they assert that it
Nevertheless, the apparent regret shown would be highly doubtful for Juliet not to
by Seguis after the act of rape could not notice who took away her gold ring and
undo what he had done. It was too late for gold bracelet, if in the first place there
recriminations. were any. So too are they puzzled with
how consistent she is in her perception of
IV how long each accused raped her. To them
this is a sure sign that her performance on
the stand is rehearsed.

The submission deserves scant attention.

Verily, one cannot expect a victim of such
nerve-racking experience to become
aware of every minute detail of the event,
or question her keenness to observe one
aspect of it but not another. It is
understandable for the poor victim not to
remember who particularly among the
seven took away her valuables. At that
point, her ring and bracelet were not that
important to her. Regarding the time, it
could well be the only thing that
concerned her mind. In any event, these
contradictions or improbabilities, as
appellants would put it, cannot erode the
credibility of Juliets testimony.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Surigao City in
Criminal Case No. 4581 is AFFIRMED in
toto. Costs against
5.) [G.R. No. 136394. February 15,
2001] The evidence for the prosecution shows
that Desiree was a singer in a band which
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, regularly plays at the Gloss and Glitters
plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERSON NAAG y Disco located in Tabaco, Albay. On the
LOBAS, accused-appellant. morning of January 8, 1996, she went
home to Sipi, Daraga, Albay, to visit her
DECISION family. She took the bus and by about 4
oclock in the morning, she alighted at the
PUNO, J.: towns Freedom Park in Daraga. She
crossed a street where two tricycles were
One of the more interesting conceptual parked. She woke up one of the drivers
exercises in the field of Criminal Law is the and inquired whether she could be
characterization of a crime. The challenge brought to Sipi. Getting a positive
is not only to prove existence of its response, she boarded it. Upon reaching
elements. The challenge is to correctly her place, she told him to stop and handed
categorize it. In the case at bar, a man to him her fare. To her surprise, what she
sexually defiled then immediately divested received in return was not loose change,
his woman-victim of her belongings. Is he but a slap.
guilty of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Rape or the separate crimes The driver then began to maul her. Desiree
of Robbery and Rape? The answer lies in fought back as hard as she could, but this
his intent. made the driver more ferocious in his
assault. She was strangled, boxed and
The accused in this case is a certain kicked. She was repeatedly stabbed with a
Herson Naag y Lobas. He was indicted for screw driver on her face, head, and
Robbery with Rape under an Information different parts of her body. Her head was
which reads: banged against the sidecar. She realized
that her struggle was in vain and would
That on or about the 8th day of January, only put her life in greater danger. She
1996 at Daraga, Albay x x x the above stopped resisting and pretended to be
named accused, armed with a screw dead.
driver, by means of violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, He then transported her to another place.
unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal He lifted her from the tricycle and she
knowledge of the complainant Desiree thought she would be thrown to a ravine
Gollena, against her will, by inflicting upon or cliff beside what appeared to be an
her with the use of said screw multiple abandoned house. Instead, she was tossed
serious physical injuries, and thereafter to the ground. The driver removed her
said accused, having been fully satisfied of pants and panties. She could not resist,
his carnal lust over said Desiree Gollena fearing death. After her garments were
and believing her to be dead, with intent removed, her legs were spread apart and
of gain, divested and took her personal he copulated with her.
belongings, to wit: (1) one bag containing
clothes worth P500.00 (2) one gold After satisfying his lust, the driver took her
bracelet worth P1,500.00 (3) wallet wristwatch worth P600.00, a bracelet
containing P1,800.00 and (4) ladies worth P1,500.00 and fled with her bag
wristwatch valued at P600.00 to the containing her clothes, wallet containing
damage and prejudice of said Desiree P1,800.00 in cash, and some loose
Gollena. change. When Desiree sensed that he has
left the premises, she rolled down the
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[1] ravine. She did not have the energy to
stand and walk and so she crawled until
He pleaded not guilty during arraignment she reached a house, which turned out to
and the action proceeded to trial. be the dwelling place of witness Engineer
Antonio Balacano located at Sybil of January 8. A criminal complaint was
Subdivision, Sipi, Daraga. She cried for then filed against Naag. On February 25,
help. 1996, he was arrested by the NBI agents
of Naga City at Tagkawayan, Quezon.
Engr. Balacano responded to Desirees call
for assistance. He saw Desiree, a bloodied The accused alleged, in his defense, that it
girl, cold and torn, squatting by the gate was impossible for him to be the author of
with her pants down and hanging on one the crime at bar. He claimed that at the
leg. It was already 5 oclock in the morning. time and date of the incident, he was
The wife of the engineer telephoned local sleeping in their house approximately
police authorities for assistance. In the seven kilometers away from where it
meantime, Desiree was brought to the happened. His tricycle was not in a
Albay Provincial Hospital where she was serviceable condition then, and he was
given medical treatment. Dr. Jose Solano repairing it the night before. It was fixed
testified that the girl was in pain when he only on January 9 since he was able to buy
examined her and that she sustained the spare part that he needed at about
multiple lacerations and stab wounds on 8:30 a.m. of January 8. The previous day
different parts of her body, and had was a Sunday and almost all of the motor
blackening of her left and right eyes. Dr. shops were closed. Hence, he alleged that
Aileen Francis Bartilet examined Desirees he could not have operated on the Sipi
genitalia and noted the absence of any route on the 8th as his tricycle was not in
sign of injury: there was no bleeding, no running condition. He explained that he
laceration of the hymen, no contusion in was in Tagkawayan when he was arrested
the vulvar wall of the vagina, and no because he had undergone hospitalization
abrasion. and was on an errand.

