You are on page 1of 64

G.R. No. L-28547 February 22, 1974 trio walked in the direction of the plaza.

After an interval of
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. about ten to twenty minutes, they reappeared. Each of them
ELIAS JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, FRANCO was carrying two fighting cocks. They ran to the truck.
BRILLANTES and HEMAN GORRICETA, accused. ELIAS Jaranilla directed Gorriceta to start the truck because they
JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, and FRANCO were being chased. Gorriceta drove the truck to Jaro (another
BRILLANTES, defendants-appellants. district of the city) on the same route that they had taken in
Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant going to Mandurriao.
Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Solicitor Antonio M. It is important to note the positions of Gorriceta and his three
Martinez for plaintiff-appellee. companions on the front seat of the track. Gorriceta the
Sixto P. Dimaisip for defendants-appellants. driver, was on the extreme left. Next to him on his right was
Suyo. Next to Suyo was Brillantes. On the extreme right was
AQUINO, J.: Jaranilla.
This is an appeal of defendants Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo While the truck was traversing the detour road near the
and Franco Brillantes from the decision of the Court of First Mandurriao airport, then under construction, Gorriceta saw in
Instance of Iloilo, which convicted them of robbery with the middle of the road Patrolmen Ramonito Jabatan and
homicide, sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua and Benjamin Castro running towards them. Gorriceta slowed
ordered them to pay solidarily the sum of six thousand pesos down the truck after Patrolman Jabatan had fired a warning
to the heirs of Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred shot and was signalling with his flashlight that the truck
pesos to Valentin Baylon as the value of fighting cocks should stop. Gorriceta stopped the truck near the policeman.
(Criminal Case No. 11082). Jabatan approached the right side of the truck near Jaranilla
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at around eleven and ordered all the occupants of the truck to go down. They
o'clock in the evening of January 9, 1966, Gorriceta, who had did not heed the injunction of the policeman.
just come from Fort San Pedro in Iloilo City, was driving a Brillantes pulled his revolver but did not fire it. Suyo did
Ford pickup truck belonging to his sister, Remia G. Valencia. nothing. Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman Jabatan.
While he was in front of the Elizalde Building on J. M. Basa The shooting frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started
Street, he saw Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco the motor of the truck and drove straight home to La Paz,
Brillantes. They hailed Gorriceta who stopped the truck. another district of the city. Jaranilla kept on firing towards
Jaranilla requested to bring them to Mandurriao, a district in Jabatan.
another part of the city. Gorriceta demurred. He told Jaranilla Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes alighted in front of Gorriceta's
that he (Gorriceta) was on his way home. house. Gorriceta parked the truck inside the garage. Jaranilla
Jaranilla prevailed upon Gorriceta to take them to Mandurriao warned Gorriceta not to tell anybody about the incident.
because Jaranilla ostensibly had to get something from his Gorriceta went up to his room. After a while, he heard
uncle's place. So, Jaranilla, Brillantes and Suyo boarded the policemen shouting his name and asking him to come down.
pickup truck which Gorriceta drove to Mandurriao. Instead of doing so, he hid in the ceiling. It was only at about
Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorriceta parked the truck at a eight o'clock in the morning of the following day that he
distance of about fifty to seventy meters from the provincial decided to come down. His uncle had counselled him to
hospital. Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes alighted from the surrender to the police. The policemen took Gorriceta to their
vehicle. Jaranilla instructed Gorriceta to wait for them. The
headquarters. He recounted the incident to a police at the right thoracic cavity; both thoracic cavity was full of
investigator. blood.
Victorino Trespeces, whose house was located opposite the Cause of death: Shock, hemorrhage, secondary to bullet
house of Valentin Baylon on Taft Street in Mandurriao, wound.
testified that before midnight of January 9, 1966, he Valentin Baylon, the owner of the fighting cocks, returned
conducted a friend in his car to the housing project in the home at about six o'clock in the morning of January 10, 1966.
vicinity of the provincial hospital at Mandurriao. As he neared He discovered that the door of one of his cock pens or chicken
his residence, he saw three men emerging from the canal on coops (Exhs. A and A-1) was broken. The feeding vessels
Taft Street in front of Baylon's house. He noticed a red Ford were scattered on the ground. Upon investigation he found
pickup truck parked about fifty yards from the place where that six of his fighting cocks were missing. Each coop
he saw the three men. Shortly thereafter, he espied the three contained six cocks. The coop was made of bamboo and wood
men carrying roosters. He immediately repaired to the police with nipa roofing. Each coop had a door which was locked by
station at Mandurriao. He reported to Patrolmen Jabatan and means of nails. The coops were located at the side of his
Castro what he had just witnessed. The two policemen house, about two meters therefrom.
requested him to take them in his car to the place where he Baylon reported the loss to the police at Mandurriao. At about
saw the three suspicious-looking men. Upon arrival thereat, ten o'clock, a group of detectives came to his house together
the men and the truck were not there anymore. with the police photographer who took pictures of the chicken
Trespeces and the policemen followed the truck speeding coops. The six roosters were valued at one hundred pesos
towards Jaro. On reaching the detour road leading to the each. Two days later, he was summoned to the police station
airport, the policemen left the car and crossed the runway at Mandurriao to identify a rooster which was recovered
which was a shortcut. Their objective was to intercept the somewhere at the airport. He readily identified it as one of
truck. Trespeces turned his car around in order to return to the six roosters which was stolen from his chicken coop (Exh.
Mandurriao. At that moment he heard gunshots. He stopped B).
and again turned his car in the direction where shots had Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with
emanated. A few moments later, Patrolman Castro came into robo con homicidio with the aggravating circumstances of use
view. He was running. He asked Trespeces for help because of a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with
Jabatan, his comrade, was wounded. Patrolman Castro and insult to the public authorities and recidivism. The fiscal
Trespeces lifted Jabatan into the car and brought him to the utilized Gorriceta as a state witness. Hence, the case was
hospital. Trespeces learned later that Jabatan was dead. dismissed as to him.
Doctor Raymundo L. Torres, the chief medico-legal officer of On February 2, 1967, after the prosecution had rested its
the Iloilo City police department, conducted an autopsy on case and before the defense had commenced the
the remains of Patrolman Jabatan. He found: presentation of its evidence, Jaranilla escaped from the
(1) Contusion on left eyebrow. provincial jail. The record does not show that he has been
(2) Bullet wound one centimeter in diameter, penetrating left apprehended.
anterior axilla, directed diagonally downward to the right, The judgment of conviction was promulgated as to
perforating the left upper lobe of the lungs through and defendants Suyo and Brillantes on October 19, 1967 when it
through, bitting the left pulmonary artery and was recovered was read to them in court. They signed at the bottom of the
last page of the decision.
There was no promulgation of the judgment as to Jaranilla, Gorriceta shot Jabatan. Being supposedly intoxicated,
who, as already stated, escaped from jail (See Sec. 6, Rule Gorriceta would have been dozing when Jabatan signalled the
120, Rules of Court). driver to stop the truck and he could not have thought of
However, the notice of appeal filed by defendants' counsel de killing Jabatan in his inebriated state. He would not have been
oficio erroneously included Jaranilla. Inasmuch as the able to shoot accurately at Jabatan. But the fact is that the
judgment has not been promulgated as to Jaranilla, he could first shot hit Jabatan. So, the one who shot him must have
not have appealed. His appeal through counsel cannot be been a sober person like Jaranilla.
entertained. Only the appeals of defendants Suyo and Moreover, as Jaranilla and his two comrades were interested
Brillantes will be considered. in concealing the fighting cocks, it was Jaranilla, not
In convicting Suyo, Jaranilla and Brillantes of robo con Gorriceta, who would have the motive for shooting Jabatan.
homicidio, the trial court assumed that the taking of the six Consequently, the theory that Gorriceta shot Jabatan and
fighting cocks was robbery and that Patrolman Jabatan was that Jaranilla was driving the truck appears to be plausible.
killed "by reason or on the occasion of the robbery" within Was the taking of the roosters robbery or theft? There is no
the purview of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or
In this appeal the appellants contend that the trial court erred cages in the yard of Baylon's house violence against or
in not finding that Gorriceta was the one who shot the intimidation of persons was employed. Hence, article 294 of
policeman and that Jaranilla was driving the Ford truck the Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked.
because Gorriceta was allegedly drunk. Through their counsel Neither could such taking fall under article 299 of the Revised
de oficio, they further contend that the taking of roosters was Penal Code which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house
theft and, alternatively, that, if it was robbery, the crime (casa habitada), public building or edifice devoted to worship.
could not be robbery with homicide because the robbery was The coop was not inside Baylon's house. Nor was it a
already consummated when Jabatan was killed. dependency thereof within the meaning of article 301 of the
After evaluating the testimonies of Gorriceta and Brillantes as Revised Penal Code.
to who was driving the truck and who shot policeman, this Having shown the inapplicability of Articles 294 and 299, the
Court finds that the trial court did not err in giving credence next inquiry is whether the taking of the six roosters is
to Gorriceta's declaration that he was driving the truck at the covered by article 302 of the Revised Penal Code which
time that Jaranilla shot Jabatan. reads:
The improbability of appellants' theory is manifest. The truck ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in private
belonged to Gorriceta's sister. He was responsible for its building.—Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or
preservation. He had the obligation to return it to his sister in a building other than those mentioned in the first
in the same condition when he borrowed it. He was driving it paragraph of article 299, if the value of the property exceeds
when he saw Brillantes, Jaranilla and Suyo and when he 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
allegedly invited them for a paseo. There is no indubitable medium and maximum periods provided that any of the
proof that Jaranilla knows how to drive a truck. following circumstances is present:
The theory of the defense may be viewed from another angle. 1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not
If, according to the appellants, Gorriceta asked Jaranilla to intended for entrance or egress.
drive the truck because he (Gorriceta) was drunk then that 2. If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been
circumstance would be inconsistent with their theory that broken.
