PEOPLE vs. MELVIN MENDOZA himself from the taxi drivers attack.
,
G.R. No. 115809. January 23, 1998
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS: At about 10:30pm of February 15,
1992, Danilo Manalus, a taxi driver, was
stabbed to death using a fan knife in
Pangilinan Compound, QC. by Accused-
appellant Mendoza, who was apprehended
at the scene of the crime by a tricycle
driver (Bonifacio Wycoco) who hit him on
the left leg with a lead pipe, causing him
to fall on his knees and preventing him
from fleeing from the scene, subsequently
turned over to the police and charged,
together with a certain John Doe, with
robbery with homicide as penalized by
Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty. The other accused was
at large and so trial proceeded against the
accused-appellant alone.
Accused-appellant Mendoza testified that
on February, 1992 not being able to find a
cheap pair of shoes in SM, he hailed a taxi
driven by Danilo Manalus. Along the way,
accused-appellant claimed he noticed the
taxis meter to be fast and he complained
to the driver. He was asked to leave, but
the driver suddenly held him by the left
shoulder and angrily demanded payment
of the fare. He was called tupid (Gago ka
pala) and stabbed by the driver. He was
hit in the lower part of his stomach. Later,
he then stabbed the taxi driver several
times with the knife when he had the
chance to pin the driver into the steering
wheel. After shouting for help, a man
(Wycuco) hit him. His hands were tied but
he did not resist. While he was made to sit
in the gutter, he said someone searched
him and got his money amounting to
P912.00. He was told to count the money.
Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital
and then to the police headquarters,
where he was beaten up by the police. He
was asked for the names of his relatives
and told to implicate Dondon Zapanta, his
cousin, in the crime.
He denied that there was a hold-up. He
claimed he was merely forced to defend
however, the trial court found the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
to be credible and rejected the accused-
appellants claim of self-defense. It
therefore rendered judgment finding the
accused guilty. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in
giving credence to the testimony of
prosecution witnesses who did not have
personal knowledge that a robbery was
committed.
(2) Whether or not the trial court erred in
concluding that the bloodied money
belonged to the victim Danilo Manalus
considering that there was no direct
evidence that a robbery had indeed taken
place.
RULING:
1) NO. In cases of robbery with
homicide as defined in Art. 294(1)
of the Revised Penal Code, the
principal purpose of the accused
must be shown to be to commit
robbery, the homicide being
committed either by reason of or
on occasion of the robbery. Now the
elements of robbery with violence
or intimidation of persons are (a)
that the subject is personal
property belonging to another; (b)
that such property is unlawfully
taken; (c) that the taking must be
with intent to gain; and (d) that the
taking must be through violence
against or intimidation of any
person.
It may be that Wycocos knowledge
is limited to the stabbing of the
victim. However, when taken in
relation to the other evidence of
the prosecution, Wycocos
testimony shows that the violence
resulting in homicide was
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
RAMOS, G.R. No. 104285-86 May 21,
1993
FELICIANO, J.:
FACTS: Victor Angeles appeals from the
RTC’s decision convicting him of two (2)
separate offenses: one of rape and the
other of robbery against Analie Baltazar
That on or about February 24, 1989,
Accused Ramos poked an ice pick against
the victim (Analie), dragged her outside
her house and brought her to the Three
Bird Lodge located at Sales St., Sta. Cruz.
The victim was brought to a room, where
accused removed her t-shirt, short and
underwear. Later, she was made to lie
down on the bed and the accused
removed also his clothes. The accused,
after removing his clothes, started to kiss
her on her neck, to her bust and her
private parts. That the accused threatened
to kill her if she resisted and succeeded in
having carnal knowledge with her against
her will and consent by forcing his penis to
enter her private parts. That the penis,
according to her, penetrated lightly on her
private parts and thereafter, she was told
to dress up and let (sic) her go home. That
the two companions of the accused also
robbed and took away (1) Betamax Sony
and (1) Typewriter Merit belonging to the
victim, while she was being dragged from
their home.
On February 26, 1989, at about 10:00
a.m., accused Ramos was seen in their
neighborhood by Analie. Victim’s father
then talked to him and gave the accused a
fist blow and their neighbors apprehended
and mauled him too. Later, the accused
was brought to the police station and
charged for the present crime.
Accused Victor Angeles denied
emphatically the accusation against him.
According to him, on February 23, 1989, at
9:00 in the evening, he was at his house
asleep.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the trial court erred
in holding that two (2) separate
felonies of robbery and rape had
been committed by appellant;
2) Whether or not the trial court had
erred in believing the testimony of
Analie Baltazar to the effect that
appellant Angeles had raped her.
RULING:
1. NO. Under the doctrine of double
jeopardy, in general, prohibits a
second prosecution for the same
offense as that charged in the first
prosecution. However, in the case at
bar, robbery and rape cannot properly
be considered the same offense;
neither is one included in the other.
The acts constitutive of the robbery at
the house of the Baltazars and the acts
comprising the rape inflicted upon
Analie Baltazar were separated both by
time and space. The conspiracy
between the three (3) malefactors
clearly covering the robbery had come
to an end with the departure of two (2)
of the conspirators. The rape was
carried out after the completion of
the robbery and after the break up
of the malefactors. The situs of the
rape was far away from the situs of the
robbery.
We believe and so hold that under the
circumstances of this case, appellant
Angeles was properly charged with two
(2) distinct offenses of robbery and of
rape.
2. The two (2) facts submitted by
appellant are: firstly, at the motel,
Analie had failed to make an outcry
which could have attracted
intervention on the part of the
roomboy; and secondly, Analie's
declaration that appellant Angeles had
returned to her home few hours after
the robbery was impossible for he
would have been risking discovery,
denunciation and arrest which in fact
eventually came.
 a. Angeles who had placed his ice pick
nearby on top of the lavatory. She laid
down on the bed when appellant
threatened to kill her. She testified that
she was then already weakened,
tired and worn out and feared that
she would be stabbed if she
struggled with appellant. Neither could
she seek to grab the icepick while
appellant was on top of her on the bed,
for appellant held her hands and
continue to hold the icepick at her
neck. This Court has many times held
in the past that rape is committed
when intimidation is exercised upon
the victim and the latter submits
herself, against her will, to the rapist's
embrace because of the fear for life
and personal safety. The reality of
continuing intimidation used against
Analie Baltazar is evident all through
the record of this case.
b. There is no rule of law which requires a
court to disregard the entirety of the
testimony of a witness because a portion
thereof may be doubtful. Analie declared
before the trial court that she saw the
appellant at the vicinity of her house at
least three (3) times after the robbery and
rape and that she had immediately
informed her father of appellant's
appearance. On the third occasion, ,
Analie's father was able to chase down the
appellant Angeles and confront him about
his daughter's violation. A false sense of
security born out of his having
successfully eluded Analie's father twice
before, would account for appellant's
imprudent third visit to the scene of the
robbery.
Appellant's defense of denial and
alibi, it is firmly established doctrine,
cannot prevail over the positive
identification made by Analie
Baltazar. Finally, when appellant and his
mother declared that appellant was
sleeping at their, the Court notes that this
location is only a few kilometers away
from Baltazars' residence, such that
appellant could move from one location to
the other within a short period of time,
with public transportation. Appellant's
defense of alibi cannot be sustained
in view of his failure to show the
physical impossibility of his being at
the scene of the crime or about the
time of the commission thereof.
There are, however, two (2) errors on
the part of the trial court which need
to be addressed.
The first error relates to the penalty
properly imposable on appellant for the
crime of robbery. Under Article 299 of the
Revised Penal Code, the penalty
imposable for robbery in an inhabited
place is reclusion temporal taking into
account the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The second error relates to the proper
characterization of the rape offense with
which appellant was charged. Analie had
testified before the trial court that while at
the motel, the appellant had told her that
he and the other malefactors had been
"tipped off that her family residence
contained many appliances and that they
had planned to carry away many of them
but had changed their minds." Appellant
decided to take her with him because she
was "more important to these things." The
information had sufficiently alleged, and
the prosecution shown at the trial, that
before Analie was raped, she was taken
from her house against her will and with
lewd designs. Taking all these
circumstances into account, it is clear to
the Court that appellant Angeles
committed the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape, defined
and penalized under Article 342 (forcible
abduction) and Article 335 (rape) of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to the
second clause of Article 48 (complex
crimes) of the same Code.
The forcible abduction was, in the
circumstances of this case, a necessary
means to commit the rape.
In the case variance between the caption
of the information and the allegations
set out in the body thereof, which
allegations sufficiently described the
offense(s) and its elements, the latter
prevails over the former. Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code provides that in
complex crimes, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period. In the case at bar, the
more serious of the two (2) crimes
(forcible abduction and rape) established
that rape was committed with a deadly
weapon (here, the icepick) which is
punishable with reclusion perpetua to
death. Since no modifying circumstances
were either alleged or proved and
considering the non-enforceability of the
death penalty, the penalty properly
imposable on appellant is reclusion
perpetua. The trial court's reference to
"life imprisonment" is, of course, wrong.
As so modified, the decision of the trial
court is hereby AFFIRMED.
3.) G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO
REGALA y ABRIOL, accused-appellant.
DECISION
GONZAGA_REYES, J.:
Armando Regala appeals from the
judgment in Criminal Case No. 7929
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Masbate, Masbate, Branch 46, 5th Judicial
Region, convicting him of the crime of
Robbery with Rape.
The information against accused-appellant
on November 27, 1995, filed by 2nd
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jesus C.