Later that morning of January 8, 1996, The defense also called two other
policemen came to the hospital to witnesses to the stand who backstopped
investigate the incident. Desiree gave a the testimony of the accused. It presented
description of the suspect as well as the his wife who basically reiterated the story
tricycle. The next day, on January 9, SPO1 of her husband. She said that he was with
Pastor Perena Jr. and SPO2 Domingo her from the night of January 7 up to the
Mabini happened to apprehend one morning of January 8, at about 8:30, when
Herson Naag y Lobas, a tricycle driver, for he had to buy the spare part that he
driving a public utility tricycle without the needed for his tricycle. Similarly, it
necessary license. Naag and the vehicle presented a certain Lino Era, a next-door
were brought to the police station of neighbor who recalled seeing the accused
Daraga. Perena and Mabini realized that at about 10 oclock in the evening of
Naag fit the description of the malefactor January 7 doing some repairs on his
given by Desiree. They brought the tricycle.
confiscated student drivers permit of Naag
(which contains his photograph) to the In the end, the trial court chose not to
hospital for identification. Their hunch was believe Naag. It held:
confirmed when Desiree, upon being
shown the permit, identified the man in The accused in his defense put up alibi, a
the picture as the one who raped and shabby excuse, a defense indicties never
robbed her. seem to tire of. (People vs. Bracamonte,
257 SCRA 380) This defense of the
When the policemen returned to the accused cannot prevail over the positive
station, Naag was already gone, but not identification by the victim Desiree of the
without leaving his tricycle behind. They accused and of the tricycle. This defense
brought the tricycle to the hospital for of alibi is worthless in the face of his being
identification. Desiree did not have any positively identified by the victim Desiree.
difficulty in identifying the tricycle as the (People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA 26)[2]
same vehicle she boarded on the morning
However, the trial court did not convict trier of fact, is in a better position to
him of the crime he was originally charged appreciate the same. The only exceptions
with, which is Robbery with Rape. Instead allowed are when the trial court has
he was meted out two different sentences plainly overlooked certain facts of
for the separate crimes of Robbery and substance which, if considered, may affect
Rape, viz: the result of the case, or in instances
where the evidence fails to support or
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the substantiate the lower courts findings and
accused Herson Naag y Lobas is hereby conclusions, or where the disputed
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of decision is based on a misapprehension of
the crime of Rape under Art. 335 (1) of the facts.[5] This case does not fall under any
Revised Penal Code as amended, and he is of the exceptions. Hence, there is no
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reason for us to modify the factual findings
imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua with of the lower court.
all the accessory penalties thereto
appertaining, to pay Desiree Gollena Even then, the appellant raises two points
P50,000.00 as Indemnity and P50,000.00 in support of his assignment of error
as moral damages. designed to sow in our minds seeds of
doubt. The first relates to the medical
The accused Herson Naag y Lobas is also evidence on record while the second deals
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of with his identity.
the separate crime of Robbery under Art.
294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, and The appellant capitalizes, firstly, on Dr.
taking into consideration the Bartilets testimony on the absence of
Indeterminate Sentence Law he is hereby fresh injury on the private part of the
sentenced to suffer the penalty of offended party although she was