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false In the instant case, the chicken coop where the six roosters
keys, picklocks or other similar tools. were taken cannot be considered a building within the
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed meaning of article 302. Not being a building, it cannot be said
furniture or receptacle has been broken. that the accused entered the same in order to commit the
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the robbery by means of any of the five circumstances
preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if the same be enumerated in article 302.
broken open elsewhere. The term "building" in article 302, formerly 512 of the old
xxx xxx xxx Penal Code, was construed as embracing any structure not
In this connection, it is relevant to note that there is an mentioned in article 299 (meaning not an "inhabited house
inaccuracy in the English translation of article 302. The or public building or edifice devoted to worship" or any
controlling Spanish original reads: dependency thereof) used for storage and safekeeping of
ART. 302. Robo en lugar no habitado o edificio particular.—El personal property. As thus construed, a freight car used for
robo cometido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio que the shipment of sugar was considered a private building. The
no sea de los comprendidos en el parrafo primero del articulo unnailing of a strip of cloth nailed over the door, the
299, ... . (Tomo 26, Leyes Publicas 479). customary manner of sealing a freight car, was held to
The term "lugar no habitado" is erroneously translated. as constitute breaking by force within the meaning of article
"uninhabited place", a term which may be confounded with 512, now article 302. (U.S. vs. Magsino, 2 Phil. 710).
the expression "uninhabited place" in articles 295 and 300 of The ruling in the Magsino case is in conflict with the rulings
the Revised Penal Code, which is the translation of of the Supreme Court of Spain that a railroad employee who,
despoblado and which is different from the term lugar no by force, opens a sealed or locked receptacle deposited in a
habitado in article 302. The term lugar no habitado is the freight car, does not commit robbery. He is guilty of theft
antonym of casa habitada (inhabited house) in article 299. because a railroad car is neither a house nor a building within
One essential requisite of robbery with force upon things the meaning of article 302 which corresponds to article 525
under Articles 299 and 302 is that the malefactor should of the 1870 Spanish Penal Code. Article 302 refers to houses
enter the building or dependency, where the object to be or buildings which, while not actually inhabited, are
taken is found. Articles 299 and 302 clearly contemplate that habitable. Thus, a pig sty is not a building within the meaning
the malefactor should enter the building (casa habitada o of article 302. The stealing of hogs from a pig sty is theft and
lugar no habitado o edificio). If the culprit did not enter the not robbery, although the culprit breaks into it. Article 302
building, there would be no robbery with force upon things. refers to habitable buildings. (Guevara, Revised Penal Code,
(See Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1932 edition, p. 688). 1939 Edition, pages 555-6, citing II Hidalgo Codigo Penal
Thus, where the accused broke the show-window of the 636-7, 642, which in turn cites the decisions of the Spanish
Bombay Palace Bazar at Rizal Avenue, Manila and removed Supreme Court dated March 2, 1886 and April 25, 1887). **
forty watches therefrom, the crime was theft and not robbery As may be seen from the photographs (Exhs. A and A-1)
because he did not enter the building. The show-window was Baylon's coop, which is known in the dialect as tangkal or
outside the store. (People vs. Adorno, CA 40 O. G. 567, per kulungan, is about five yards long, one yard wide and one
Montemayor, J., who later became a member of this Court). yard high. It has wooden stilts and bamboo strips as bars.
* The coop barely reaches the shoulder of a person of average
height like Baylon. It is divided into six compartments or
cages. A compartment has an area of less than one cubic With respect to the killing of Patrolman Jabatan, it has
yard. A person cannot be accommodated inside the cage or already been noted that the evidence for the prosecution
compartment. It was not intended that a person should go points to Jaranilla as the malefactor who shot that
inside that compartment. The taking was effected by forcibly unfortunate peace officer. The killing was homicide because
opening the cage and putting the hands inside it to get the it was made on the spur of the moment. The treacherous
roosters. mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately adopted
Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop by the offender (U.S. vs. Namit, 38 Phil. 926; People vs.
should be characterized as theft and not robbery. The Tumaob, 83 Phil. 738; People vs. Abalos, 84 Phil. 771).
assumption is that the accused were animated by single The twenty-four year old Jabatan was an agent of authority
criminal impulse. The conduct of the accused reveals that on night duty at the time of the shooting. He was wearing his
they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is punishable uniform. The killing should be characterized as a direct
as a single offense of theft. Thus, it was held that the taking assault (atentado) upon an agent of authority (Art. 148,
of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion Revised Penal Code) complexed with homicide. The two
cannot give rise to two crimes of theft (People vs. De Leon, offenses resulted from a single act. (Art. 48, Revised Penal
49 Phil. 437, citing decision of Supreme Court of Spain dated Code; People vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Lojo, Jr.,
July 13, 1894 and 36 C. J. 799; People vs. Tumlos, 67 Phil. 52 Phil. 390).
320; People vs. Villanueva, 49 O.G. 5448, L-10239, August The evidence for the prosecution does not prove any
7, 1953). conspiracy on the part of appellants Jaranilla, Suyo and
Nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle are aggravating. Those Brillantes to kill Jabatan. They conspired to steal the fighting
circumstances facilitated the commission of the theft. The cocks. The conspiracy is shown by the manner in which they
accused intentionally sought the cover of night and used a perpetrated the theft. They went to the scene of the crime
motor vehicle so as to insure the success of their nefarious together. They left the yard of Baylon's residence, each
enterprise (People vs. Tan, 89 Phil. 647, 660; People vs. carrying two roosters. They all boarded the getaway truck
Gardon, 104 Phil. 372). driven by Gorriceta.
Also to be appreciated against appellants Suyo and Brillantes The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to
is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism which was take possession of the roosters. It is not an indispenable
alleged in the information. They admitted their previous element of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away,
convictions for theft (130, 132 tsn; Exhs. I and J; Art. 14[9], the thing taken by him from its owner (People vs. Mercado,
Revised Penal Code). 65 Phil. 665; Duran vs. Tan, 85 Phil. 476; U.S vs. Adiao, 38
The theft of six roosters valued at six hundred pesos is Phil. 754).
punishable by prision correccional in its minimum and It is not reasonable to assume that the killing of any peace
medium periods (Art. 309[3], Revised Penal Code). That officer, who would forestall the theft or frustrate appellants'
penalty should be imposed in its maximum period because desire to enjoy the fruits of the crime, was part of their plan.
only aggravating circumstances are present (Art. 64[3], There is no evidence to link appellants Suyo and Brillantes to
Revised Penal Code). the killing of Jabatan, except the circumstance that they were
Although recidivists, appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not with Jaranilla in the truck when the latter shot the policeman.
habitual delinquents. They are entitled to an indeterminate Gorriceta testified that Suyo did not do anything when
sentence (Sec. 2, Act No. 4103). Jabatan approached the right side of the truck and came in
close proximity to Jaranilla who was on the extreme right. correccional as maximum and (b) ordered to indemnify
Brillantes pulled his revolver which he did not fire (47, 53-55 solidarily the complainant, Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five
tsn). Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not hundred pesos (P500). Each appellant should pay one-third
necessarily make a person a co-principal thereof. of the costs.
Jaranilla heard Gorriceta's testimony that he (Jaranilla) shot As to the liability of Elias Jaranilla for theft and homicide, with
Jabatan. Instead of taking the witness stand to refute the direct assault upon an agent of authority, trial court should
testimony of Gorriceta, Jaranilla escaped from jail. That render a new judgment consistent with this opinion (See Sec.
circumstance is an admission of guilt. 19, Art. IV, Constitution).