Castillo, reads as follows: Sppedsc
"That on or about September 11, 1995, in
the evening thereof, at Barangay Bangon,
Municipality of Aroroy, Province of
Masbate, Philippines, within the
jurisdiction of this Court, the said accused
confederating together and helping one
another, with intent to gain, violence and
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
The prosecution presented three
witnesses: Dra. Conchita Ulanday,
Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy,
Masbate, who personally examined the
rape victim; Nerissa Tagala, the rape
victim, 17 years old, a third year high
school student; and her grandmother,
Consuelo Arevalo, who was her companion
when the robbery with rape transpired at
Consuelos house.
The prosecutions version is stated in
Appellees Brief as follows: Sccalr
"On September 11, 1995, at about 9:00
oclock in the evening at Barangay Bangon,
Aroroy, Masbate, then 16-year old victim
Nerissa Tagala and her grandmother
(Consuelo Arevalo) were sleeping, when
appellant Armando Regala and his two
other companions entered the formers
house. (pp. 6-7, TSN, August 26, 1996).
Appellant and his companions entered the
house through the kitchen by removing
the pieces of wood under the stove.
Appellant went to the room of Nerissa and
her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun
on them, one after the other. (p. 8, TSN,
August 26, 1996)
Nerissa and her grandmother were
hogtied by appellant and his companions.
Thereafter, Nerissa was raped by appellant
Armando Regala in bed while her
grandmother was on the floor. After the
rape, appellant and his two companions
counted the money which they took from
the "aparador." (pp. 9-10, TSN, August 26,
1996)
Appellant and his companions then ran
away with P3,000 in cash, 2 pieces of ring
valued at P6,000 and two wrist watches
worth P5,000. (pp. 11-13, TSN, August 26,
1996)
The following day, September 12, 1995,
Nerissa went to the Rural Health Clinic of
Aroroy, Masbate for medical examination.
In the Medical Report presented by
Municipal Health Officer Dr. Conchita S.
Ulanday, it was shown that Nerissa
sustained laceration of the hymen at 4:00
oclock and 7:00 oclock positions (fresh
wounds), indicating a possible sexual
assault upon the victim. (p. 16, TSN,
August 26, 1996)[2]
The defense presented accused-appellant
who testified that on September 11, 1995,
he was staying in the house of Antonio
Ramilo at barangay Syndicate, Aroroy,
Masbate. Ramilo was the manager in the
gold panning business where accused-
appellant was employed. Antonio Ramilo
testified and corroborated his defense and
stated that accused-appellant was in his
house, which is about 5 kilometers away
from Barangay Bangon. Calrspped
The trial court held that the defense of
alibi cannot overcome the positive
identification of the accused. The
dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
the Court finds accused Armando Regala y
Abriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Robbery with Rape, as
penalized under Par. 2 of Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences
him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua; to indemnify the victim
Consuelo Arevalo the sum of P9,000.00,
the cash and value of the looted articles;
to indemnify the victim Nerissa Tagala the
sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages, and
the further sum of P25,000.00 as
exemplary damages. No subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay the costs."[3]
Armando has appealed to this Court
pleading that: Scedp
(1) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
EXIST TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY THE
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS
PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
(2) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED.[4]
which alleged errors were discussed
jointly.
In essence, accused-appellant questions
the sufficiency of the prosecutions
evidence in identifying him as one of the
perpetrators of the crime charged. He
claims that the complaining witness could
not have positively identified him as there
was no electricity nor any light in the
place of the incident which took place at
9:00 oclock in the evening. Consuelo
Arevalo was able to identify accused-
appellant only after he was pinpointed by
Nerissa, and made contradictory
statements in court when she stated that
accused-appellant removed his mask after
she was hogtied, and later stated that
accused-appellant removed his mask
before she was hogtied. The medico-legal
officer, Dr. Ulanday, herself testified that
the complaining witness either voluntarily
submitted to a sexual act or was forced
into one. Edpsc
The appellee insists that appellants lame
defense of alibi cannot stand against the
positive identification made by the victim,
and avers that the victim, a 16 year old
barrio lass at the time the rape was
committed, was motivated by a sincere
desire to seek and obtain justice. The
Solicitor General also recommends an
additional award of compensatory
damages of P50,000.00 in favor of Nerissa
Tagala. Edp
We affirm the judgment of conviction.
There was sufficient evidence to establish
the identity of accused-appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime. Misedp
Nerissa positively recounted the incident
on the witness stand. She was sleeping
with her grandmother in the latters house
when the accused-appellant Regala,
together with the unidentified companions
entered the house. Regala pointed a gun,
about 8 inches long, at her grandmother,
and then at her, and hogtied both of them.
Regala took off her panty and her shorts,
and removed his own "porontong" pants,
and made sexual intercourse ("itot") with
her while she was hogtied in bed. Her
grandmother was at the floor. She saw the
aparador of her grandmother being
opened. She could not shout because the
gun was pointed at her, and she was
afraid. Two companions of the accused-
appellant entered the room as she was
being raped. Two rings valued at about
P6,000.00 and 2 wrist watches (one
"Seiko" and the other "Citizen") and
money was taken by the accused-
appellant and his companions. After raping
her in bed, Nerissa saw accused-appellant
counting the money taken from the
aparador. Thereafter, she was brought to
the kitchen, still hogtied, and raped again.
[5] On cross-examination, Nerissa stated
that although there was no electricity, and
the light in the house was already off, she
was able to see the face of Regala
because at the time Regala was counting
the money, one of his companions was
holding the flashlight "beamed to the
money" and there was "some reflection"
on the face of Regala[6] She remembered
the face of Regala because of an earring
on his left ear[7] which he was wearing
when presented at the police line-up.[8]
Consuelo Arevalo testified and
corroborated the testimony of her
granddaughter. Armando Regala entered
the house with two companions, hogtied
her and Nerissa, and were asking for
money. After having sexual intercourse
with Nerissa, Regala took P3,000.00 in
paper bills and coins from her aparador,
and got a stainless Seiko wristwatch and
two gold rings valued at P6,000.00. She
was able to recognize Regala because of
his earring on his left ear, and because he
was pinpointed by Nerissa at the police
station. She was not able to shout at the
time because her mouth was gagged with
a piece of cloth by Regala.[9] On cross-
examination, Consuelo Arevalo declared
that she was able to see Regala because
he used her flashlight, and he took off the
mask he was wearing; she recognized
Regala because of his earring and his flat
top hair cut.[10]
The Court gives its approbation to the
finding of the trial court that the evidence
was sufficient to clearly establish the
identity of Armando Regala as the person
who, with two companions, committed the
crime of robbery accompanied by rape on
the night of September 11, 1995. Nerissa
Tagala positively identified Armando
Regala because at the time he was
counting the money on her bed, the other
companion of the accused beamed the
flashlight towards the money and there
was a reflection on the face of Regala.
Although the three intruders were wearing
masks when they entered the house, they
removed their masks later.[11]
Our cases have held that wicklamps,
flashlights, even moonlight and starlight
may, in proper situations, be sufficient
illumination, making the attack on the
credibility of witnesses solely on this
ground unmeritorious.[12]
We are not persuaded by the contention of
accused-appellant that the contradictory
replies of Consuelo Arevalo when asked
whether Regala removed his mask
"before"[13] or "after"[14] she and Nerissa
were hogtied exposed the fact that she
was not able to identify the accused-
appellant. The contradiction referred to a
minor detail and cannot detract from the
fact that both Nerissa and Consuelo
positively identified Regala as there was a
flashlight used to focus at the money while
it was being counted and there was a
reflection on the face of Regala. Both
Nerissa and Consuelo remembered the
earring on his left ear, which he was still
wearing at the time of the police line-up
inside the police station. Misoedp
Dr. Conchita Ulandays testimony does not
support the contention of accused-
appellant that Nerissa voluntarily
submitted to the sexual advances of
Regala. The admission of Dr. Ulanday that
her findings point to the fact that Nerissa
"either voluntarily or was forced into
sexual act" does not prove that Nerissa
voluntarily submitted to the sexual act. Dr.
Ulanday testified that there was suggested
evidence of penetration as shown by the
two lacerations at 4 oclock and at 7 oclock
which were fresh wounds. That the act
was involuntary was clearly established by
the fact that Nerissa was hogtied when
she was sexually attacked. As correctly
pointed out by appellee, Nerissa was a 16-
year old barrio lass, not exposed to the
ways of the world and was not shown to
have any ill-motive to falsely implicate
accused-appellant, who was a stranger.
And as repeatedly pronounced by this
Court, it simply would be unnatural for a
young and innocent girl to concoct a story
of defloration, allow an examination of her
private parts and thereafter subject
herself to a public trial or ridicule if she
was not, in fact, a victim of rape and
deeply motivated by a sincere desire to
have the culprit apprehended and
punished.[15]
The crime of robbery with rape was
committed in 1995 when RA 7659 was
already in force. Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended now provides,
under paragraph 1 thereof: Edpmis
"1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death, when for any reason of or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed, or
when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation or arson."
The victim in the case at bar was raped
twice on the occasion of the robbery.
There are cases[16] holding that the
additional rapes committed on the same
occasion of robbery will not increase the
penalty. In People vs. Martinez,[17]
accused Martinez and two (2) other
unidentified persons, who remained at
large, were charged with the special
complex crime of robbery with rape where
all three raped the victim. The Court
imposed the penalty of death after
considering two (2) aggravating
circumstances, namely, nocturnidad and
use of a deadly weapon. However, the
Court did not consider the two (2) other
rapes as aggravating holding that "(T)he
special complex crime of robbery with
rape has, therefore, been committed by
the felonious acts of appellant and his
cohorts, with all acts or rape on that
occasion being integrated in one
composite crime." Jjsc
There are likewise cases[18] which held
that the multiplicity of rapes committed
could be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. In People vs. Candelario[19]
where three (3) of the four (4) armed men
who robbed the victim "alternately raped
her twice for each of them", this Court,
citing People vs. Obtinalia,[20] ruled that
"(T)he characterization of the offense as
robbery with rape, however, is not
changed simply because there were
several rapes committed. The multiplicity
of rapes should instead be taken into
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,
2001]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. ADRIANO
SEGUIS a.k.a. JUNIOR, ROSALITO
ESTEBE a.k.a. DODONG, RODRIGO
DOQUILA a.k.a. LOLONG (At Large),
ELMER CANICO (At Large), LOLOY
GIBERTAS (At Large), BERFEL DELA
CRUZ (At Large), and JOHN DOE (At
Large), accused.