imprisonment of ten (10) years of Prision examined almost immediately after the
mayor medium in its maximum period as assault. According to him, the findings of
the minimum to fourteen (14) years, ten said medical expert negate the charge of
months and twenty (20) days of Reclusion rape. On the other hand, the prosecution
Temporal medium period in its medium contends that the lack of injury and the
period as the maximum and to return the healed laceration could be attributed to
ladies wrist watch worth P600.00, bracelet the sexual intercourse she had with her
worth P1,500.00, bag of clothes worth boyfriend.
P500.00 or their total value of P2,600.00 if
return cannot be had and the cash of The appellants argument fails to impress.
P1,800.00. Costs against the accused. It is to be noted that Dr. Bartilet herself
explained that her findings did not
SO ORDERED.[3] eliminate the possibility of sexual
intercourse. She opined that it must have
Dissatisfied with the verdict, the accused been done only outside the vagina but
interposed this appeal. In his brief, he within the external vulva by merely
made this lone assignment of error: The pushing and giving some force to it.[6]
Lower Court erred in finding the accused She added that the appellant could have
guilty of the separate crimes of Robbery ejaculated and discharged semen on the
and Rape.[4] external genitalia even without
penetrating into the vagina.
We affirm the conviction.
In rape cases, what is material is that
There is no cogent reason to disturb the there is penetration of the female organ
findings of the lower court. Well- no matter how slight.[7]7 In a long line of
entrenched is the rule that an appellate decisions, we have ruled that the only
court will generally not disturb the essential point is to prove the entrance or
assessment of the trial court on factual at least the introduction of the male organ
matters considering that the latter, as a into the labia of the pudendum.[8] Hence,
the moment the accuseds penis knocks at Q: But you saw him only once on Jan. 8,
the door of the pudenda it suffices to 1996. How were you able to recognize him
constitute the crime of rape.[9] in the Municipal building when you were
asked to identify him after one month,
The appellant next assails the being detained?
identification made by Desiree. He
contends that it was still dark at the time A: As I have said, I can never forget his
of the incident. He argues that when face.[13]
people board a tricycle, they do not
usually focus their attention on the driver. Moreover, Desiree should have no
He states that the identity of the driver difficulty in identifying the appellant
could be the least of Desirees concern for because when she first approached him at
at 4 oclock in the morning, she would have the centro to hire his services, the place
just wanted to go home and rest in the was bright and well-lighted.
comfort of her bed.
The appellant further argues that Desirees
We are not persuaded. Desiree could not initial identification of him through his
have failed to recognize the appellant picture is unreliable considering the
because she was the victim of the assault. physical and emotional state she was in at
A truism founded on ordinary experience that time. It is urged that due to her
is that victims of criminal violence often physical and mental instability, the
strive hard to recognize their assailants. showing of the student permit must have
[10] Furthermore, a victim has a natural generated a prejudice in her mind that the
knack in remembering the face of an person shown in the picture of the drivers
assailant for she, more than anybody else, ID is the one who assaulted her.[14]
would be interested in bringing the
malefactor to justice.[11] On the other The argument proceeds from a wrong
hand, it would be unnatural for someone assumption. It assumes that the picture
who is interested in vindicating the crime was shown before the victim gave the
to accuse somebody other than the real description to the police. It was the other
culprit.[12] way around. Thus:

To be sure, Desiree was very emphatic in Court: Have you seen him in that parking
her identification of the appellant as her area before January 8, 1996?
assailant, thus:
Desiree: No, your honor.
Court: Now that person Herson Naag, how
is he related to the accused in this case? Q: Now, while you were in the Hospital you
said that an ID was shown to you and the
Desiree: He is the one and same person picture of a person and whose picture you
who raped and robbed me. recognize to be that of a person who
raped you. Who showed you that picture?
Q: You said it was the first time you saw
the accused on January 8, 1996. It was still A: The Police Officer.
dark is (sic) it not?
Q: How come that the Policeman was able
A: It was bright at the centro. to go to Albay Provincial Hospital with that
ID?
Q: But it was not in park (sic) he was
sleeping at that time in his tricycle. Is it A: Because when they interviewed me in
not? (sic) the hospital, I gave them the description
of the accused and his tricycle.[15]
A: It was bright because there were lights.
The point is made more explicit during
Desirees cross-examination:
 We must ascertain the force which moved
Atty. Gomez (continuing on cross- the appellant when he employed violence
examination) and intimidation against the person of
Desiree. It is true that the appellant raped
Q: Now, on that date Jan. 9, 1996 were Desiree before she was dispossessed of
you told by the policemen that the person her personal properties. This, however, is
whose ID was shown to you was one of not decisive. Article 294 of the Revised
their suspects? Penal Code does not distinguish whether
the rape was committed before, during or
A: The policeman told me to identify the after the robbery. It suffices that the
person in the ID. robbery was accompanied by rape.[20]