The instant case is different from People vs. Mabassa, 65 Phil. SO ORDERED.
568 where the victim was killed on the occasion when the
accused took his chickens under the house. It is
distinguishable from the People vs. Gardon, 104 Phil. 372 and
People vs. Salamudin No. 1, 52 Phil. 670 (both cited by the
Solicitor General) where the robbery was clearly proven and G.R. No. 123186 July 9, 1998
the homicide was perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery. People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eric
As already noted, theft, not robbery, was committed in this Mendoza and Angelito Balagtas, accused, Eric
case. Mendoza, accused-appellant.
The situation in this case bears some analogy to that found
in the People vs. Basisten, 47 Phil. 493 where the homicide
committed by a member of the band was not a part of the PUNO, J.:
common plan to commit robbery. Hence, only the person who On May 18, 1995, the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, 3rd
perpetrated the killing was liable for robbery with homicide. Judicial Region, Branch 14, Malolos, found 1 the two accused
The others were convicted of robbery only. Eric Mendoza and Angelito Balagtas guilty beyond reasonable
There is a hiatus in the evidence of the prosecution as to the doubt of the special complex crime of robbery with rape in
participation of Suyo and Brillantes in the killing of Jabatan Criminal Case No. 1941-M-91. They were meted out a prison
by Jaranilla. As already stated, no robbery with homicide was term of Reclusion Perpetua and ordered to indemnify the
committed. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that those two victim, Andrelita Sto. Domingo, the amount of P12,000 as
appellants have any responsibility for Jabatan's death. Their actual damages and P100,000.00 as moral damages, plus
complicity in the homicide committed by Jaranilla has not costs. From this decision, 2 only Eric Mendoza appealed. 3
been established. Mendoza was indicted under the following Information: 4
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court convicting
appellants Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes of robbery with The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor accuses Eric
homicide is reversed. They are acquitted of homicide on the Mendoza and Angelito Balagtas of the crime of robbery with
ground of reasonable doubt. rape, penalized under the provisions of Art. 294, paragraph
As co-principals with Elias Jaranilla in the theft of the six 2 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
fighting cocks, they are (a) each sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as That on or about the 23rd day of August, 1991, in the
minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- That in the commission of this crime the aggravating
named accused, with a knife, conspiring, confederating circumstances were present, to wit: (1) nocturnity, (2)
together and mutually helping each other, did then and there superior strength and (3) with a [sic] use of a knife.
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of [sic] gain
and by means of violence, threats and intimidation enter the Contrary to law.
house of one Andrelita Sto. Domingo and once inside, take, At the trial, the prosecution presented private complainant
rob and carry away with them the following, to wit: Andrelita Sto. Domingo as its principal witness. She testified
as follows:

1. cash amounting to In the evening of August 22, 1991, private complainant's


husband went to San Jose del Monte, Bulacan to haul chicken.
P 2,000.00 She retired to their bedroom. She as joined by her three
(3)children, while their maid went down to the basement to
2. one (1) necklace sleep. 5 The bedroom is on the elevated portion of their
2,000.00 bungalow-type house Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, while
another room is located in the basement. 6 The toilet and
3. one (1) set of earning bath in the bedroom had a grill-less window with glass
jalousies that open to the roof of the terrace. 7 The lights in
2,000.00 the bedroom and the bathroom were on 8 at the time that
4. one (1) ring she and her children fell asleep that evening.

1,500.00 Private complainant woke up when she felt her thighs being
rubbed. Thereupon, she saw two (2) men in black jackets
5. one (1) wrist watch with their faces covered with handkerchiefs. 9 She described
one of them as medium built and the other as a small man.
5,000.00 The medium-built man poked a 6-inch knife at her neck and
ordered her to open the vault inside the room. 10 The two
men took the cash in the vault amounting to P2,000.00 and
with the total value of P12,500.00, belonging to the said jewelry worth P12,000.00. 11
Andrelita Sto. Domingo, to the damage and prejudice of the
latter in the total amount of P12,500.00 and that Upon orders of the medium-built man, the small man untied
simultaneously or during the commission of robbery, the the curtain band and handed the same to him. While undoing
above named accused Angelito Balagtas by means of the curtain, the handkerchief loosened, revealing the small
violence, threats and intimidation have carnal knowledge of man's face to be that of Eric Mendoza. 12 Private complainant
the said Andrelita Sto. Domingo against her will and by recognized him because he used to work in her uncle's steel
means of force. factory in Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. 13 After the medium-
built man had tied her hands with the curtain band and
gagged her with a torn t-shirt, the small man helped him
carry private complainant to the bathroom. It was then that On the witness stand, Dr. Arisala, Jr. confirmed his signature
she noticed the missing jalousie blades on the window. 14 on Living Case Report No. MG-91-863. He stated that there
was no injury on private complainant's genital area. He made
The medium-built man sent the small man out of the no conclusion, however, as to whether or not she was raped,
bathroom, through the window, to stand guard on the terrace since in cases like hers where the hymen has been thinned
roof. 15 Alone with private complainant inside the bathroom, by several completed pregnancies, sexual intercourse no
the medium-built man removed the handkerchief covering longer causes any injury or laceration to the hymen. 23
his face, raised her t-shirt and began sucking her breast.
While keeping the knife pointed at her neck, he forcibly Mr. Rico Jude Sto. Domingo has known Mendoza for six (6)
removed her jogging pants and underwear, laid her on the years. He testified that on August 23, 1991, private
bathroom floor, and sexually abused her for about two complainant and her husband went to his house to report the
minutes. 16 In the meantime, private complainant could see robbery and rape incident. He made the corresponding entry
the small man peeping through the window and watching her in the Barangay Blotter. 24 On August 25, 1991, Mendoza's
being raped. 17 father presented his son to Mr. Sto. Domingo, who,
thereupon, brought them to private complainant's house.
After satisfying his lust, the medium-built man threatened to There, a confrontation ensued. Mendoza eventually admitted
kill her and her family if she would tell anyone about what to having pointed the private complainant's house to Balagtas
had happened. He went out through the bathroom window as a possible object of robbery. 25 He said that Balagtas was
and joined the small man on the terrace roof. 18 his uncle and identified him as the rapist. 26 After the
In the early morning of August 23, 1991, private confession, Mr. Sto. Domingo turned Mendoza over to the
complainant's husband arrived and learned of the incident Sta. Maria police before whom he revealed that Balagtas was
from her. At about 10:00 o'clock that morning, they reported from San Miguel, Bulacan. The Sta. Maria police coordinated
the crime to Mr. Rico Jude Sto. Domingo, the Barangay with the San Miguel police to arrest Balagtas.
Chairman of Tumana, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. 19 On August 25, Mr. Rolando de Jesus testified that the house of private
1991, they also informed the Sta. Maria Police of the incident, complainant, who happens to be his niece, is only one
but they deliberately left out the details regarding the rape hundred (100) meters away from their house. Their houses
to avoid public embarrassment. 20 are on the side of a private road. While negotiating this road
They reconsidered later their decision to keep the rape a on his car in the evening of August 20, 1991, at about 8:00
secret. On August 27, 1991, they went to the office of the o'clock, Mr. de Jesus noticed two persons lingering at the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where private back of private complainant's house. He recognized one of
complainant was examined by Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr., a them to be Mendoza who was seemingly showing to his
medico-legal officer. 21 On August 31, 1991, they returned companion the location of the windows on the second floor of
to the Sta. Maria Police Station and reported the rape. 22 the house. Mendoza was specifically pointing at the window
without iron grills above the terrace roof. 27
Other prosecution witnesses included Dr. Arisala, Jr., the NBI
medico-legal officer; Mr. Rico Jude Sto. Domingo, the There were no other witnesses for the defense except the
Barangay Chairman; and Mr. Rolando de Jesus, an uncle and accused themselves both of whom put up similar claims of
neighbor of private complainant. alibi.
Mendoza testified that he was in their house in Tumana, Sta. To pay the offended party P12,000.00 actual damage and
Maria, Bulacan with his grandparents and cousins, Totoy, P100,000.00 moral damage with costs.
Rodel, Buboy and Ana in the early morning of August 23,
1991. He denied any confrontation with private complainant SO ORDERED.
at her house where he allegedly confessed his complicity in The records show that only Mendoza filed a notice of appeal.
the robbery incident. He claimed to have been brought by Mr. As to Balagtas, therefore, the trial court judgment has
Sto. Domingo, the Barangay Chairman, to the municipal become final and executory.
building in August, 1991 where he was detained in a cell,
investigated and forced to admit his guilt after having been Mendoza assigns the following errors:
mauled for about fifteen (15) minutes.
