G.R. No.

192180 March 21, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ALIAS KINO LASCANO (at ar!"# a$% ALFRE&O &ELA'A(AN a)a*
TA'O+'O+, Accused.
ALFRE&O &ELA'A(AN, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
'RION, J.:
We decide the appeal, filed by Alfredo Delabajan appellant!, fro" the decision
#
of the
Court of Appeals CA! dated $ay %&, %''( in CA)*.+. CE,)C+)-.C. No. ''%%.. /he
CA decision affir"ed 0ith "odification the Nove"ber %(, %''# decision
%
of the
+e1ional /rial Court +/C!, ,ranch %2, Allen, Northern Sa"ar, and found the appellant
1uilty beyond reasonable doubt of three 2! counts of rape, sentencin1 hi" to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
/he +/C Decision
In its Nove"ber %(, %''# decision, the +/C found the appellant 1uilty beyond
reasonable doubt of three 2! counts of rape. It 1ave credence to the testi"ony of AAA
2

that alias 3ino 4ascano and the appellant too5 turns in rapin1 her. Accordin1 to the trial
court, the victi" reco1ni6ed her assailants throu1h their respective voices. /he trial court
held that a public accusation by a blind 7ilipina 0hose virtue has been unble"ished is
0orthy of belief. It also disre1arded the appellant8s alibi, as he failed to sho0 that it 0as
physically i"possible for hi" to be at the scene of the cri"e. /he +/C sentenced the
appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, and to pay the victi"
the a"ounts of 9&','''.'' as civil inde"nity and 9&','''.'' as "oral da"a1es, also for
each count.
:
/he CA Decision
On inter"ediate appellate revie0, the CA affir"ed the +/C decision 0ith the
"odification that the appellant is 1uilty beyond reasonable doubt of si; (! counts of
<ualified rape. It held that the appellant actively participated 0ith 3ino in rapin1 AAA=
he tied the victi"8s hands, and then held her feet 0hen 3ino 0as rapin1 her. In addition,
AAA8s testi"ony 0as corroborated by the "edical findin1s of Dr. Ethel Si"eon. /he
appellate court also rejected the appellant8s alibi in li1ht of the victi"8s positive
declaration, and for the appellant8s failure to sho0 that it 0as physically i"possible for
hi" to be at the locus cri"inis.
&
Our +ulin1
We dis"iss the appeal, but "odify the counts of rape co""itted and the a0arded
inde"nities.
Sufficiency of 9rosecution Evidence
7or a char1e of rape to prosper under Article %(()A of the +evised 9enal Code, as
a"ended, the prosecution "ust prove that #! the offender had carnal 5no0led1e of a
0o"an= and %! he acco"panied such act throu1h force, threat, or inti"idation, or 0hen
she 0as deprived of reason or other0ise unconscious, or 0hen she 0as under t0elve
years of a1e or 0as de"ented.
(
In her Septe"ber %', %''' testi"ony, AAA narrated in detail ho0 the appellant and 3ino
threatened to 5ill her, and then too5 turns in rapin1 her. AAA e;plained that she
reco1ni6ed her assailants throu1h their respective voices. We e"phasi6e that the victi",
althou1h blind, 5ne0 the identities of her t0o assailants because they 0ere her nei1hbors.
AAA e;plained that 3ino and the appellant often 0ent to her residence in Sitio $ara1a)
as because they 0ere the friends of her brother. Notably, the appellant ad"itted that he
tal5ed to AAA on "any occasions.
We vie0 AAA8s testi"ony to be clear, convincin1 and credible considerin1 especially
the corroboration it received fro" the "edical certificate and testi"ony of Dr. Si"eon.
Our e;a"ination of the records sho0s no indication that 0e should vie0 the victi"8s
testi"ony in a suspicious li1ht. It bears stressin1 that identification of an accused by his
voice has been accepted, particularly in cases 0here, as in this case, the victi" has 5no0n
the perpetrator for a lon1 ti"e=
>
for the blind voice reco1nition "ust be a special sense
that has been developed to a very hi1h de1ree. ,esides, it is inconceivable that a blind
0o"an 0ould concoct a story of defloration, allo0 an e;a"ination of her private parts
and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victi" of rape
and i"pelled to see5 justice for the 0ron1 done to her. /hus, to us, the prosecution
positively established the ele"ents of rape re<uired under Article %(()A of the +evised
9enal Code. 7irst, the appellant and 3ino succeeded in havin1 carnal 5no0led1e 0ith the
victi". AAA 0as steadfast in her assertion that both the appellant and 3ino had raped
her, as a result of 0hich, she felt pain. She also felt that so"ethin1 ?stic5y? ca"e out of
the appellant8s and 3ino8 private parts. Second, the assailants e"ployed force, threat and
inti"idation in satisfyin1 their bestial desires. Accordin1 to AAA, the appellant and 3ino
threatened to 5ill her if she refused to obey the".
/he 9resence of Conspiracy
We a1ree 0ith the CA that the appellant and 3ino conspired in se;ually assaultin1 AAA.
?Conspiracy e;ists 0hen the acts of the accused de"onstrate a co""on desi1n to0ards
the acco"plish"ent of the sa"e unla0ful purpose.?
.
In the present case, the acts of 3ino
and of the appellant clearly indicate a unity of action@ #! 3ino and the appellant entered
the victi"8s house at around A@'' p.".= %! 3ino and the appellant ordered the victi" to
lie do0n, and threatened to 5ill her if she refused to do so= 2! 3ino undressed AAA,
0hile the appellant tied her hands= :! the appellant held AAA8s feet, 0hile 3ino inserted
his penis into the victi"8s private parts= and &! the appellant raped AAA after0ards.
Clearly, the appellant and 3ino perfor"ed specific acts 0ith such closeness and
coordination as to indicate an un"ista5ably co""on purpose or desi1n to co""it the
felony. /hus, they are liable for t0o %! counts of rape on account of a clear conspiracy
bet0een the", sho0n by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate, one after the other,
the rapes. Each of the" is responsible not only for the rape co""itted personally by hi"
but also for the rape co""itted by the other as 0ell.
/he Appellant8s Defenses