ADRIANO SEGUIS and ROSALITO
ESTEBE, accused-appellants.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Juliet A. Magamayo, a nineteen-year-old
barrio lass from an obscure town in
Surigao del Norte complains that she has
been ravished, then robbed by seven men,
who, following her accounts, were
definitely no Romeos. She claims they did
not only forcibly take her gold ring, they
stole her innocence as well. She claims
they did not only dispossess her of a gold
bracelet, they also divested her of her
sense of security. She claims they did not
only deprive her of her last remaining fifty
pesos, they denied her furthermore a
future.
Juliet pointed to the following men as the
ones who committed the outrage against
her womanhood: Adriano Seguis a.k.a.
Junior, Rosalito Estebe a.k.a. Dodong,
Rodrigo Doquila a.k.a. Lolong, Elmer
Canico, Loloy Gibertas, Berfel dela Cruz,
and a certain John Doe. They were
charged with the crime of robbery with
multiple rape and were indicted in an
Amended Information which reads:
That on or about August 19, 1995, in
Barangay Togbongon, City of Surigao,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, conspiring, confederating
together and with mutual understanding
with one another, with lewd designs and
by means of force and intimidations (sic),
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of Juliet
A. Magamayo, while the latter was already
sleeping, by taking turns in raping her
against her will and without her consent
and on same occasion, accused with intent
to gain and by means of violence and
intimidation, took, stole and carried away
the following personal belongings of Juliet
A. Magamayo, to wit:
1. Gold bracelet ----------------------------- P
500.00
2. Gold ring ----------------------------- 4,000.00
3. Cash money ------------------------------
50.00
T O T A L P 4,550.00
in the total amount of FOUR THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY (P4,550.00) PESOS,
Philippine currency, to the damage and
prejudice of said Juliet A. Magamayo in the
aforesaid amount of P4,550.00 and such
other damages as may be allowed by law.
Contrary to law.
Surigao City, Philippines, August 21, 1995.
[1]
Of the seven accused, the record reveals
that five of them remain at large. Only the
first two were placed under the custody of
the authorities: Seguis and Estebe, and
they are the appellants in this case.
During arraignment, both entered a plea
of NOT GUILTY. Trial then proceeded.
The prosecutions version of the story is
based mainly on the private complainants
recollection of what happened that
dreadful night. The offended party is one
Juliet A. Magamayo, a nineteen-year old
unmarried girl residing at San Jose, Mainit,
Surigao del Norte. According to her, in the
afternoon of August 18, 1995 at about 3 o
clock, she went to Barangay Togbongon,
Surigao City, a few kilometers away from
the city proper. Her purpose was to collect
a loan of fifty pesos from Michael
Balantucas, a friend of long standing
whom she met when she was still staying
with her elder sister in Togbongon. She
arrived there after approximately one hour
of travel. As customary with friends, they
exchanged pleasantries and stories, and
basically caught up with old times. A while
later, accused Loloy Gibertas and Elmer
Canico who were on their way to fetch
water passed by the house. Michael
introduced them to Juliet. They shook
hands and talked a little before the two
eventually left. Michael then invited Juliet
to stay in their home for the night because
darkness was closing in. Michael was living
with his younger brother Rolando and
younger sister Lilibeth since their parents
already died. Juliet agreed as she has slept
in the place before. She thought that it
was too late and perilous to go back
home.
Little did Juliet know that, in a cruel twist
of fate, danger would visit her in the very
refuge where she sought safety. Following
a dinner of cooked bananas plus a few
more stories, she and the Balantucas
siblings prepared to retire. Juliet and
Lilibeth slept in the houses only bedroom,
which was lighted by a kerosene lamp.
Michael was just outside the rooms
doorway while Rolando stayed in the sala.
At about midnight, Juliet was awakened by
the noise brought about by the commotion
of five men who entered the house. She
got up and saw Rodrigo Doquila pointing a
knife at the throat of a crouching Michael.
She noticed that Lilibeth was not beside
her anymore as it turned out that the
young girl went to the kitchen to relieve
herself. Afraid, she shouted for help to
Michael who understandably could not do
anything being himself mentally
preoccupied with, in a manner of
speaking, saving his own neck.
At this juncture, Elmer Canico grabbed the
hair of Juliet and commanded her to lie
down on the floor. Loloy Gibertas held her
right hand even as someone else was
holding her left. She struggled and twisted
her body, so another man had to restrain
her legs. Elmer Canico removed his pants
and brief, and knelt in front of her. He
stripped Juliet of her pants and underwear
before continuing to place himself on top
of the woman. He inserted his penis into
her vagina then made a push and pull
movement. Feeling pain, she fought to
free herself. She kicked her legs but
Canico did not seem to mind a bit. After
satisfying his lust, he stood up and put on
his pants. He replaced Lolong Doquila in
guarding Michael with a knife.
The next time, it was Doquila who
introduced his penis into the ladys private
part. Perhaps realizing the futility of her
struggle, Juliet tried to appeal to their
sense of mercy. She begged him to stop,
mainly because of the pain. This also
proved fruitless. He made the same push
and pull movements stopping only
afterwards when he was able to satisfy his
lust. Doquila was replaced by Loloy
Gibertas who had coital intercourse with
the hapless victim. Again she resisted and
shouted for help. The men around her told
her to remain silent if she does not want to
get killed. Shortly, Gibertas stood up and
informed Berfel dela Cruz that it was his
turn. Like the others before him, and like
the others soon to follow, he forced
himself on Juliet. When he had his fill, the
unidentified man also had sexual contact
with her.
Almost after the five predators finished
ravaging their prey, Adriano Seguis and
Rosalito Estebe came into the room. Juliet
already knew them even before this
incident. She recognized the two that
night by means of a flashlight which
Estebe brought to illuminate the area.
Earlier, the small kerosene lamp had been
extinguished by the five men. As
expected, Estebe laid himself on top of the
girl, who fought weakly against her new
tormentor. He rammed his penis into her
vagina. He got up on his feet only after
some minutes of sexual activity. Then
Elmer Canico returned to the bedroom and
Juliet heard him announce that it was his
turn again. For the second time that early
morning, he succeeded in copulating with
her. The last one to have carnal knowledge
of Juliet against her will was Adriano
Seguis. The latter inserted his male organ
into her private part and performed the
same push and pull maneuverings using
his buttocks. The victim begged him to
stop for she could not bear it anymore.
Seguis told her to keep quiet.

When Seguis was done, he rose to his feet
and went to the kitchen. He came back
with a plate of rice which he gave to the
sobbing lady. Juliet pretended to eat the
rice only so that she would not be raped
anymore. She did not utter a word but
cried a river of tears over her
heartbreaking experience. She requested
Seguis to help her up and she sat down in
a corner. Rosalito Estebe was seated on a
nearby trunk. When Seguis tried to blame
her for what took place, she answered that
the five men sexually abused her. Michael
appeared and Juliet asked him how it
happened. Michael replied that he also did
not know because they were all asleep
when the incident started. Seguis and
Estebe warned them not to tell anybody of
what transpired otherwise they might all
be killed. It was about one oclock in the
morning when the two remaining accused
left.
Juliet discovered later on that she had
been despoiled of her gold ring worth
P4,000.00 and her gold bracelet worth
P500.00. Furthermore, her cash money
amounting to P50.00 was no longer in her
pants pocket. She admitted though that
she was not aware who among the
accused carried away the aforementioned
personal belongings while she was being
assaulted by them.
The prosecution presented two other
witnesses who corroborated Juliets
testimony. Michael Balantucas confirmed
that the seven accused indeed illegally
entered their house and took turns in
sexually defiling Juliet. The rapes were
committed right before his eyes. He
observed how one by one each of them
was able to impose his own bestial will
against the lady. He very much wanted to
help his visitor whom he only invited that
night. But as much as he wanted to, he
could not do anything, since all the while
that the rape was going on, somebody was
pointing a knife at his throat. He was
practically rendered impotent by the
threat that something bad might happen
to him or his siblings.
For her part, Lilibeth Balantucas
recounted, among other things, that she
woke up at around midnight to answer a
call of nature. She went to the kitchen to
urinate when five men suddenly entered
the bedroom. She identified them to be
the accused Elmer Canico, Lolong Doquila,
Loloy Gibertas and Berfel dela Cruz.
However, she did not know the fifth
person. Tagging along were Adriano Seguis
and Rosalito Estebe who pulled and
dragged her out of the house. She was
able to recognize them because of the
light coming from an electric bulb located
in the kitchen. Outside, Seguis and Estebe
ordered her to keep quiet, or else they
would kill her. Out of extreme fear, she did
not make any sound. After about one hour,
they also went inside the room. Lilibeth
remained where she was as they told her
not to move.
Going back to Juliets testimony, it appears
that later in the morning of August 19,
1995, someone fetched Francisco Pecante,
a member of the local CVO, who initially
investigated the incident. Then he sought
Perfecto Pagas, the barangay captain of
Togbongon. Together, they brought the
victim to the Surigao Provincial Hospital
where she was physically examined and
medically treated.