I
Balagtas testified that in the early morning of August 23,
1991, he was in their house in Pinambaran, San Miguel, THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT CONSPIRACY
Bulacan. 28 Less than a year after, he was brought to the EXISTED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY
municipal building of Sta. Maria where he was, like Mendoza, WITH RAPE.
mauled and forced to make a confession. 29 He also denied II
that Mendoza was his nephew. 30
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF
The trial court paid no heed to the defenses of Mendoza and THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ERIC MENDOZA HAS BEEN
Balagtas. It gave full credence to the evidence of the PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
prosecution which it found to have established their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court ruled, viz: III

In view of the foregoing evidence, the Court is morally THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING
convinced that the prosecution has established beyond THE PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Although Eric IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ERIC MENDOZA. 31
Mendoza did not participate in sexually abusing the victim,
he and Angelito conspired and helped one another commit This Court affirms the conviction of Mendoza for the crime of
the crime of Robbery with Rape. robbery with rape.

The crime having been committed before the enactment of First. We are in accord with the trial court's evidentiary
R.A. 7659 restoring death penalty, the court can only impose findings, largely based on private complainant's testimony,
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. that Mendoza participated as a principal in robbing her of the
cash and jewelries in their house vault. She was a veracious
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Eric Mendoza and witness whose testimony was forthright, consistent and
Angelito Balagtas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the credible. In a long line of cases, we have held that if the
crime of Robbery with Rape. The Court imposes upon the testimony of the rape victim is accurate and credible, a
accused the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the
victim's testimony because no decent and sensible woman
will publicly admit being a rape victim and thus run the risk
of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. 32 In alibi to be considered favorably, Mendoza must prove not
the instant case, private complainant's credibility can not be only that he was somewhere else when the crime took place
doubted, not only because her testimony is corroborated by but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been
other prosecution witnesses, but also because she had at the scene of the crime when it was committed. 39 By his
absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the accused. 33 A own admission, Mendoza lives in Tumana, Sta. Maria,
married woman with a husband and three daughters would Bulacan, or in the same area as the victim's residence. It was
not publicly admit that she had been criminally abused unless easy for Mendoza to negotiate the distance between his
that was the truth. house and the victim's house. Mendoza's alibi cannot
exculpate him.
Significantly, too, the private complainant made her
statements to the Barangay Chairman and the Sta. Maria Third. Mendoza claims that he was mauled into confessing
Police immediately after the commission of the crime when culpability for the robbery. In the first place, there is no proof
she hardly had time or opportunity to fabricate a falsehood. at all of the mauling incident to support his charge. More
importantly, independent of that confession, there is
Nonetheless, Mendoza assails the testimonies of Rico Jude evidence beyond reasonable doubt of his participation as co-
Sto. Domingo and Rolando de Jesus as biased because they conspirator in committing the robbery. To repeat, the victim
are relatives of private complainant. But mere relationship to positively and unequivocally identified him and her testimony
the victim is not a ground to exclude a witness or reject his has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses.
testimony, absent a showing of evil motive on his part to
testify falsely against the accused. 34 The defense, in this Fourth. Mendoza underscores that the stolen items were not
case, made no such showing, hence, the testimonies of Sto. recovered from him by the police. It has never been the rule
Domingo and de Jesus are worthy of full faith and credit. 35 in this jurisdiction, however, that such a fact can diminish the
In fact, as relatives of the victim, they are naturally guilt of a robber whose complicity in the crime has been
interested in implicating only the real culprits, for otherwise, established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
the latter would thereby gain immunity. 36 While revenge is presumption that a person in whose custody are found stolen
a normal reaction in a person who has lost loved ones items, is prima facie the robber or the thief, 40 does nor
because of a crime, it does not follow that the revenge would translate into a converse presumption that a person indicted
be directed aimlessly so as to include innocent persons. 37 for robbery or theft should be acquitted when the authorities
do not recover the stolen items from him. The production in
Second. We do not believe Mendoza's alibi. He insists that he court of the stolen property is not an indispensable requisite
was at home in the early morning of August 23, 1991 with to sustain conviction as long as there is clear proof of the
his grandparents and four (4) cousins. The defense, however, commission of the crime charged. 41
failed to put them on the witness stand. Neither did they
execute any statement under oath to substantiate Mendoza's Fifth. Mendoza claims that he has been charged and
alibi. At any rate, we have consistently ruled that where an convicted of a crime he did not commit, considering that he
accused's alibi can only be confirmed by his relatives, his did not rape Andrelita Sto. Domingo. If at all he were guilty
denial of culpability deserves scant consideration, especially of a crime, it was only of robbery, not robbery with rape.
in the face of affirmative testimonies of credible prosecution
witnesses as to his presence in the crime scene. 38 For his We disagree.
Robbery with rape is a special complex crime punished under as co-principal of the crime of robbery with rape. 44 As we
the second paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal explained in the 1918 case of United States v. Tiongco:
Code which reads:
. . . [T]he robbers seizing the money and the other effects
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of they found in said house, two of them sullied the honor of the
persons —Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the two women living therein, and the companions of the two
use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall men who committed the rape made no opposition nor
suffer: prevented these latter from consummating this other crime,
apparently unconnected with and unrelated to that of
xxx xxx xxx robbery, but which, as well as sanguinary crimes, is often
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to committed on such occasions, and it is for this reason that
reclusion perpetua, when the robbery shall have been the penal law, in odium of such offenses against property and
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason chastity, has considered them complex and punished them
or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries by one single penalty.
penalized in subdivision 1 or article 263 shall have been . . . The defendants Rufu Tiongco and Pedro Huerva, who took
inflicted: Provided, however, That when the robbery no part in the rape of the women Juaneza and Eusula, cannot
accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly be excepted from this penalty for the reason that the penal
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be law does not require the condition that the rape be committed
reclusion perpetua to death. prior to, or simultaneously with the robbery, it being
. . . . (emphasis ours) sufficient that this crime be perpetrated on the occasion of
the robbery. So the law says, in the definition of the crime,
When two or more persons are charged as co-conspirators in that when the robbery is accompanied by rape or mutilation
the crime of robbery with rape, the conspiracy to rob is all caused purposely, all the robbers who took part in the
that is needed to be proven to punish them all as principals perpetration of the complex crime are liable for all the
in the crime of robbery with rape. The rape may have been offenses falling within the limitation of certain circumstances
perpetrated by only one of them, but they will all be convicted specified by the law, committed by the members of the band.
of robbery with rape, because the rule in this jurisdiction is
that whenever a rape is committed as a consequence, or on xxx xxx xxx
the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part therein are Therefore, the defendants Tiongco and Huerva, for the very
liable as principals of the crime of robbery with rape, although reason that they are liable for the said crime of robbery in a
not all of them actually took part in the rape. 42 It is enough band, are likewise liable for all the other acts performed on
that robbery shall have been accompanied by rape to be the occasion of the robbery, although they may not actually
punishable under the The Revised Penal Code which does not and materially have taken any part in the rape committed
differentiate whether the rape was committed before, during upon those two women by the other two defendants, their
or after the robbery. 43 Thus, we have held in one case that companions Ledesma and Castano.
where one of the accused acted as guard while rape was
being committed on the occasion of the robbery, he is guilty If any of the defendants had wounded or killed an inmate of
the house that they robbed, all the defendants would, under
the law, have been punished for the complex crime of robbery The burden of proof that Mendoza was a minor at the time of
with the infliction of wounds of the commission of homicide; the commission of the offense is on him. 48 He presented,
and, in the present case, because two of the robbers raped however, conflicting evidence of his date of birth. On the one
two women, all the malefactors are liable for the complex hand, when Mendoza filed in the trial court a Motion for
crime in question. 45 Release of the Accused Under Recognizance 49 on August 21,
1992, he attached a photocopy 50 of his birth certificate
In other words, for Mendoza to be convicted only of the crime indicating his birthday to be June 30, 1981. On the other
of robbery, he must prove not only that he himself did not hand, when he testified in open court on September 8, 1992,
abuse the victim but that he tried to prevent the rape. We he declared that he was born on June 30, 1975. 51 And then
have previously ruled that once conspiracy is established just two days after that declaration, he filed in the trial court
between the two accused in the commission of the crime of a Manifestation 52 with an original copy of his birth
robbery, they would be both equally culpable for the rape certificate, complete with documentary stamps and the seal
committed by one of them on the occasion of the robbery, of the Local Civil Registrar of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, indicating
unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the his date of birth to be June 30, 1974. 53
other from committing rape. 46
After going through the said evidence, we find that Mendoza
Mendoza cannot seek sanctuary in our jurisprudence that was born on June 30, 1974 and was thus 17 years old at the
where there is no evidence that the accused was aware of his time of the commission of the crime. The special mitigating
co-accused's lustful intent and his consummation thereof so circumstance of minority under Paragraph 2, Article 68 of the
that he could have attempted to prevent the same, the Revised Penal Code should, therefore, be appreciated in
former should be held only for the robbery and not for the Mendoza's favor. Said provision reads:
rape. 47 In the case at bar, the evidence shows that during
the commission of the rape, Mendoza climbed up and out of Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen
the bathroom through the window and stayed at the roof of years of age. . . .
the terrace. The window, located above the roof of the
terrace, was about 3-1/2 meters away from where the victim 1. . . .
and Balagtas were. Mendoza knew of the rape because the 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of
private complainant saw him peep through the window and age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall
watch what was being done to her by Balagtas. Nonetheless, be imposed but always in the proper period.