Q: Were you told that the owner of the ID We agree with the conclusion of the trial
was apprehended for violation of traffic court that rape was the primary intent of
law? the appellant and his taking away of the
belongings of the victim was only a mere
A: No, Sir. I was just asked to identify him. afterthought. Although the trial court did
not state the reasons for its ruling, there
Q: After the ID was shown to you that was exists sufficient evidence on record from
the time when you also gave them the where such deduction can be made.
description of the person, is (sic) it not?
First. It is obvious from the degree and
A: No, Sir. It was on Jan. 8, 1996 when I character of the violence and intimidation
gave the description of the tricycle driver. which the appellant employed (and when
[16] he employed it) upon Desiree that his
intent was to rape her. He applied such
We shall now ascertain the nature and force as to render her resistance to his lust
extent of the criminal responsibility of the inutile. The kind of force used was
appellant. The issue is whether the crime unnecessary if he only planned to rob
committed by him is Robbery with Rape or Desiree. On the other hand, the excessive
the two separate felonies of Robbery and force was clearly meant to attain his
Rape. lustful scheme. Resultantly, when he
finally forced his bestial desire on her, he
In the special complex crime of robbery was able to traverse, in a manner of
with rape, the true intent of the accused speaking, the path of least resistance.
must first be determined because it is his
intent that determines the offense he has Second. The appellant transported Desiree
committed. This Court in People vs. Dinola, from where he first mauled her to an
[17] citing the cases of People vs. abandoned place. All the time that Desiree
Canastre[18] and People vs. Faigano,[19] was helpless after her mauling, appellant
held: did not concern himself with robbing
Desiree even if he could have done so with
x x x if the intention of the accused was to ease if not with impunity. Instead, he
rob, but rape was committed even before preoccupied himself in finding a location
the asportation, the crime is robbery with more suited, nay, comfortable, for his plan
rape. But if the original plan was to rape of lying with her. Needless to say, an
but the accused after committing the rape abandoned house fits well.
also committed the robbery when the
opportunity presented itself, the offense Lastly, at no time did the appellant ask for
should be viewed as separate and distinct. the belongings of Desiree. Neither did he
To be liable for the complex crime of search her for valuables, except for the
robbery with rape the intent to take wallet in her pants. What is apparent is
personal property of another must that he only: (1) took her watch and
precede the rape. bracelet, both easily seen and noticeable,
and (2) fled with her bag which was
already in the tricycle. These overt acts P50,000.00 as indemnity and P50,000.00
only indicate that he decided to take as moral damages.
Desirees belongings as an afterthought
and only when the opportunity presented The accused-appellant Herson Naag y
itself. Lobas is also found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the separate crime of
We disagree, however, on the ruling of the THEFT under Article 308 of the Revised
trial court that the appellant is guilty of Penal Code, and taking into consideration
robbery. He should only be convicted of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is
theft because when he took the personal hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
properties of Desiree, the element of imprisonment of 4 months and 21 days of
violence and intimidation was no longer arresto mayor maximum as the minimum,
present. While it is true that he inflicted to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prision
force upon her person, that was with the correccional as the maximum, and to
view and in pursuance of the rape, not of return the ladies wristwatch worth
the taking. When the asportation P600.00, bracelet worth P1,500.00, bag of
happened, Desiree was near lifeless, clothes worth P500.00 or their total value
incapable of putting any form of of P2,600.00 if return cannot be made and
opposition. the cash of P1,800.00. Costs against the
accused.
The penalty for theft is determined by the
value of the property taken. Under Article SO ORDERED.
309 of the Revised Penal Code, any person
guilty of theft shall be punished by the Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan,
penalty of prision correccional in its Pardo and Ynares-Santiago JJ., concur.
minimum and medium periods, if the
value of the thing stolen is more than 200
pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum penalty to be meted out on
the appellant Naag should be anywhere
within the range of 2 months and 1 day to
6 months of arresto mayor; and the
maximum should be within the range of 6
months and 1 day to 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional.
Considering that no aggravating or
mitigating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime, the appellant
should be sentenced to an indeterminate
prison term of 4 months and 21 days of
arresto mayor maximum as the minimum,
to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prision
correccional as the maximum.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned decision