The attending physician, Dr. Panfilo Jorge
Tremedal III, testified that on August 19,
1995, he was a resident doctor of the
hospital. He checked up the person of
Juliet Magamayo who complained that she
has been raped. Among his findings was
an abrasion of the labia majora. In his
expert opinion, the injury could have
probably been caused by a blunt object
like an erect human penis. Another
member of the medical staff was also
presented by the prosecution: Elsa
Adlawan who was employed as a medical
technologist by the hospital. She declared
that on the same date, she received a
vaginal specimen taken from Juliet for a
laboratory evaluation for the presence of
spermatozoa. After conducting the
required tests, she determined the said
specimen to be positive for spermatozoa.
With the prosecution resting its case, the
defense made its counter-presentation of
the facts. It first offered Nilda Cabug-os,
who, per her own declaration, is a friend of
the victim but not related to her. She
recalled that Juliet arrived at her house in
Togbongon at about four oclock in the
afternoon of August 18, 1995, purportedly
to collect a sum of money Michael
Balantucas owed her. They have only
conversed for a brief moment when Juliet
went her way, returning after about two
hours in the company of a male escort,
one Jeffrey Lerio. Later, Juliet would again
leave the house with Jeffrey for an
undisclosed destination. By the time the
clock struck eight, Juliet came back to the
house. As a matter of hospitality, Nilda
extended an invitation to her guest to
spend the night in their abode, which
invitation Juliet readily accepted. The
latter was already sleeping when some
young men came to drop by. She rose to
entertain her visitors. More than that, she
went out with them. And although she
asked Nildas permission, she did not say
where they were going. It was the last
time she saw her that night.
The next morning greeted Nilda with a
neighbors story that Juliet allowed herself
to have sexual intercourse with several
men in the house of Michael Balantucas.
She replied that she and her husband
cautioned her about going out so late in
the night but Juliets persistence made
them yield. She remembered that Juliet
was wearing maong pants and a blouse on
the day of the incident. She also wore a
cheap wristwatch worth about P35.00, a
small belt worth approximately P30.00, a
headband and shoes made of cloth. She
did not notice any fancy jewelry.
Another witness, Perfecto Pagas, gave
evidence that he is a barangay kagawad
of Togbongon for three years, although a
tricycle driver by vocation. He came to
know of Juliet not only because she is a
frequent passenger but allegedly due to
her reputation in the locality of associating
herself with different men. According to
Pagas, sometime in March 1995, Juliet
complained to him in the office of the
barangay council that she was raped by
five men. She did not identify any names.
The complaint was not pursued as he
heard later on that she has been paid. He
admitted too that he failed to enter the
complaint in the official records on the
excuse that Juliet anyway did not return
anymore.
In his defense, the accused Adriano Seguis
testified that on March 9, 1995, Juliet
approached him and made a request for
him to bear witness in a rape case she was
about to file. It was not clear whether this
is the same incident of the alleged rape
that she complained to Kagawad Pagas.
He claimed that it was the first time that
they met, although they became
acquaintances after. At any rate this is not
the reason why he refused her. He simply
had no knowledge of the incident.
Seguis must have felt history repeating
itself right before his very eyes. On the
morning of August 19, 1995, at 6 a.m., he
arrived at the residence of Michael
Balantucas. He went there together with
his co-accused Rosalito Estebe pursuant to
a prior agreement that they would help
Michael in harvesting his crop of palay. In
the uncanniest of coincidences, Juliet, who
was already there when he arrived, again
was apparently involved in another case of
rape which happened the previous night,
and once more asked him to testify for her.
This time the request was coupled with a
threat that she would implicate him in the
legal action if he refused to cooperate. For
the second time in as many instance, he
rejected her plea. For scorning her twice,
he incurred her fury. She made good her
threat and implicated him.
In an unexpected turn of events, the
defense called to the witness stand
Michael Balantucas who previously
testified for the prosecution. He was this
time singing a different tune. He claimed
that his conscience was bothering him,
and he could not suffer the burden of
seeing two innocent men go to jail. That is
why he elected to testify even though he
was aware that he was courting criminal
prosecution in changing his testimony.
Michael recanted his former testimony by
declaring that in the evening of August 18,
1995, he was staying at his house with
Juliet and his siblings, Rolando and
Lilibeth, when at around ten oclock, five
men arrived. These five were the accused
Lolong Doquila, Elmer Canico, Loloy
Gibertas, Berfel dela Cruz, and a certain
Rolando Ezperanza. They had a talk with
Juliet wherein it was agreed that they
would rent[2] her (i.e., have sex with her)
that night for a fee of one thousand pesos.
While the lady supposedly kept her part of
the bargain, the men did not. Instead they
even had the audacity to take her bracelet
and wristwatch when they left at about
two oclock dawn. Juliet was enraged. She
wanted to bring her customers[3] to court
not to collect the bill but to charge them
with rape. When Seguis and Estebe
arrived the next day, she asked the three
of them (including Michael) to testify in
her behalf, otherwise she would implicate
them. As far as Michael knows, he was the
only one who acceded to the ladys
demand.
Rosalito Estebe basically towed the same
story line as the two other witnesses. He
testified that he knows Juliet as she often
comes to Togbongon where he lives. One
time, on March 1995, he saw her engage
in sexual intercourse with multiple
partners in their barrio. He himself did not
take part in the orgy. Later, she asked him
to be her witness as she intended to file
rape charges against the persons who had
sex with her. He refused as he heard that
she has been paid the sum of P1,000.00.
Subsequently on May 14, 1995, which was
the fiesta in Togbongon, Juliet again
requested him to be a witness in the
complaint for rape she has filed against
Ricky Antallan, Michael Balantucas, Jeffrey
Lerio, Lolong Doquila, Elmer Canico and
Berfel dela Cruz. When he rejected her,
she implicated him in the present case.
In rebuttal, Juliet denied that she agreed to
have sex with anyone for P1,000.00. She
reiterated her stand that she was abused
by all seven men. Furthermore, it is not
true that she merely implicated Seguis
and Estebe after the two declined to be
her witnesses. Both also had sex with her.
After trial, the lower court pronounced the
following sentence:[4]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court finds each of the accused, Adriano
Seguis or Adriano Seguis Jr. and Rosalito
Estebe, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
a principal (sic) of the crime of simple rape
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, and hereby sentences each of them
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
and to pay one-half of the costs.
Each of the said accused is ordered to
indemnify the victim, Juliet Magamayo, in
the amount of P50,000.00 for the rape
committed by him.[5]
Hence, the present appeal. In their brief,
appellants raised the lone assigned error,
to wit:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY
THOUGH NOT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
BUT ONLY OF SIMPLE RAPE WITHOUT
THEIR GUILT HAVING BEEN PROVED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
It is to be noted that the accused in this
case were originally indicted for the felony
of robbery with multiple rape, a special
complex crime punishable under Art. 294,
par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and
which is committed when the robbery shall
have been accompanied by rape. The said
provision, needless to say, covers cases of
multiple rapes.[6] This is primarily due to
the fact that the juridical concept of this
crime does not limit the consummation of
rape against one single victim or to one
single act, making other rapes in excess of
that number as separate, independent
offense or offenses. All the rapes are
merged in the composite, integrated
whole that is robbery with rape, so long as
the rapes accompanied the robbery. It
does not matter too whether the rape
occurred before, during, or after the
robbery.
Still and all, this does not change the
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
intimidation against persons; (2) the
property taken belongs to another; (3) the
taking is done with animo lucrandi; and,
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. To
sustain a conviction, it is imperative that
the robbery itself must be conclusively
established; just as the fact that it was the
accused who committed it be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution
must be able to demonstrate the level of
their participation with legal and moral
certainty, including the existence of a
conspiracy, if any. Otherwise, those who
were charged should be acquitted, at least
for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone is
not sufficient to support a conviction for
the crime of robbery with rape.
This is exactly the factual conclusion of
the trial court, whose findings, to reiterate,
are accorded great weight and respect as
trial judges are undeniably in the best
position to weigh the declaration of
witnesses in light of their opportunity to
observe physically the witnesses conduct
and attitude during trial.[7] Thus said the
court:
x x x However there is no sufficient
evidence pointing to the herein two
accused as the ones who divested the
victim of her money and valuables. The
complainant herself admitted that she did
not know who among the many accused
took her gold ring, bracelet and cash. All
that she became aware of after her
horrible experience was she no longer had
the aforementioned items.
x x x There is a complete lack of evidence
pointing to Adriano Seguis or Rosalito
Estebe as the ones who took the valuables
in question. In the absence of proof of
conspiracy among the accused to commit
the crime of robbery, they are liable only
for their own separate and individual acts.
But the lower courts finding of their non-
participation in the robbery does not mean
that they are totally guiltless. They will still
be held accountable for whatever unlawful
acts they may have committed, and for
which acts they were charged. In a
criminal action for robbery with rape,
where the prosecution failed to prove the
robo or the participation of the accused in
it, the latter may still be convicted for the
rape. As already mentioned, the trial court
has ruled that the appellants had carnal
knowledge of the private complainant by
using force and intimidation. It convicted
them of one count of rape each because
there was no showing that they conspired
or assisted each other in committing those
rapes.
We affirm the conviction.
This Court has steadfastly adhered to the
rule that when a woman testifies that she
has been raped, and if her testimony
meets the test of credibility, the accused
may be convicted on the basis thereof.[8]
A rape victim who testifies in a
categorical, straightforward, spontaneous
and frank manner, and remains consistent,
is a credible witness.[9] If her story had
only been contrived, she would not have
been so composed and consistent
throughout her entire testimony in the
face of intense and lengthy interrogation.
[10] In the case at bar, the victim gave a
direct and straight narration of the events
which only evinces the truthfulness of her
testimony. Her story is corroborated on its
material points by an impartial and
unbiased witness, Lilibeth Balantucas, who
has absolutely no personal interest in the
outcome of this suit. Also, the medical
evidence is consistent with the theory that
the complainant had been a victim of
rape.