Mendoza did nothing to prevent the rape.
The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of robbery with
Lastly, Mendoza submits that the trial court erred in not rape is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 61 (2) of
appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower in degree is
minority in his favor, considering that he was allegedly born reclusion temporal. We agree with the trial court that the
on June 30, 1975 and was thus only 16 years, 1 month, and aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of
23 days old on August 23, 1991, the day the crime was superior strength attended the commission of the crime.
committed. Even the defense did not make any issue of this. When one
or more aggravating circumstances are present in the
commission of the crime, with no ordinary mitigating
circumstances to offset them, the penalty shall be imposed separate offenses: one of rape and the other of robbery
in its maximum period. 54 The imposable penalty prescribed against Analie Baltazar.
by law, therefore, is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period. We further apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law Angeles was charged with rape in a complaint filed by Analie
authorizing the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence Baltazar dated 28 February 1989; he was also accused of
to be within the range of the penalty next lower to that robbery in an inhabited place in an information filed by
prescribed for the offense. 55 In view of all these, this Court Assistant Prosecutor Eufrocino A. Sulla, also dated 28
imposes upon Mendoza the indeterminate sentence of 10 February 1989. These two (2) documents read as follows:
years and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to That on or about February 24, 1989, in the City of Manila,
18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully,
maximum period. unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the intimidation, to wit: by poking an ice pick against her person,
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Third Judicial Region, Branch dragging her outside the house and bringing her to the Three
14, Malolos, dated May 18, 1995, finding ERIC MENDOZA Bird Lodge located at Sales St., Sta. Cruz, in said City,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with threatening to kill her should she resist and accused succeed
Rape and liable for P12,000.00 as actual damages and (sic) in having carnal knowledge of the undersigned
P100,000.00 as moral damages, with costs, is HEREBY complainant, against her will and consent.1
AFFIRMED with the modification that this Court imposes upon xxx xxx xxx
ERIC MENDOZA an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1
day of prision mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 That on or about February 24, 1989, in the City of Manila,
months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its maximum Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating
period. No pronouncement as to costs. with two others whose true names, identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did
SO ORDERED. then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously break into
and enter House No. 652 (along) Algeciras St., Sampaloc, in
said City, which was then occupied as a dwelling place of one
G.R. No. 104285-86 May 21, 1993 ANALIE BALTAZAR Y CORDON and other members of her
family, by destroying the screen of the door of the said house
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. and by passing through the said door, and once inside, with
VICTOR ANGELES Y RAMOS, accused-appellant. intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. owner thereof, took, robbed and carried away one (1)
Betamax Sony valued at P10,500.00 and one Typewriter
Reynaldo Y. Sarmiento for accused-appellant. Merit valued at P5,000.00, or all valued at P15,500.00,
belonging to said Analie Baltazar y Cordon to the damage and
FELICIANO, J.: prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid sum of P15,500.00,
Victor Angeles appeals from a decision of the Regional Trial Philippine currency.2
Court ("RTC") of Manila, Branch 25, convicting him of two (2)
The complaint and information were raffled off to two (2) the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000.00) PESOS; WITH
different branches of the Manila RTC.3 Appellant Angeles COST;
entered a plea of not guilty to the complaint of rape before
the Manila RTC, Branch 5, on 19 July 1989.4 A few months Criminal Case No. 89-70962, Robbery LIFE IMPRISONMENT,
earlier, he had pleaded not guilty to the information for the stolen articles being not recovered, to pay as damages
robbery before Branch 25 of the Manila RTC on 10 April complainant ANALIE BALTAZAR Y CORDON the sum of
1989.5 FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00) PESOS; WITH
COST.9
In an order dated 13 April 1989, Judge Felix B. Mintu of
Branch 5, Manila RTC, upon the ground that the two (2) The basic facts as found and set out by the trial court in its
criminal cases were "intimately related," ordered that decision are as follows:
Criminal Case No. 89-70692 (the robbery case) be Analie Baltazar testified that on or about 1:30 in the morning
consolidated for joint trial with the lower numbered case (the of February 24, 1989, while she was sleeping at the sala of
rape case) then pending before his sala.6 the second floor of their house in Ageceria (sic) Street,
Earlier, on 12 April 1989, Angeles filed a motion to quash the Sampaloc, Manila, she woke up to urinate. When she stood
rape complaint in Criminal Case No. 89-70961, upon the up, a person behind held and poked an icepick on her neck.
ground that the offense there charged was "the same According to her, she begged not to be killed; that she was
offense" for which he had been arraigned just two (2) days dragged towards the rear door of their house. Aside from the
earlier before Branch 25 of the Manila RTC in Criminal Case person who dragged her, she also saw two persons on the
No. 89-70962, and that he would be exposed to "double ground floor carrying their typewriter and Sony Super
jeopardy" if he were arraigned anew in Criminal Case No. 89- betamax. The typewriter, according to her cost about
70961.7 P10,000.00 to P11,000.00. She was dragged by the man at
the railroad track towards Fermesa Street, (then) to de la
After hearing, Judge Mintu denied the motion to quash Fuente Street, where she was made to board the (sic) taxi
holding that two (2) distinct crimes of rape and of robbery and brought to Dakota (St.) at Recto Avenue. That while she
were alleged to have been committed by appellant.8 was being dragged by the person, whom she later identified
Appellant moved for reconsideration of that order, without as the accused Victor Angeles, the two other companions of
success. the accused were on (sic) their back. According to her, the
two persons placed themselves on (sic) a dark place and she
After joint trial of the rape and robbery cases, appellant was was told not to shout. That everytime she talked with a loud
found guilty of both offenses in a decision dated 7 March 1991 voice, she was being (sic) slapped. Later, the two companions
of the Manila RTC, the dispositive portion of which states: of the accused left. Accused Angeles, while still poking the ice
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proven the guilt of the pick on her neck, covered by the blanket she was carrying
accused VICTOR ANGELES Y RAMOS beyond reasonable then, brought her to the Three Bird Lodge Motel, a few steps
doubt on both cases, sentences him to suffer the penalty of: from Dakota Recto going towards Evangelista Street, Quiapo,
Manila. At the Three Bird Lodge, accused Angeles talked with
Criminal Case No. 89-70961, Rape LIFE IMPRISONMENT and the roomboy while at that time the ice pick was still poked at
pay as damages complainant ANALIE BALTAZAR Y CORDON her. She was brought to a room, where accused removed her
t-shirt, short and underwear. Later, she was made to lie down Accused Victor Angeles denied emphatically the accusation
on the bed and the accused removed also (sic) his clothes. against him. According to him, on February 23, 1989, at 9:00
The room, according to her, was well-lighted. The accused, in the evening, he was at his house asleep. he woke up at
after removing his clothes, started to kiss her on her neck, to 6:30 in the morning of February 24, 1989. On said date, he
her bust and her private parts. That the accused forced his was with his mother Isabel Ramos. The mother of the
penis to enter her private parts. That the penis, according to accused, Isabel Ramos Angeles, collaborated (sic) the
her, penetrated lightly on her private parts and thereafter, testimony of the accused that on the night of February 24,
she was told to dress up and let (sic) her go home. 1989, the accused was in his house asleep. He claimed that
on February 26, 1989, he was looking for Ree, a fellow
The following day, the accused was again seen in complainant electrician near complainant Analie's house. After a brief talk
Analie's neighborhood. The accused, according to her, was with Analie's father, about the robbery being committed in
even rubbing his shoes on the ground and looking at the the neighborhood, the people in the neighborhood suddenly
direction of their house. She immediately informed her father attacked him. He ran away, but after a brief chase, was
about the presence of the accused. Her father, according to apprehended, and mauled and later brought to the police
her, immediately went to the place where then accused was, precinct. Later, he was examined by Dr. Marcial Cenido, WPD
but accused has (sic) already left and thus, was able that Medico Legal Officer. Dr. Cenido admitted having examined
time to escape the wrath of her father. On February 26, 1989, the accused, but aside from having found scally wounds on
at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning, again (sic), the person of the accused, he did not elaborate on any injury
complainant Analie saw the accused in front of their house. suffered by the accused.11
She immediately pointed the accused to her father, who in
turn went down the house and confronted the accused. While In this appeal, Victor Angeles claims that:
talking, her father gave the accused a fist blow and the
people in the neighborhood chased the accused. After a brief 1. The trial court erred in not holding that the arraignment of
chase, the accused was apprehended and mauled by her the accused-appellant in Criminal case No. 89-70962, for
neighbors. Later, the accused was brought to the police robbery, bars the second prosecution of the same accused-
station and charged for the present crime. appellant in Criminal Case No. 89-70961, for rape.