is hereby MODIFIED. The accused-
appellant Herson Naag y Lobas is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of RAPE under Article 335 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code as amended, and he is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua with
all the accessory penalties thereto
appertaining, to pay Desiree Gollena
 Of the five accused, Mamerto Soriano and
6.) [G.R. No. 130650. September 10, Pablo Ramos remain at large. Only Mario
2002] Verceles, Felix Corpuz and Jerry Soriano
were brought to the jurisdiction of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, court. During arraignment, the three
plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO accused, duly assisted by counsel,
VERCELES, FELIX CORPUZ, MAMERTO pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
SORIANO (At large), PABLO RAMOS Thereafter, the prosecution filed a motion
(At large), and JERRY SORIANO (State to discharge accused Jerry Soriano as a
Witness), accused, MARIO VERCELES State Witness. The court proceeded with
and FELIX CORPUZ, accused- the trial of the case pending the resolution
appellants. of the said motion to discharge.

DECISION The trial court subsequently discharged

accused Jerry Soriano and received his
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: testimony as state witness. According to
Soriano, on October 18, 1996, the five
Accused Mario Verceles alias Baldog, Felix accused boarded a tricycle owned by
Corpuz, Mamerto Soriano alias Merto, Mario Verceles to visit his cousin in
Pablo Ramos and Jerry Soriano were barangay Goliso, located at the boundary
charged with the crime of Robbery with of Urbiztondo. At 8:00 in the evening, they
Rape committed as follows: proceeded to barangay Malibong to visit
Pepe, a compadre of Mamerto Soriano.
That on or about the 19th day of October, Before reaching Pepes place, they stopped
1996, in the morning, in barangay at the house of Jerrys grandmother, Rosita
Malibong, municipality of Urbiztondo, Quilates. Jerry sensed that his companions
province of Pangasinan, Philippines and had an evil plan, so he and Pablo Ramos
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable tried to leave. However, Mamerto Soriano
Court, the above-named accused, poked a gun at Jerry and told them not to
conspiring, confederating and helping one leave. Then, they tied Jerry and Pablo
another, with intent of gain and by means under a mango tree. The three proceeded
of force upon things, entered the house of to the house of Rosita Quilates. While
one Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly waiting for the three, Jerry and Pablo fell
destroying the grills of the window which asleep. When they woke up at 2:00 a.m.,
they used as an ingress and once inside, they saw the three accused carrying a TV
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully set, VHS and other things. They helped the
and feloniously take and cart away the three load the items in the tricycle. Then
following personal properties: one (1) they went home to San Jacinto,
colored T.V., one (1) VHS, assorted Pangasinan. Several days later, they sold
jewelries, one (1) alarm clock and one (1) the items and Jerry was given three
radio cassette, all valued at SIXTY hundred pesos.[2]
THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) owned by
the said Rosita Quilates, and that on the The prosecution witness Maribeth Bolito
same occasion, the said accused, testified that on October 19, 1996 at
conspiring, confederating and helping one around 2:00 in the morning, she was
another, did then and there, willfully, awakened by a man fondling her breast
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual and other private parts. She tried to resist
intercourse with Maribeth Bolito against and fight back but her strength proved too
her will to the damage and prejudice of weak against her aggressor. Furthermore,
the aforenamed victims. the man had a gun pointed at her head.
She later identified her aggressor as
CONTRARY to Art. 299, par. A(2) in relation Mamerto Soriano. While she was being
to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[1] ravished, she saw two men standing at the
door, whom she identified as accused
Mario Verceles and Felix Corpuz. Soriano
undressed her then kissed her on the body October 27, 1996. He first learned that he
and fondled her breasts for five minutes. was a suspect in a crime on November 3,
She pretended to be thirsty, so Soriano, 1996.[6]
holding her tightly, brought her to the
kitchen. There he removed his pants and Ernesto Lambino, Jr. corroborated the
laid her on the floor and tried to insert his testimony of Felix Corpuz. He testified that
penis inside her vagina. Maribeth lost he was the one who recruited Felix to work
consciousness and when she came to, her in Tambo, Rizal, Paraaque as a mason
private part was very painful and the three carpenter. They arrived in Manila on
accused were gone.[3] October 5, 1996 and Felix started his work
on October 6, 1996 until October 26,
Dra. Revelina Millan, who examined 1996.[7]
Maribeth on October 20, 1996, made the
following findings:[4] Accused Mario Verceles, for his part,
testified that in the evening of October 18,
- GO IMP : September 2nd week/96 1996, he attended the wake of Crispulo de
Guzman at Barangay San Vicente, San
3 days Jacinto, Pangasinan. There he played cards
up to 4:00 a.m. of October 19, 1996. He
- SKIN : No hematoma left the place at 5:00 a.m. He only learned
that the police were looking for him when
No Abrasion his wife fetched him in Mapandan,
Pangasinan. He went to the barangay
- IE : with healed laceration at 9 oclock captain of his place and arranged for his
position surrender to the authorities. Police
Inspector Rodolfo Tadeo corroborated his
- For vaginal smear for presence of testimony that he voluntarily surrendered
spermatozoa to the police on November 5, 1996.[8]