In addition, Juliets credibility is bolstered
by her instantaneous report of the crime
to the police. The incident occurred in the
early morning of August 19, 1995, and the
very next day, or on August 20, 1995, she
executed her affidavit before the
authorities of the Surigao City Police.
Besides, the appellants failed to prove any
ulterior or improper motive which could
have induced the victim and her witness
to testify against or falsely implicate them
in the commission of the crime.[11]
Indeed, if an accused had really nothing to
do with the crime, it is against the natural
order of events and human nature and
against the presumption of good faith that
the prosecution witness would falsely
testify against the former.[12] Thus, we
adhere to the established rule that in the
absence of any evidence to show that the
witnesses for the prosecution were
actuated by any improper motive, their
identification of the accused-appellants
should be given full faith and credit.[13]
Appellants defense that they were merely
implicated by Juliet as they refused to
testify in her favor is far from convincing.
Both of them testified that they are not
even close friends of Juliet. As correctly
pointed out by the Solicitor-General, It is
quite contrary to human experience that a
woman would narrate to somebody how
she was used sexually for a fee (and was
not paid) and thereafter request said
person whom she hardly knew to testify in
her favor to support her complaint.[14]
Also, such motive if availing is attributable
only to Juliet. The same cannot be imputed
to the other vital witness Lilibeth, who, to
repeat, does not have any interest in this
case and yet explicitly declared that
appellants were among the seven men
who went to their house the night of
August 18, 1995.
In support of their lone assignment of
error, the accused advanced several
arguments designed to destroy the
credibility of the witness herself and then
her testimony. We are not impressed by
these arguments.
I who entered the room?
Appellants basic submission is a mere
restatement of their defense. They assert
that they were not present at the scene of
the crime during the supposed moment
that it was unfolding. On the contrary,
they arrived there only at six oclock the
following morning allegedly to help
Michael Balantucas harvest his palay.
Such submission must fail for obvious
reasons. We have ruled that the defense
of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in
the light of positive declarations of truthful
witnesses who testified on affirmative
matters that the accused-appellants were
at the scene of the incident and were the
victims assailants and perpetrators of the
crime.[15] In the present case, the
appellants were positively identified by the
victim, thus:
Prosec. Menor : After that person was
finished, what happened next?
Juliet : Then Adriano Seguis and Rosalito
Estebe went up the house.
Q : Did they enter the room?
A : Yes, sir. Rosalito entered the room first.
Q : By the way, do you know personally
Rosalito Estebe?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : For how long have you known him prior
to the incident?
A : A long time, sir.
Q : In Barangay Togbongon?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : You knew him because you have
stayed in Togbongon, Surigao City?
A : Yes, sir. It was Jolly who introduced (sic)
to me.
Q : How were you able to recognize that it
was Rosalito Estebe and Adriano Seguis
A : Because Rosalito and Adriano called for
Michael Tol.
Q : My question, how were you able to
recognize Rosalito Estebe and Adriano
Seguis.
A : Estebe was bringing (sic) a flashlight.
Q : How about Adriano Seguis?
A : He was there sitting near the head of
Michael.
Q : Was the room still lighted at that time.
A : No more, sir, only the flashlight.
Q : Did you see the face of Rosalito
Estebe?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : How were you able to see the faces of
Adriano Seguis and Rosalito Estebe?
A : The light from the flashlight was
moving around.
Q : Are you very sure that the two persons
who came late were Adriano Seguis and
Rosalito Estebe?
A : Yes, sir.[16]
In addition, there is the testimony of
Lilibeth Balantucas, pointing to the two
appellants as among those who entered
their house at around midnight. Her
testimonial narrative proved that Seguis
and Estebe were in the Balantucas
residence at precisely or about the same
time Juliet was being raped. It forthrightly
contradicted the assertions of the two that
they arrived there only about six oclock in
the morning of the next day. According to
her:
xxx
Prosec. Menor: You said you slept at about
12:00 (sic) oclock in the evening, what
time did you awake up?
Lilibeth: At 12:00 because I want to
urinate.
Q : Where did you go after you wake (sic)
up?
A : To the kitchen.
Q : When you reached the kitchen of your
house, what happened next?
A : Then some men entered our room.
Q : How many were they?
A : Five persons.
Q : How about you?
A : I was outside because I was afraid and
I was pulled.
Q : By whom?
A : Dodong Estebe, Adriano Seguis.
Q : Including Estebe and Seguis, how
many persons were there in the house, all
in all?
A : Seven persons.
Q : What did Seguis and Estebe do to you?
A : Seguis and Estebe held my hands and
told me to keep quite or they would kill
me.
xxx
Q : Considering that it was nighttime, how
were you able to recognize them when
they were able to drag you outside?
A : Because there was a light.
Q : Light from what?
A : From electric bulb.
Q : And where was that electric bulb
located or placed?
A : Outside.
Q : Are you referring to the post?
A : No, sir, it was came from our kitchen.
Q : Kitchen of your house?
A : Yes, sir.[17]
Moreover, the defense of alibi is an issue
of fact that hinges on credibility, the
relative weight of which the trial court
assigns to the testimony of the witnesses.
Such assessment, unless patently and
clearly inconsistent, must be accepted, for
verily a careful evaluation of the record
does not reveal that the trial courts
rejection of the defense of alibi is
inconsistent with the evidence on record.
[18]
Lastly, it puzzles this court why the
appellants, despite their plea of alibi,
never testified as to their whereabouts the
night of August 18, 1995. Neither did they
present any witness who can plausibly
confirm that they were indeed in another
place at that period. For the defense of
alibi to be appreciated, it is not enough to
prove that the accused was somewhere
else when the offense was committed. It
must likewise be shown that he was so far
away that it was not possible for him to be
physically present at the place of the
crime or its immediate vicinity at the time
of its commission. The rule is settled that
for the defense of alibi to prosper, the
requirement of time and place must be
strictly met.[19]
II
Appellants contend that private
complainant is not credible as she is
known in the locality as a scheming 19-
year old woman, of loose morals, engaged
in the oldest trade, and wise in her ways
with the world.[20] Consequently, it is a
misplaced gesture of sympathy and
compassion to consider her truthful and a
paragon of a Filipinas inbred modesty and
Christian virtues. The record, however, is
bereft of any evidence that Juliet is a
woman for hire, except for the statements
of witnesses Nilda Cabug-os, Perfecto
Pagas, and appellant Rosalito Estebe to
the effect that she is often seen in the
company of men. These recitals by
themselves cannot be made sufficient
basis for accepting the veracity of the
allegation. Greater amount of quantitative
and qualitative proof is needed.
Moreover, it is unlikely that even a
prostitute would agree to have sex
continuously with five to seven men for
one night for a fee of P1,000.00. And it is
even more unlikely that she would go to
the extent of filing a case against them,
two of whom are acquaintances, have her
parts physically examined, and testify in
court how she was ravaged by them just
to get even for their failure to pay.
Obviously, the reason why Juliet went to
court and opted to suffer the ordeal of
being interrogated on her harrowing
experience is to obtain justice.
III
Appellants next call our attention on the
so-called badges or telltale signs of a
perfected contract for sexual services
between Juliet and the accused. The
appellants would like to impress upon this
Court that an agreement would lend
credence to their theory that she allowed
herself to be used that night by five men
who in turn reneged on their word of
paying her. As a consequence of which,
she was left with no choice but to file this
action and include the appellants as well
for refusing her request to be her
witnesses. In the alternative, the
agreement should demonstrate that if
there was any sexual activity participated
in by the woman and the appellants, it
was at least consensual.
First. They argue that if it were true that
Juliet was raped no less than eight times
and by seven different men, she should
have sustained more injuries than mere
superficial linear abrasion on the labia
majora. This should manifest that every
intercourse was done, not with force and
intimidation, but with care and finesse.
Suffice it to say that the absence of
external signs of physical injuries does not
negate rape.[21] This is especially true if
we take into consideration that two men
held Juliets hands while she was being
raped in succession. Be that as it may,
whatever wounds she might have suffered
is consistent with the hypothesis that she
was raped. As opined by Dr. Tremedal, an
acknowledged expert witness, her scars,
by their very nature, must have been
caused by a blunt object hitting the vagina
with force, such as an erect male penis
during sexual intercourse.
Second. Appellants ask how come Seguis
and Estebe preferred not to rape Lilibeth
Balantucas herself who was already at
their complete control during the time that
complainant was allegedly being gang-
raped by the other five accused inside the
room? Why did they wait for the five to
finish and leave behind in the process a
fresh, sweeter, and younger[22] Lilibeth?
They claim that this is unnatural for people
driven by lust and bestial desire, unless
there was a prior arrangement made by
them with the victim. We are not
persuaded. Lust is not a respecter of time,
place and circumstances, nor of persons
and relationships,[23] and neither is it a
conformist to reason and good taste, nor
common sense even. When a man is
overcome by lustful passions, certainly it
would be too much to expect that he will
still concern himself with the age, scent or
appearance of his prospect.
Third. Appellants contend that Juliets act
of telling Adriano Seguis, before she was
raped by the latter, that she could not
take it anymore is indicative of the
existence of a prior agreement with the
seven accused for a fee of P1,000. Again,
the argument lacks merit. When Juliet told
Seguis that she could not take it, she was
not asking for a recess or timeout[24] as
they insist, but was actually pleading that
he no longer rape her as she has suffered
enough in the hands of the other accused.
Fourth. They assert that the subsequent
act of Seguis and Estebe in socializing with
the victim and the Balantucas siblings
negates any idea of a misdeed. A reality
check, however, would show that the
accused stayed for a while after raping
Juliet not to socialize with them, as in fact
the two warned them not to tell anybody
of what happened or they would be killed.