Dr. Marcial Cenido, Medico-Legal Officer, Western Police 2. The trial court erred in not holding that the testimony of
District, testified that he made a physical and genital the accused-appellant is more credible and logical than the
examination on the person of Analie Baltazar y Cordon, thru testimony of Analie Baltazar.
the request of Lt. Generoso Javier, Western Police District, 3. The trial court erred in not acquitting the accused-
and found her hymen with deep healing laceration at 6:00 appellant.12
o'clock position extending to the base at the forchette right
of midline and slightly bled upon examination, Exhibit "3" Two (2) principal issues are posed for the Court's
(sic). Its cause, according to him, was entry of a penis inside consideration in this case: firstly, whether or not the trial
it.10 court erred in holding that two (2) separate felonies of
robbery and rape had been committed by appellant; and
Appellant submitted a different story to the trial court, which secondly, whether the trial court had erred in believing the
summed up his story in the following terms:
testimony of Analie Baltazar to the effect that appellant was the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Angeles had raped her. Appellant cites the following passages from U.S. v. Tiongco :

In respect of the first issue, we note preliminarily that xxx xxx xxx
appellant's argument that the prosecution for rape was
barred by appellant's prosecution and arraignment for After the robbers had seized such things as they wished to
robbery, under the doctrine of "double jeopardy," is bereft of carry off and when ready to go out, they took the three
merit. That doctrine, in general, prohibits a second women below blindfolded. The band then headed fro the river
prosecution for the same offense as that charged in the first near by to embark in the banca in which they had come.
prosecution. In the case at bar, robbery and rape cannot When they left the house, Cristeto Ledesma and Narciso
properly be considered the same offense; neither is one Castano compelled two of the women, Juaneza and Eusula,
included in the other. What appellant was apparently trying to accompany them, and while the band was on its way to
to say was that he was properly chargeable, not for two (2) the banca these two men separated from the rest, took these
separate offenses of robbery and rape, but rather of the two women with them to a place near a marsh not far from
special complex crime of "robbery with rape." In other words, the river bank, and there raped them, employing force and
appellant was probably trying to say that the charge for intimidation to accomplish their purpose. Cristeto Ledesma
robbery should have been a charge for "robbery with rape" raped Rosario Juaneza, and Narciso Castano, Nieves Eusula,
such that separate complaint for rape was, at least partially, after which Cristeto and Narciso went to the banca, where
a duplication of the first charge. Thus, the real issue is the other robbers were waiting for them, and all left.
whether he was properly charged with and found guilty of two xxx xxx xxx
(2) separate offenses, or whether he should have been
charged instead with "robbery with rape." In either case, of As the crime of the robbery, with that of rape of said two
course, the prosecution must show the presence of all the women — a crime against chastity committed on the occasion
elements of the crime of robbery, as well as all the elements of the robbery — was perpetrated by the malefactors in the
of the crime of rape. said house of Catalino Balinon, both crimes should be
punished as one single complex crime, as defined and
This issue, however, is not an entirely academic one. In its qualified by paragraph 2 of article 503 of the Penal Code; for,
practical consequences, it relates to whether only one penalty besides the robbers seizing the money and the other effects
should have been imposed upon appellant under Article 294, they found in said house, two of them sullied the honor of the
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code; or whether two (2) two women therein, and the companions of the two men who
penalties are appropriately imposable upon appellant, one for committed the rape made no opposition nor prevented these
robbery in an inhabited house under Article 299 of the latter from consummating this other crime, apparently
Revised Penal Code and another for rape under Article 335 of unconnected with and unrelated to that robbery, but which,
the Revised Penal Code as amended. as well as sanguinary crimes, is often committed on such
Appellant contends that the case at bar is controlled by U.S. occasions, and it is for this reason that the penal law, in
v. odium of such offenses against property and chastity, has
Tiongco,13 where the Court held that the offense committed considered them complex and punished them by one single
penalty.14 (Emphasis supplied)
Close examination of the facts in Tiongco and of the facts in Analie had failed to make an outcry which could have
the case at bar lead us to believe that Tiongco does not attracted intervention on the part of the roomboy; and
control the case at bar. In the case at bar, the robbery carried secondly, Analie's declaration that appellant Angeles had
out in the house where Analie Baltazar and her parents lived returned to the vicinity of her family home a few hours after
was consummated and completed; the taking of the goods the robbery, at day break of 24 February 1989, was "highly
from the house was completed and the three (3) robbers suspicious" and improbable for then appellant would have
(including appellant Angeles) walked from Algeciras Street, been risking discovery, denunciation and arrest which in fact
Sampaloc, down the railroad track towards Fermesa street eventually came
and then to Dela Fuente Street where they boarded a taxi about.16
which brought them to Recto Avenue. At Recto Avenue, the
three (3) men and the victim Analie Baltazar got off the taxi Once more, the Court is not persuaded. Private complainant's
and the two (2) co-felons of Angeles left and went their own failure to scream for help or otherwise make an outcry must
way while appellant Angeles proceeded to a motel located in be evaluated in the context of all the surrounding
Dakota Street not far away from recto Avenue in the direction circumstances of this case. When Analie woke up at her house
of Quiapo District.15 The acts constitutive of the robbery at after midnight to go to the bathroom, appellant grabbed hold
the house of the Baltazars and the acts comprising the rape of her and her sleeping blanket and threatened her with an
inflicted upon Analie Baltazar were separated both by time ice pick on her neck. She was dragged from her family home,
and space. The conspiracy between the three (3) malefactors across the railroad tracks and across several streets by the
clearly covering the robbery had come to an end with the appellant and his two (2) companions. Inside the taxi that
departure of two (2) of the conspirators. The rape was carried the group boarded, Analie was put bedside the driver, with
out after the completion of the robbery and after the break appellant's arm on her shoulder while appellant and the other
up of the malefactors. The situs of the rape was far away two (2) malefactors were on their rear seat. The taxi driver
from the situs of the robbery. We believe and so hold that did not notice that underneath the blanket draped over
under the circumstances of this case, appellant Angeles was Analie's shoulder, appellant's ice pick remained threateningly
properly charged with two (2) distinct offenses of robbery and poised at her. After alighting from the taxi at Dakota Street,
of rape, rather than with the special complex crime of robbery Analie was brought to a dark and unlighted place where the
with rape under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal three (3) malefactors slapped her on the face everytime she
Code. Conceptually, the robbery had not been "accompanied tried to raise her voice. At the motel, while talking to the
by rape," neither was the rape committed "by reason or on roomboy, appellant continued to hold the ice pick against her
[the] occasion of such robbery;" rather, the robbery and the neck or side underneath the blanket.17 Inside the motel room,
rape were committed successively or in sequence. Analie, 17 years of age at the time of the trial, did not
physically resist being disrobed by appellant Angeles who had
Appellant's next contention is that in respect of the conviction placed his ice pick nearby on top of the lavatory. She laid
of rape, the trial court erred in finding Analie Baltazar to be down on the bed when appellant threatened to kill her. She
a credible witness and that the trial court had testified that she was then already weakened, tired and worn
misapprehended two (2) important facts of record which out and feared that she would be stabbed if she struggled
indicated that her testimony was incredible in itself. The two with appellant. Neither could she seek to grab the icepick
(2) facts submitted by appellant are: firstly, at the motel, while appellant was on top of her on the bed, for appellant
held her hands and continue to hold the icepick at her neck.18 that it was appellant Angeles who dragged her from her
This Court has many times held in the past that rape is house in the company of two (2) other men who were
committed when intimidation is exercised upon the victim carrying away her family's typewriter and video cassette
and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's recorder, and that it was appellant Angeles who had disrobed
embrace because of the fear for life and personal safety. 19 her at the motel and then copulated with her, with an icepick
The reality of continuing intimidation used against Analie poised at her neck or within easy reach of the appellant.24
Baltazar is evident all through the record of this case. Finally, when appellant and his mother declared that
appellant was sleeping at the latter's house at Araneta Street,
As to appellant's argument that Analie's testimony to the Tatalon estate, Quezon City, on the evening of 23-24
effect that he had returned to the scene of the robbery was February 1989,25 the Court notes that this location is only a
improbable, it may be observed, firstly, that even if it is few kilometers away from Baltazars' residence at Algeciras
conceded (and it is not necessary so to concede) that this Street, Sampaloc, Manila, such that appellant could move
portion of Analie's testimony was improbable, that testimony from one location to the other within a short period of time,
did not relate to the material facts constitutive of the crime with public transportation. Appellant's defense of alibi cannot
of rape. There is no rule of law which requires a court to be sustained in view of his failure to show the physical
disregard the entirety of the testimony of a witness because impossibility of his being at the scene of the crime or about
a portion thereof may be doubtful.20 Analie declared before the time of the commission thereof.26
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 There are, however, two (2) errors on the part of the trial
that she had immediately informed her father of appellant's court which need to be addressed. The first error relates to
appearance.21 On the third occasion, on 26 February 1989, the penalty properly imposable on appellant for the crime of
Analie's father was able to chase down the appellant Angeles robbery in Criminal Case No.89-70962. Under Article 299 of
and confront him about his daughter's violation. A false sense the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable for robbery in
of security born out of his having successfully eluded Analie's an inhabited place is reclusion temporal. Taking into account
father twice before, would account for appellant's imprudent the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
third visit to the scene of the robbery. considering that no modifying circumstances were alleged
and proved and exercising the discretion of this Court, the
Thus, appellant has failed to establish any significant fact penalty properly imposable upon appellant Angeles for the
which the trial court overlooked or misconstrued and which robbery is an indeterminate sentence, the minimum of which
would change the result reached by the trial court. This Court shall be eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor and
is thus bound to affirm the factual conclusions of the trial the maximum of which shall be fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
court, more particularly on the credit worthiness of Analie's months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal.