- Result : Negative for spermatozoa After trial, the lower court rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which
SPO2 Eduardo Fernandez, who reads:[9]
investigated the robbery, testified that the
malefactors entered through the window WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
of one of the bedrooms of the house; that Court hereby finds accused Felix Corpuz
they took personal properties valued at and Mario Verceles guilty beyond
P60,000.00; that Maribeth Bolito was reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery
sexually abused; and that a necklace was with Rape defined and penalized under
recovered from Felix Corpuz.[5] Article 294, 1, as amended, of the Revised
Penal Code, and there being neither
Mrs. Rosita Quilates testified that she mitigating nor aggravating circumstance,
learned from her granddaughter, Maribeth the Court hereby sentences each to suffer
Bolito, that her house was robbed and her the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Both
personal belongings were missing; and Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles are
that she was able to recover the likewise ordered to pay jointly and
properties from a certain Andres Tirano, solidarily the victim Maribeth Bolito the
who bought them from accused Mamerto sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
Soriano. (P200,000.00) for moral damages, One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
In their defense, Felix Corpuz testified that for exemplary damages and to pay Rosita
on October 19, 1996, he was in Manila Quilates the sum of Twenty One Thousand
working as a carpenter in a construction Pesos (P21,000.00) on the value of the
firm. He stayed in Manila from October 5, properties which were not recovered and
1996, and did not visit his hometown until further orders that the recovered TV, VHS
the completion of the job contract on
appliances and necklace be returned to its
lawful owner. The trial court did not err in discharging
Jerry Soriano to be utilized as a state
SO ORDERED. witness. First, the testimony of Jerry
Soriano was absolutely necessary as the
Accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles prosecution has no direct evidence to
interposed the instant appeal. They prove the identity of the malefactors
alleged that the trial court erred in Mamerto Soriano, Felix Corpuz, Mario
discharging Jerry Soriano as a state Verceles and Pablo Ramos. The record
witness, in appreciating conspiracy among reveals that the five accused were
the accused, in not considering as together on the night the robbery and
mitigating circumstance the voluntary rape took place. He may not have
surrender of Mario Verceles, and in witnessed the actual robbery and rape,
awarding damages to the private but he has personal knowledge of the
complainants. robbery when he saw the three accused
return to the place where he and Pablo
The appeal lacks merit. Ramos were allegedly tied, carrying with
them the properties said to have been
Accused-appellants contend that the stolen. Second, Jerry Sorianos testimony
discharge of Jerry Soriano did not comply was corroborated in its material points by
with the requirements of the Rules of other prosecution witnesses and physical
Court. They contend that Sorianos evidence. These are: (a) the testimony of
testimony does not constitute direct Maribeth Bolito that there were three
evidence; at most, it was circumstantial in malefactors, one of whom sexually abused
nature and of minuscule importance.[10] her and two of whom just stood at the
Moreover, Jerry Soriano was the most door; (b) the testimony of Rosita Quilates
guilty for he admitted his guilt with regard that her properties were stolen; and (c)
to the commission of the crime together the testimony of SPO2 Renato Solomon
with Mamerto Soriano.[11] that they were able to recover the stolen
properties from a certain Andres Tirano
The requirements for the discharge and who bought them from accused Mamerto
utilization of an accused as a state witness Soriano. Lastly, Jerry Soriano does not
are enumerated in Rule 119, Section appear to be the most guilty for he was
17[12] of the Revised Rules of Criminal not a co-conspirator in the robbery with
Procedure, viz: rape. He merely accompanied the accused
and received three hundred pesos as his
a) There is absolute necessity for the share in the proceeds of the sale of the
testimony of the accused whose discharge stolen properties. Besides, the question of
is requested; whether Jerry Soriano appears to be the
most guilty is a factual issue. The
b) There is no other direct evidence discretionary judgment of the trial court
available for the proper prosecution of the on this matter is seldom interfered with by
offense committed, except the testimony appellate court except in case of grave
of the accused; abuse of discretion.[13] We find no good
reason to disturb the trial courts findings
c) The testimony of said accused can be of facts.
substantially corroborated in its material
points; Granting ex gratia argumenti that not all
the requisites of a valid discharge are
d) Said accused does not appear to be the present, the improper discharge of an
most guilty; and accused will not render inadmissible his
testimony nor detract from his
e) Said accused has not at any time been competency as a witness. Any witting or
convicted of any offense involving moral unwitting error of the prosecution in
turpitude. asking for the discharge, and of the court
in granting the petition, no question of robbery, unless any of them proves that
jurisdiction being involved, cannot deprive he endeavored to prevent the other from
the discharged accused of the acquittal committing the rape.[17] The rule in this
provided by the Rules, and of the jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is
constitutional guarantee against double committed as a consequence, or on the