Although it is correct that Seguis later
showed some signs of remorse towards
the victim, his acts were belated and could
no longer erase his crime. The ambiguous
attitude of Seguis is understandable. While
succumbing to his uncontrollable lust, he
remained quite sympathetic to the plight
of Juliet, who was an old acquaintance.
Nevertheless, the apparent regret shown
by Seguis after the act of rape could not
undo what he had done. It was too late for
recriminations.
IV
On another point, appellants keep harping
on the one hundred eighty-degree turn
around made by Michael on the stand.
They say that if the alleged sexual
congresses were true, and witnessed by
Michael, it is highly unthinkable that,
despite the risk of facing criminal
prosecution for false testimony and
perjury, he would still recant his previous
testimony in court in favor of the two.
They stress that Juliet and Michael are
more than good friends; and, the latter by
force of circumstance should not hesitate
to defend the complainants position.
The Court fails to be impressed with the
recantation of Michael Balantucas for
several reasons. A recantation does not
necessarily cancel an earlier declaration.
[25] Like any other testimony, it is subject
to the test of credibility based on the
relevant circumstances and especially the
demeanor of the witness on the stand.
Moreover, it should be received with
caution as otherwise it could make solemn
trials a mockery and place the
investigation of truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses.[26]
In any event, the eyewitness accounts of
Juliet herself and Lilibeth are more than
sufficient to prove beyond doubt the
participation of the appellants in the
commission of the assault. Even if the trial
court had not given credence to the first
testimony of Michael, there still is enough
indication to ascertain their culpability. His
declaration is merely cumulative, or
additional evidence of the same kind
tending to establish the same point or
factual issue.
V
Lastly, appellants put private complainant
to task for alleged marked contradictions
and pure improbabilities surrounding her
story. For instance, they assert that it
would be highly doubtful for Juliet not to
notice who took away her gold ring and
gold bracelet, if in the first place there
were any. So too are they puzzled with
how consistent she is in her perception of
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]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERSON NAAG y
LOBAS, accused-appellant.
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
One of the more interesting conceptual
exercises in the field of Criminal Law is the
characterization of a crime. The challenge
is not only to prove existence of its
elements. The challenge is to correctly
categorize it. In the case at bar, a man
sexually defiled then immediately divested
his woman-victim of her belongings. Is he
guilty of the special complex crime of
Robbery with Rape or the separate crimes
of Robbery and Rape? The answer lies in
his intent.
The accused in this case is a certain
Herson Naag y Lobas. He was indicted for
Robbery with Rape under an Information
which reads:
That on or about the 8th day of January,
1996 at Daraga, Albay x x x the above
named accused, armed with a screw
driver, by means of violence and
intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal
knowledge of the complainant Desiree
Gollena, against her will, by inflicting upon
her with the use of said screw multiple
serious physical injuries, and thereafter
said accused, having been fully satisfied of
his carnal lust over said Desiree Gollena
and believing her to be dead, with intent
of gain, divested and took her personal
belongings, to wit: (1) one bag containing
clothes worth P500.00 (2) one gold
bracelet worth P1,500.00 (3) wallet
containing P1,800.00 and (4) ladies
wristwatch valued at P600.00 to the
damage and prejudice of said Desiree
Gollena.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
He pleaded not guilty during arraignment
and the action proceeded to trial.
The evidence for the prosecution shows
that Desiree was a singer in a band which
regularly plays at the Gloss and Glitters
Disco located in Tabaco, Albay. On the
morning of January 8, 1996, she went
home to Sipi, Daraga, Albay, to visit her
family. She took the bus and by about 4
oclock in the morning, she alighted at the
towns Freedom Park in Daraga. She
crossed a street where two tricycles were
parked. She woke up one of the drivers
and inquired whether she could be
brought to Sipi. Getting a positive
response, she boarded it. Upon reaching
her place, she told him to stop and handed
to him her fare. To her surprise, what she
received in return was not loose change,
but a slap.
The driver then began to maul her. Desiree
fought back as hard as she could, but this
made the driver more ferocious in his
assault. She was strangled, boxed and
kicked. She was repeatedly stabbed with a
screw driver on her face, head, and
different parts of her body. Her head was
banged against the sidecar. She realized
that her struggle was in vain and would
only put her life in greater danger. She
stopped resisting and pretended to be
dead.
He then transported her to another place.
He lifted her from the tricycle and she
thought she would be thrown to a ravine
or cliff beside what appeared to be an
abandoned house. Instead, she was tossed
to the ground. The driver removed her
pants and panties. She could not resist,
fearing death. After her garments were
removed, her legs were spread apart and
he copulated with her.
After satisfying his lust, the driver took her
wristwatch worth P600.00, a bracelet
worth P1,500.00 and fled with her bag
containing her clothes, wallet containing
P1,800.00 in cash, and some loose
change. When Desiree sensed that he has
left the premises, she rolled down the
ravine. She did not have the energy to
stand and walk and so she crawled until
she reached a house, which turned out to
be the dwelling place of witness Engineer
Antonio Balacano located at Sybil
Subdivision, Sipi, Daraga. She cried for
help.
Engr. Balacano responded to Desirees call
for assistance. He saw Desiree, a bloodied
girl, cold and torn, squatting by the gate
with her pants down and hanging on one
leg. It was already 5 oclock in the morning.
The wife of the engineer telephoned local
police authorities for assistance. In the
meantime, Desiree was brought to the
Albay Provincial Hospital where she was
given medical treatment. Dr. Jose Solano
testified that the girl was in pain when he
examined her and that she sustained
multiple lacerations and stab wounds on
different parts of her body, and had
blackening of her left and right eyes. Dr.
Aileen Francis Bartilet examined Desirees
genitalia and noted the absence of any
sign of injury: there was no bleeding, no
laceration of the hymen, no contusion in
the vulvar wall of the vagina, and no
abrasion.
Later that morning of January 8, 1996,
policemen came to the hospital to
investigate the incident. Desiree gave a
description of the suspect as well as the
tricycle. The next day, on January 9, SPO1
Pastor Perena Jr. and SPO2 Domingo
Mabini happened to apprehend one
Herson Naag y Lobas, a tricycle driver, for
driving a public utility tricycle without the
necessary license. Naag and the vehicle
were brought to the police station of
Daraga. Perena and Mabini realized that
Naag fit the description of the malefactor
given by Desiree. They brought the
confiscated student drivers permit of Naag
(which contains his photograph) to the
hospital for identification. Their hunch was
confirmed when Desiree, upon being
shown the permit, identified the man in
the picture as the one who raped and
robbed her.
When the policemen returned to the
station, Naag was already gone, but not
without leaving his tricycle behind. They
brought the tricycle to the hospital for
identification. Desiree did not have any
difficulty in identifying the tricycle as the
same vehicle she boarded on the morning
of January 8. A criminal complaint was
then filed against Naag. On February 25,
1996, he was arrested by the NBI agents
of Naga City at Tagkawayan, Quezon.
The accused alleged, in his defense, that it
was impossible for him to be the author of
the crime at bar. He claimed that at the
time and date of the incident, he was
sleeping in their house approximately
seven kilometers away from where it
happened. His tricycle was not in a
serviceable condition then, and he was
repairing it the night before. It was fixed
only on January 9 since he was able to buy
the spare part that he needed at about
8:30 a.m. of January 8. The previous day
was a Sunday and almost all of the motor
shops were closed. Hence, he alleged that
he could not have operated on the Sipi
route on the 8th as his tricycle was not in
running condition. He explained that he
was in Tagkawayan when he was arrested
because he had undergone hospitalization
and was on an errand.
The defense also called two other
witnesses to the stand who backstopped
the testimony of the accused. It presented
his wife who basically reiterated the story
of her husband. She said that he was with
her from the night of January 7 up to the
morning of January 8, at about 8:30, when
he had to buy the spare part that he
needed for his tricycle. Similarly, it
presented a certain Lino Era, a next-door
neighbor who recalled seeing the accused
at about 10 oclock in the evening of
January 7 doing some repairs on his
tricycle.
In the end, the trial court chose not to
believe Naag. It held:
The accused in his defense put up alibi, a
shabby excuse, a defense indicties never
seem to tire of. (People vs. Bracamonte,
257 SCRA 380) This defense of the
accused cannot prevail over the positive
identification by the victim Desiree of the
accused and of the tricycle. This defense
of alibi is worthless in the face of his being
positively identified by the victim Desiree.
(People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA 26)[2]
However, the trial court did not convict
him of the crime he was originally charged
with, which is Robbery with Rape. Instead
he was meted out two different sentences
for the separate crimes of Robbery and
Rape, viz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
accused Herson Naag y Lobas is hereby
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Rape under Art. 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
P50,000.00 as Indemnity and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
The accused Herson Naag y Lobas is also
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the separate crime of Robbery under Art.
294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, and
taking into consideration the
Indeterminate Sentence Law he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of ten (10) years of Prision
mayor medium in its maximum period as
the minimum to fourteen (14) years, ten
months and twenty (20) days of Reclusion
Temporal medium period in its medium
period as the maximum and to return the
ladies wrist watch worth P600.00, bracelet
worth P1,500.00, bag of clothes worth
P500.00 or their total value of P2,600.00 if
return cannot be had and the cash of
P1,800.00. Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.[3]
Dissatisfied with the verdict, the accused
interposed this appeal. In his brief, he
made this lone assignment of error: The
Lower Court erred in finding the accused
guilty of the separate crimes of Robbery
and Rape.[4]
We affirm the conviction.
There is no cogent reason to disturb the
findings of the lower court. Well-
entrenched is the rule that an appellate
court will generally not disturb the
assessment of the trial court on factual
matters considering that the latter, as a
trier of fact, is in a better position to
appreciate the same. The only exceptions
allowed are when the trial court has
plainly overlooked certain facts of
substance which, if considered, may affect
the result of the case, or in instances
where the evidence fails to support or
substantiate the lower courts findings and
conclusions, or where the disputed
decision is based on a misapprehension of
facts.[5] This case does not fall under any
of the exceptions. Hence, there is no
reason for us to modify the factual findings
of the lower court.