testimony,22 since the trial court had the opportunity to
observe carefully her demeanor and deportment in court The second error relates to the proper characterization of the
while testifying.23 offense with which appellant was charged and for which he
was convicted in Criminal Case No. 89-70961. Analie had
Appellant's defense of denial and alibi, it is firmly established testified before the trial court that while at the motel, the
doctrine, cannot prevail over the positive identification made appellant had told her that he and the other malefactors had
by Analie Baltazar. Analie had expressly and positively stated been "tipped off that her family residence contained many
appliances and that they had planned to carry away many of Criminal Case No. 89-70961, Rape, Reclusion perpetua, and
them but had changed their minds." Appellant decided to pay as moral damages complainant ANALIE BALTAZAR Y
take her with him because she was "more important to (sic) CORDON the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00)
these things."27 The information in Criminal Case No. 89- PESOS; WITH COSTS.
70961 had sufficiently alleged, and the prosecution shown at
the trial, that before Analie was raped, she was taken from Criminal Case No. 89-70962, Robbery, Imprisonment for an
her house against her will and with lewd designs. Taking all indeterminate period ranging from eight (8) years and one
these circumstances into account, it is clear to the Court that (1) day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years,
appellant Angeles committed the complex crime of forcible eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as
abduction with rape, defined and penalized under Article 342 maximum, the stolen articles being not recovered, to pay
(forcible abduction) and Article 335 (rape) of the Revised complainant ANALIE BALTAZAR Y CORDON, by way of
Penal Code in relation to the second clause of Article 48 reparation, the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND (P15,000.00)
(complex crimes) of the same Code. The forcible abduction PESOS; WITH COST.
was, in the circumstances of this case, a necessary means to As so modified, the decision of the trial court is hereby
commit the rape.28 In the case variance between the caption AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
of the information and the allegations set out in the body
thereof, which allegations sufficiently described the SO ORDERED.
offense(s) and its elements, the latter prevails over the
former.29 Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
in complex crimes, the penalty for the most serious crime G.R. No. 130508 April 5, 2000
shall be imposed in its maximum period. In the case at bar,
the more serious of the two (2) crimes (forcible abduction PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
and rape) established in Criminal Case No. 89-70961 was ARMANDO REGALA y ABRIOL, accused-appellant.
rape committed with a deadly weapon (here, the icepick)
which is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal code. Since Armando Regala appeals from the judgment in Criminal Case
no modifying circumstances were either alleged or proved in No. 7929 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Masbate,
Criminal Case No. 89-70961,30 and considering the non- Masbate, Branch 46, 5th Judicial Region, convicting him of
enforceability of the death penalty, the penalty properly the crime of Robbery with Rape.
imposable on appellant is reclusion perpetua. The trial court's
reference to "life imprisonment" is, of course, wrong. The information against accused-appellant on November 27,
1995, filed by 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jesus C.
In line with recent case law, the indemnity for moral damages Castillo, reads as follows:
awarded to Analie Baltazar in Criminal Case No. 89-70961
should be increased to P30,000.00.31 That on or about September 11, 1995, in the evening thereof,
at Barangay Bangon, Municipality of Aroroy, Province of
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated 7 March Masbate, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
1991 is hereby MODIFIED so as to read as follows: said accused confederating together and helping one
another, with intent to gain, violence and intimidation upon Appellant and his companions entered the house through the
persons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and kitchen by removing the pieces of wood under the stove.
feloniously enter the kitchen of the house of Consuelo Arevalo Appellant went to the room of Nerissa and her grandmother
and when inside, hogtied said Consuelo Arevalo and and poked an 8-inch gun on them, one after the other. (p. 8,
granddaughter Nerissa Regala (sic), take, steal, rob and carry TSN, August 26, 1996)
away cash amount of P3,000.00 and two (2) gold rings worth
P6,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of owner Consuelo Nerissa and her grandmother were hogtied by appellant and
Arevalo in the total amount of P9,000.00, Philippine his companions. Thereafter, Nerissa was raped by appellant
Currency; and in pursuance of the commission of the crime Armando Regala in bed while her grandmother was on the
of robbery against the will and consent of the granddaughter floor. After the rape, appellant and his two companions
Nerissa Regala (sic) wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously counted the money they took from the "aparador." (pp. 9-
accused Armando Regala y Abriol has for two times sexually 10, TSN, August 26, 1996)
abused and/or intercoursed with her, while hogtied on the Appellant and his companions then ran away with P3,000 in
bed and in the kitchen. cash, 2 pieces of ring valued at P6,000 and two wrist watches
CONTRARY TO LAW. 1 worth P5,000. (pp. 11-13, TSN, August 26, 1996)

Accused-appellant was apprehended by the police four days The following day, September 12, 1995, Nerissa went to the
after the incident. He was identified at a police line-up by Rural Health Clinic of Aroroy, Masbate for medical
Nerissa and her grandmother. examination. In the Medical Report presented by Municipal
Health Officer Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday, it was shown that
The prosecution presented three witnesses: Dra. Conchita Nerissa sustained laceration of the hymen at 4:00 o'clock and
Ulanday, Municipal Health Officer of Aroroy, Masbate, who 7:00 o'clock positions (fresh wounds), indicating a possible
personally examined the rape victim; Nerissa Tagala the sexual assault upon the victim. (p. 16, TSN, August 26, 1996)
2
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 The defense presented accused-appellant who testified that
Consuelo's house. on September 11, 1995, he was staying in the house of
Antonio Ramilo at barangay Syndicate, Aroroy, Masbate.
The prosecution's version is stated in Appellee's Brief as Ramilo was the manager in the gold panning business where
follows: accused-appellant was employed. Antonio Ramilo testified
and corroborated his defense and stated that accused-
On September 11, 1995, at about 9:00 o'clock in the evening appellant was in his house, which is about 5 kilometers away
at Barangay Bangon, Aroroy, Masbate, then 16-year old from Barangay Bangon.
victim Nerissa Tagala and her grandmother (Consuelo
Arevalo) were sleeping, when appellant Armando Regala and The trial court held that the defense of alibi cannot overcome
his two other companions entered the former's house. (pp. the positive identification of the accused. The dispositive
6-7, TSN, August 26, 1996). portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds The appellee insists that appellant's lame defense of alibi
accused Armando Regala y Abriol guilty beyond reasonable cannot stand against the positive identification made by the
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape, as penalized under victim, and avers that the victim, a 16 year old barrio lass at
Par. 2 of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby the time the rape was committed, was motivated by a sincere
sentences him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; desire to seek and obtain justice. The Solicitor General also
to indemnify the victim Consuelo Arevalo the sum of recommends an additional award of compensatory damages
P9,000.00, the cash and value of the looted articles; to of P50,000.00 in favor of Nerissa Tagala.
indemnify the victim Nerissa Tagala the sum of P50,000.00
as moral damages, and the further sum of P25,000.00 as We affirm the judgment of conviction.