jeopardy.[14] occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part therein are liable as principals of the
On the matter of whether rape was crime of robbery with rape, although not
committed, we agree with the trial courts all of them took part in the rape.[18]
ruling that neither the healed lacerations
on the vagina of the victim nor the In trying to mitigate his criminal liability,
absence of spermatozoa negates rape. accused-appellant Mario Verceles argued
When an alleged victim of rape says she that the trial court erred in not considering
was violated, she says in effect all that is the circumstance of voluntary surrender in
necessary to show that rape had been his favor. Upon learning that police
inflicted on her, and so long as her authorities were searching for him in
testimony meets the test of credibility, the connection with the alleged crime, he
accused may be convicted on the basis immediately proceeded to the barangay
thereof.[15] captain of his place and voluntarily
surrendered himself. However, the
In the case at bar, the victims declaration Solicitor General argues that the surrender
of her sexual ordeal, which was given in a of accused-appellant Mario Verceles was
straightforward, convincing, credible and not voluntary and spontaneous for it took
satisfactory manner, shows no other him 16 days to show up from the
intention than to obtain justice for the commission of the crime on October 19,
wrong committed by accused-appellant 1996 to November 4, 1996.[19]
Mamerto Soriano against her. The Court
finds no reason to depart from the rule For the mitigating circumstance of
that the trial courts evaluation of the voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
credibility of the testimonies of the accused must satisfactorily comply with
witnesses is accorded great weight three requisites: (1) he has not been
because it has the unique opportunity of actually arrested; (2) he surrendered
hearing the witnesses testify and himself to a person in authority or the
observing their deportment and manner of latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is
testifying.[16] voluntary. There must be a showing of
spontaneity and an intent to surrender
We agree with the trial court that unconditionally to the authorities, either
conspiracy has been sufficiently proved by because the accused acknowledges his
the prosecution. Accused-appellants were guilt or he wishes to spare them the
one in design with accused Mamerto trouble and expense concomitant to his
Soriano in taking personal properties capture.[20] Voluntary surrender is not a
belonging to others without the latters mitigating circumstance where it appears
consent by breaking one of the windows to that the purpose of the accused in going
be used as their ingress. In the course of to the authorities is for an entirely
the robbery, one of them, particularly different matter as to inquire merely about
Mamerto Soriano, succumbed to lustful a warrant of arrest in connection with a
desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while pending case against the accused for
accused-appellants just stood outside the rape. [21]
door and did nothing to prevent Mamerto
Soriano. We have previously ruled that Evidence shows that Mario Verceles
once conspiracy is established between surrender to the authorities was not
two accused in the commission of the spontaneous and unconditional. He
crime of robbery, they would be both submitted himself to the police only to
equally culpable for the rape committed clear the matter and to know the reason
by one of them on the occasion of the why the police were looking for him[22]
and when asked what his involvement was damages is reduced from P200,000.00 to
to the alleged robbery and rape, he P50,000.00; the award of exemplary
answered that he does not know anything damages is DELETED for lack of basis and
about the crime.[23] In People v. Abella, the sum of P50,000.00 is awarded for civil
[24] we held that when the accused goes indemnity.
to a police station merely to clear his
name and not to give himself up, SO ORDERED.
voluntary surrender may not be
appreciated. On the basis of the foregoing, Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and
accused-appellant Mario Verceles is not Carpio, JJ., concur.
entitled to the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.

We thus hold that accused-appellants

defense of alibi and denial cannot
overcome Maribeth Bolitos positive
testimony that she was raped and that her
grandmothers house was robbed,
especially since this was substantially
corroborated by the other prosecution
witnesses. Time-honored is the rule that
the positive and categorical assertions of
witnesses generally prevail over bare
denials.[25]

In line with established jurisprudence,[26]

we are constrained to modify the award of
moral damages from P200,000.00 to
P50,000.00, as this award is not intended
to enrich the victim but to compensate for
her suffering. Moreover, the trial court
committed a reversible error when it
awarded exemplary damages in the
amount of P100,000.00 despite the
absence of one or more aggravating
circumstances.[27] As regards the value of
the properties belonging to Rosita Quilates
that were not recovered, the records are
bereft of any evidence to support such
claim. Lastly, Maribeth Bolito should have
been awarded the sum of P50,000.00 for
civil indemnity, as it is mandatory upon a
conviction of rape. Such indemnity is
distinct from moral damages and based on
different jural foundations.[28]

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision finding

accused-appellants Mario Verceles and
Felix Corpuz guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape
punished under Article 294 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code and sentencing them
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the award of moral