Even then, the appellant raises two points
in support of his assignment of error
designed to sow in our minds seeds of
doubt. The first relates to the medical
evidence on record while the second deals
with his identity.
The appellant capitalizes, firstly, on Dr.
Bartilets testimony on the absence of
fresh injury on the private part of the
offended party although she was
examined almost immediately after the
assault. According to him, the findings of
said medical expert negate the charge of
rape. On the other hand, the prosecution
contends that the lack of injury and the
healed laceration could be attributed to
the sexual intercourse she had with her
boyfriend.
The appellants argument fails to impress.
It is to be noted that Dr. Bartilet herself
explained that her findings did not
eliminate the possibility of sexual
intercourse. She opined that it must have
been done only outside the vagina but
within the external vulva by merely
pushing and giving some force to it.[6]
She added that the appellant could have
ejaculated and discharged semen on the
external genitalia even without
penetrating into the vagina.
In rape cases, what is material is that
there is penetration of the female organ
no matter how slight.[7]7 In a long line of
decisions, we have ruled that the only
essential point is to prove the entrance or
at least the introduction of the male organ
into the labia of the pudendum.[8] Hence,
the moment the accuseds penis knocks at
the door of the pudenda it suffices to
constitute the crime of rape.[9]
The appellant next assails the
identification made by Desiree. He
contends that it was still dark at the time
of the incident. He argues that when
people board a tricycle, they do not
usually focus their attention on the driver.
He states that the identity of the driver
could be the least of Desirees concern for
at 4 oclock in the morning, she would have
just wanted to go home and rest in the
comfort of her bed.
We are not persuaded. Desiree could not
have failed to recognize the appellant
because she was the victim of the assault.
A truism founded on ordinary experience
is that victims of criminal violence often
strive hard to recognize their assailants.
[10] Furthermore, a victim has a natural
knack in remembering the face of an
assailant for she, more than anybody else,
would be interested in bringing the
malefactor to justice.[11] On the other
hand, it would be unnatural for someone
who is interested in vindicating the crime
to accuse somebody other than the real
culprit.[12]
To be sure, Desiree was very emphatic in
her identification of the appellant as her
assailant, thus:
Court: Now that person Herson Naag, how
is he related to the accused in this case?
Desiree: He is the one and same person
who raped and robbed me.
Q: You said it was the first time you saw
the accused on January 8, 1996. It was still
dark is (sic) it not?
A: It was bright at the centro.
Q: But it was not in park (sic) he was
sleeping at that time in his tricycle. Is it
not? (sic)
A: It was bright because there were lights.
Q: But you saw him only once on Jan. 8,
1996. How were you able to recognize him
in the Municipal building when you were
asked to identify him after one month,
being detained?
A: As I have said, I can never forget his
face.[13]
Moreover, Desiree should have no
difficulty in identifying the appellant
because when she first approached him at
the centro to hire his services, the place
was bright and well-lighted.
The appellant further argues that Desirees
initial identification of him through his
picture is unreliable considering the
physical and emotional state she was in at
that time. It is urged that due to her
physical and mental instability, the
showing of the student permit must have
generated a prejudice in her mind that the
person shown in the picture of the drivers
ID is the one who assaulted her.[14]
The argument proceeds from a wrong
assumption. It assumes that the picture
was shown before the victim gave the
description to the police. It was the other
way around. Thus:
Court: Have you seen him in that parking
area before January 8, 1996?
Desiree: No, your honor.
Q: Now, while you were in the Hospital you
said that an ID was shown to you and the
picture of a person and whose picture you
recognize to be that of a person who
raped you. Who showed you that picture?
A: The Police Officer.
Q: How come that the Policeman was able
to go to Albay Provincial Hospital with that
ID?
A: Because when they interviewed me in
the hospital, I gave them the description
of the accused and his tricycle.[15]
The point is made more explicit during
Desirees cross-examination:

Atty. Gomez (continuing on cross-
examination)
Q: Now, on that date Jan. 9, 1996 were
you told by the policemen that the person
whose ID was shown to you was one of
their suspects?
A: The policeman told me to identify the
person in the ID.
Q: Were you told that the owner of the ID
was apprehended for violation of traffic
law?
A: No, Sir. I was just asked to identify him.
Q: After the ID was shown to you that was
the time when you also gave them the
description of the person, is (sic) it not?
A: No, Sir. It was on Jan. 8, 1996 when I
gave the description of the tricycle driver.
[16]
We shall now ascertain the nature and
extent of the criminal responsibility of the
appellant. The issue is whether the crime
committed by him is Robbery with Rape or
the two separate felonies of Robbery and
Rape.
In the special complex crime of robbery
with rape, the true intent of the accused
must first be determined because it is his
intent that determines the offense he has
committed. This Court in People vs. Dinola,
[17] citing the cases of People vs.
Canastre[18] and People vs. Faigano,[19]
held:
x x x if the intention of the accused was to
rob, but rape was committed even before
the asportation, the crime is robbery with
rape. But if the original plan was to rape
but the accused after committing the rape
also committed the robbery when the
opportunity presented itself, the offense
should be viewed as separate and distinct.
To be liable for the complex crime of
robbery with rape the intent to take
personal property of another must
precede the rape.
We must ascertain the force which moved
the appellant when he employed violence
and intimidation against the person of
Desiree. It is true that the appellant raped
Desiree before she was dispossessed of
her personal properties. This, however, is
not decisive. Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code does not distinguish whether
the rape was committed before, during or
after the robbery. It suffices that the
robbery was accompanied by rape.[20]
We agree with the conclusion of the trial
court that rape was the primary intent of
the appellant and his taking away of the
belongings of the victim was only a mere
afterthought. Although the trial court did
not state the reasons for its ruling, there
exists sufficient evidence on record from
where such deduction can be made.
First. It is obvious from the degree and
character of the violence and intimidation
which the appellant employed (and when
he employed it) upon Desiree that his
intent was to rape her. He applied such
force as to render her resistance to his lust
inutile. The kind of force used was
unnecessary if he only planned to rob
Desiree. On the other hand, the excessive
force was clearly meant to attain his
lustful scheme. Resultantly, when he
finally forced his bestial desire on her, he
was able to traverse, in a manner of
speaking, the path of least resistance.
Second. The appellant transported Desiree
from where he first mauled her to an
abandoned place. All the time that Desiree
was helpless after her mauling, appellant
did not concern himself with robbing
Desiree even if he could have done so with
ease if not with impunity. Instead, he
preoccupied himself in finding a location
more suited, nay, comfortable, for his plan
of lying with her. Needless to say, an
abandoned house fits well.
Lastly, at no time did the appellant ask for
the belongings of Desiree. Neither did he
search her for valuables, except for the
wallet in her pants. What is apparent is
that he only: (1) took her watch and
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

6.) [G.R. No. 130650. September 10,
2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO
VERCELES, FELIX CORPUZ, MAMERTO
SORIANO (At large), PABLO RAMOS
(At large), and JERRY SORIANO (State
Witness), accused, MARIO VERCELES
and FELIX CORPUZ, accused-
appellants.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Accused Mario Verceles alias Baldog, Felix
Corpuz, Mamerto Soriano alias Merto,
Pablo Ramos and Jerry Soriano were
charged with the crime of Robbery with
Rape committed as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of October,
1996, in the morning, in barangay
Malibong, municipality of Urbiztondo,
province of Pangasinan, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, with intent of gain and by means
of force upon things, entered the house of
one Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly
destroying the grills of the window which
they used as an ingress and once inside,
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously take and cart away the
following personal properties: one (1)
colored T.V., one (1) VHS, assorted
jewelries, one (1) alarm clock and one (1)
radio cassette, all valued at SIXTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) owned by
the said Rosita Quilates, and that on the
same occasion, the said accused,
conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with Maribeth Bolito against
her will to the damage and prejudice of
the aforenamed victims.
CONTRARY to Art. 299, par. A(2) in relation
to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code.[1]
Of the five accused, Mamerto Soriano and
Pablo Ramos remain at large. Only Mario
Verceles, Felix Corpuz and Jerry Soriano
were brought to the jurisdiction of the
court. During arraignment, the three
accused, duly assisted by counsel,
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Thereafter, the prosecution filed a motion
to discharge accused Jerry Soriano as a
State Witness. The court proceeded with
the trial of the case pending the resolution
of the said motion to discharge.
The trial court subsequently discharged
accused Jerry Soriano and received his
testimony as state witness. According to
Soriano, on October 18, 1996, the five
accused boarded a tricycle owned by
Mario Verceles to visit his cousin in
barangay Goliso, located at the boundary
of Urbiztondo. At 8:00 in the evening, they
proceeded to barangay Malibong to visit
Pepe, a compadre of Mamerto Soriano.
Before reaching Pepes place, they stopped
at the house of Jerrys grandmother, Rosita
Quilates. Jerry sensed that his companions
had an evil plan, so he and Pablo Ramos
tried to leave. However, Mamerto Soriano
poked a gun at Jerry and told them not to
leave. Then, they tied Jerry and Pablo
under a mango tree. The three proceeded
to the house of Rosita Quilates. While
waiting for the three, Jerry and Pablo fell
asleep. When they woke up at 2:00 a.m.,
they saw the three accused carrying a TV
set, VHS and other things. They helped the
three load the items in the tricycle. Then
they went home to San Jacinto,
Pangasinan. Several days later, they sold
the items and Jerry was given three
hundred pesos.[2]
The prosecution witness Maribeth Bolito
testified that on October 19, 1996 at
around 2:00 in the morning, she was
awakened by a man fondling her breast
and other private parts. She tried to resist
and fight back but her strength proved too
weak against her aggressor. Furthermore,
the man had a gun pointed at her head.
She later identified her aggressor as
Mamerto Soriano. While she was being
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
and fondled her breasts for five minutes.
She pretended to be thirsty, so Soriano,
holding her tightly, brought her to the
kitchen. There he removed his pants and
laid her on the floor and tried to insert his
penis inside her vagina. Maribeth lost
consciousness and when she came to, her
private part was very painful and the three
accused were gone.[3]
Dra. Revelina Millan, who examined
Maribeth on October 20, 1996, made the
following findings:[4]
- GO IMP : September 2nd week/96
3 days
- SKIN : No hematoma
No Abrasion
- IE : with healed laceration at 9 oclock
position
- For vaginal smear for presence of
spermatozoa
- Result : Negative for spermatozoa
SPO2 Eduardo Fernandez, who
investigated the robbery, testified that the
malefactors entered through the window
of one of the bedrooms of the house; that
they took personal properties valued at
P60,000.00; that Maribeth Bolito was
sexually abused; and that a necklace was
recovered from Felix Corpuz.[5]
Mrs. Rosita Quilates testified that she
learned from her granddaughter, Maribeth
Bolito, that her house was robbed and her
personal belongings were missing; and
that she was able to recover the
properties from a certain Andres Tirano,
who bought them from accused Mamerto
Soriano.
In their defense, Felix Corpuz testified that
on October 19, 1996, he was in Manila
working as a carpenter in a construction
firm. He stayed in Manila from October 5,
1996, and did not visit his hometown until
the completion of the job contract on
October 27, 1996. He first learned that he
was a suspect in a crime on November 3,
1996.[6]
Ernesto Lambino, Jr. corroborated the
testimony of Felix Corpuz. He testified that
he was the one who recruited Felix to work
in Tambo, Rizal, Paraaque as a mason
carpenter. They arrived in Manila on
October 5, 1996 and Felix started his work
on October 6, 1996 until October 26,
1996.[7]
Accused Mario Verceles, for his part,
testified that in the evening of October 18,
1996, he attended the wake of Crispulo de
Guzman at Barangay San Vicente, San
Jacinto, Pangasinan. There he played cards
up to 4:00 a.m. of October 19, 1996. He
left the place at 5:00 a.m. He only learned
that the police were looking for him when
his wife fetched him in Mapandan,
Pangasinan. He went to the barangay
captain of his place and arranged for his
surrender to the authorities. Police
Inspector Rodolfo Tadeo corroborated his
testimony that he voluntarily surrendered
to the police on November 5, 1996.[8]
After trial, the lower court rendered a
decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:[9]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Court hereby finds accused Felix Corpuz
and Mario Verceles guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery
with Rape defined and penalized under
Article 294, 1, as amended, of the Revised
Penal Code, and there being neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance,
the Court hereby sentences each to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Both
Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles are
likewise ordered to pay jointly and
solidarily the victim Maribeth Bolito the
sum of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) for moral damages, One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
for exemplary damages and to pay Rosita
Quilates the sum of Twenty One Thousand
Pesos (P21,000.00) on the value of the
properties which were not recovered and
further orders that the recovered TV, VHS
appliances and necklace be returned to its
lawful owner.
SO ORDERED.
Accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles
interposed the instant appeal. They
alleged that the trial court erred in
discharging Jerry Soriano as a state
witness, in appreciating conspiracy among
the accused, in not considering as
mitigating circumstance the voluntary
surrender of Mario Verceles, and in
awarding damages to the private
complainants.
The appeal lacks merit.
Accused-appellants contend that the
discharge of Jerry Soriano did not comply
with the requirements of the Rules of
Court. They contend that Sorianos
testimony does not constitute direct
evidence; at most, it was circumstantial in
nature and of minuscule importance.[10]
Moreover, Jerry Soriano was the most
guilty for he admitted his guilt with regard
to the commission of the crime together
with Mamerto Soriano.[11]
The requirements for the discharge and
utilization of an accused as a state witness
are enumerated in Rule 119, Section
17[12] of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, viz:
a) There is absolute necessity for the
testimony of the accused whose discharge
is requested;
b) There is no other direct evidence
available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony
of the accused;
c) The testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material
points;
d) Said accused does not appear to be the
most guilty; and
e) Said accused has not at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral
turpitude.
The trial court did not err in discharging
Jerry Soriano to be utilized as a state
witness. First, the testimony of Jerry
Soriano was absolutely necessary as the
prosecution has no direct evidence to
prove the identity of the malefactors
Mamerto Soriano, Felix Corpuz, Mario
Verceles and Pablo Ramos. The record
reveals that the five accused were
together on the night the robbery and
rape took place. He may not have
witnessed the actual robbery and rape,
but he has personal knowledge of the
robbery when he saw the three accused
return to the place where he and Pablo
Ramos were allegedly tied, carrying with
them the properties said to have been
stolen. Second, Jerry Sorianos testimony
was corroborated in its material points by
other prosecution witnesses and physical
evidence. These are: (a) the testimony of
Maribeth Bolito that there were three
malefactors, one of whom sexually abused
her and two of whom just stood at the
door; (b) the testimony of Rosita Quilates
that her properties were stolen; and (c)
the testimony of SPO2 Renato Solomon
that they were able to recover the stolen
properties from a certain Andres Tirano
who bought them from accused Mamerto
Soriano. Lastly, Jerry Soriano does not
appear to be the most guilty for he was
not a co-conspirator in the robbery with
rape. He merely accompanied the accused
and received three hundred pesos as his
share in the proceeds of the sale of the
stolen properties. Besides, the question of
whether Jerry Soriano appears to be the
most guilty is a factual issue. The
discretionary judgment of the trial court
on this matter is seldom interfered with by
appellate court except in case of grave
abuse of discretion.[13] We find no good
reason to disturb the trial courts findings
of facts.
Granting ex gratia argumenti that not all
the requisites of a valid discharge are
present, the improper discharge of an
accused will not render inadmissible his
testimony nor detract from his
competency as a witness. Any witting or
unwitting error of the prosecution in
asking for the discharge, and of the court
in granting the petition, no question of
jurisdiction being involved, cannot deprive
the discharged accused of the acquittal
provided by the Rules, and of the
constitutional guarantee against double
jeopardy.[14]
On the matter of whether rape was
committed, we agree with the trial courts
ruling that neither the healed lacerations
on the vagina of the victim nor the
absence of spermatozoa negates rape.
When an alleged victim of rape says she
was violated, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape had been
inflicted on her, and so long as her
testimony meets the test of credibility, the
accused may be convicted on the basis
thereof.[15]
In the case at bar, the victims declaration
of her sexual ordeal, which was given in a
straightforward, convincing, credible and
satisfactory manner, shows no other
intention than to obtain justice for the
wrong committed by accused-appellant
Mamerto Soriano against her. The Court
finds no reason to depart from the rule
that the trial courts evaluation of the
credibility of the testimonies of the
witnesses is accorded great weight
because it has the unique opportunity of
hearing the witnesses testify and
observing their deportment and manner of
testifying.[16]
We agree with the trial court that
conspiracy has been sufficiently proved by
the prosecution. Accused-appellants were
one in design with accused Mamerto
Soriano in taking personal properties
belonging to others without the latters
consent by breaking one of the windows to
be used as their ingress. In the course of
the robbery, one of them, particularly
Mamerto Soriano, succumbed to lustful
desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while
accused-appellants just stood outside the
door and did nothing to prevent Mamerto
Soriano. We have previously ruled that
once conspiracy is established between
two accused in the commission of the
crime of robbery, they would be both
equally culpable for the rape committed
by one of them on the occasion of the
robbery, unless any of them proves that
he endeavored to prevent the other from
committing the rape.[17] The rule in this
jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is
committed as a consequence, or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part therein are liable as principals of the
crime of robbery with rape, although not
all of them took part in the rape.[18]
In trying to mitigate his criminal liability,
accused-appellant Mario Verceles argued
that the trial court erred in not considering
the circumstance of voluntary surrender in
his favor. Upon learning that police
authorities were searching for him in
connection with the alleged crime, he
immediately proceeded to the barangay
captain of his place and voluntarily
surrendered himself. However, the
Solicitor General argues that the surrender
of accused-appellant Mario Verceles was
not voluntary and spontaneous for it took
him 16 days to show up from the
commission of the crime on October 19,
1996 to November 4, 1996.[19]
For the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
accused must satisfactorily comply with
three requisites: (1) he has not been
actually arrested; (2) he surrendered
himself to a person in authority or the
latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is
voluntary. There must be a showing of
spontaneity and an intent to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either
because the accused acknowledges his
guilt or he wishes to spare them the
trouble and expense concomitant to his
capture.[20] Voluntary surrender is not a
mitigating circumstance where it appears
that the purpose of the accused in going
to the authorities is for an entirely
different matter as to inquire merely about
a warrant of arrest in connection with a
pending case against the accused for
rape. [21]
Evidence shows that Mario Verceles
surrender to the authorities was not
spontaneous and unconditional. He
submitted himself to the police only to
clear the matter and to know the reason
why the police were looking for him[22]
and when asked what his involvement was
to the alleged robbery and rape, he
answered that he does not know anything
about the crime.[23] In People v. Abella,
[24] we held that when the accused goes
to a police station merely to clear his
name and not to give himself up,
voluntary surrender may not be
appreciated. On the basis of the foregoing,
accused-appellant Mario Verceles is not
entitled to the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
damages is reduced from P200,000.00 to
P50,000.00; the award of exemplary
damages is DELETED for lack of basis and
the sum of P50,000.00 is awarded for civil
indemnity.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and
Carpio, JJ., concur.

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