exemplary damages. No subsidiary imprisonment in case of There was sufficient evidence to establish the identity of
insolvency, and to pay the cost. 3 accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Armando has appealed to this Court pleading that: Nerissa positively recounted the incident on the witness
(1) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT stand. She was sleeping with her grandmother in the latter's
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE EXIST TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY THE house when the accused-appellant Regala, together with the
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS PERPETRATOR unidentified companions entered the house. Regala pointed a
OF THE CRIME CHARGED. gun, about 8 inches long, at her grandmother, and then at
her, and hogtied both of them. Regala took of her panty and
(2) THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING her shorts, and removed his own "porontong" pants, and
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT made sexual intercourse ("itot") with her while she was
OF THE CRIME CHARGED. 4 hogtied in bed. Her grandmother was at the floor. She saw
the aparador of her grandmother being opened. She could
which alleged errors were discussed jointly. not shout because the gun was pointed at her, and she was
In essence, accused-appellant questions the sufficiency of afraid. Two companions of the accused-appellant entered the
the prosecution's evidence in identifying him as one of the room as she was being raped. Two rings valued at about
perpetrators of the crime charged. He claims that the P6,000.00 and 2 wrist watches (one "Seiko" and the other
complaining witness could not have positively identified him "Citizen") and money was taken by the accused-appellant
as there was no electricity nor any light in the place of the and his companions. After raping her in bed, Nerissa saw
incident which took place at 9:00 o'clock in the evening. accused-appellant counting the money taken from the
Consuelo Arevalo was able to identify accused-appellant only aparador. Thereafter, she was brought to the kitchen, still
after he was pinpointed by Nerissa, and made contradictory hogtied, and rape again, 5 On cross-examination, Nerissa
statements in court when she stated that accused-appellant stated that although there was no electricity, and the light in
removed his mask after she was hogtied, and later stated the house was already off, she was able to see the face of
that accused-appellant removed his mask before she was Regala because at the time Regala was counting the money,
hogtied. The medico-legal officer, Dr. Ulanday, herself one of his companions was holding the flashlight "beamed to
testified that the complaining witness either voluntarily the money" and there was "some reflection" on the face of
submitted to a sexual act or was forced into one. Regala. 6 She remembered the face of Regala because of an
earring on his left ear 7 which he was wearing when presented 14
she and Nerissa were hogtied exposed the fact that she was
at the police line-up. 8 not able to identify the accused-appellant. The contradiction
referred to a minor detail and cannot detract from the fact
Consuelo Arevalo testified and corroborated the testimony of that both Nerissa and Consuelo positively identified Regala as
her granddaughter. Nerissa Regala entered the house with there was a flashlight used to focus at the money while it was
two companions, hogtied her and Nerissa, and were asking being counted and there was a reflection on the face of
for money. After having sexual intercourse with Nerissa, Regala. Both Nerissa and Consuelo remembered the earring
Regala took P3,000.00 in paper bills and coins from her on his left ear, which he was still wearing at the time of the
aparador, and got a stainless Seiko wristwatch and two gold police line-up inside the police station.
rings valued at P6,000.00. She was able to recognize Regala
because of his earring on his left ear, and because he was Dr. Conchita Ulanday's testimony does not support the
pinpointed by Nerissa at the police station. She was not able contention of accused-appellant that Nerissa voluntarily
to shout at the time because her mouth was gagged with a submitted to the sexual advances of Regala. The admission
piece of cloth by Regala. 9 On cross-examination, Consuelo of Dr. Ulanday that her findings point to the fact that Nerissa
Arevalo declared that she was able to see Regala because he "either voluntarily or was forced into sexual act" does not
used her flashlight, and he took off the mask he was wearing; prove that Nerissa voluntarily submitted to the sexual act.
she recognized Regala because of his earring and his flat top Dr. Ulanday testified that there was suggested evidence of
hair cut.10 penetration as shown by the two lacerations at 4 o'clock and
at 7 o'clock which were fresh wounds. That the act was
The Court gives its approbation to the finding of the trial court involuntary was clearly established by the facts that Nerissa
that the evidence was sufficient to clearly establish the was hogtied when she was sexually attacked. As correctly
identity of Armando Regala as the person who, with two pointed out by appellee, Nerissa was a 16-year old barrio
companions, committed the crime of robbery accompanied lass, not exposed to the ways of the world and was not shown
by rape on the night of September 11, 1995. Nerissa Tagala to have any ill-motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant,
positively identified Armando Regala because at the time he who was a stranger. And as repeatedly pronounced by this
was counting the money on her bed, the other companion of Court, it simply would be unnatural for a young and innocent
the accused beamed the flashlight towards the money and girl to concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of
there was a reflection on the face of Regala. Although the her private parts and thereafter subject herself to a public
three intruders were wearing masks when they entered the trial or ridicule if she was not, in fact, a victim of rape and
house, they removed their masks later. 11 deeply motivated by a sincere desire to have the culprit
Our cases have held that wicklamps, flashlights, even apprehended and punished. 15
moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations, be The crime of robbery with rape was committed in 1995 when
sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of RA 7659 was already in force. Article 294 of the Revised Penal
witnesses solely on this ground unmeritorious. 12 Code as amended now provides, under paragraph 1 thereof:
We are not persuaded by the contention of accused-appellant 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when for any
that the contradictory replies of Consuelo Arevalo when reason of or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide
asked whether Regala removed his mask "before" 13 or "after"
shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would
result in an "anomalous situation" where from the standpoint
The victim in the case at bar was raped twice on the occasion of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be
of the robbery. There are cases 16 holding that the additional on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. 21 However,
rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally
increase the penalty. In People vs. Martinez,17 accused construed in favor of the offender 22 and no person should be
Martinez and two (2) other unidentified persons, who brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
remained at large, were charged with the special complex statute. 23
crime of robbery with rape where all three raped the victim.
The Court imposed the penalty of death after considering two In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by
(2) aggravating circumstances, namely, nocturnidad and use herein accused-appellant should not be considered as
of a deadly weapon. However, the Court did not consider the aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by
two (2) other rapes as aggravating holding that "(T)he special the trial court is proper.
complex crime of robbery with rape has, therefore, been
committed by the felonious acts of appellant and his cohorts, As regards the civil indemnity, we find well-taken the
with all acts or rape on that occasion being integrated in one recommendation of the Solicitor General that compensatory
composite crime." damages should be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00.
Nerissa Tagala is entitled to an award of civil indemnity ex
There are likewise cases 18 which held that the multiplicity of delicto of P50,000.00, which is given in favor of the offended
rapes committed could be appreciated as an aggravating party in rape. 24 Also a conviction for rape carries with it the
circumstance. In People vs. Candelario 19 where three (3) of award of moral damages to the victim since it is recognized
the four (4) armed men who robbed the victim "alternately that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily
raped her twice for each of them", this Court, citing People results from the ordinary crime of rape to warrant per se an
vs. Obtinalia, 20 ruled that "(T)he characterization of the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages. 25
offense as robbery with rape, however, is not changed simply
because there were several rapes committed. The multiplicity WHEREFORE, the judgment convicting Armando Regala y
of rapes should instead be taken into account raising the Abriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery
penalty to death." with Rape, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
Nerissa Tagala is entitled to an additional award of
It should be noted that there is no law providing that the P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.
additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating SO ORDERED.
circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is
exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the
same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there G.R. No. 135034 January 18, 2001
is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for
analogous circumstances. 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" 1. Gold Bracelet ------------------------------
(At Large), ELMER CANICO (At Large), LOLOY
GIBERTAS (At Large), BERFEL DELA CRUZ (At Large), P 500.00
and JOHN DOE (At Large), accused. 2. Gold ring -------------------------------------
ADRIANO SEGUIS and ROSALITO ESTEBE, accused- 4,000.00
appellants.
3. Cash money --------------------------------
PUNO, J.:
50.00
Juliet A. Magamayo, a nineteen-year-old barrio lass from an
obscure town in Surigao del Norte complains that she has TOTAL
been ravished, then robbed by seven men, who, following her
accounts, were definitely no Romeos. She claims they did not P4,550.00
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 In the total amount of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
claims they did not only deprive her of her last remaining fifty FIFTY (P4,550.00) PESOS, Philippine currency, to the
pesos, they denied her furthermore a future.1âwphi1.nêt damage and prejudice of said Juliet A. Magamayo in the
aforesaid amount of P4,550.00 and such other damages as
Juliet pointed to the following men as the ones who may be allowed by law.
committed the outrage against her womanhood: Adriano
Seguis a.k.a. Junior, Rosalito Estebe a.k.a. Dodong, Rodrigo Contrary to law.
Doquila a.k.a. Lolong, Elmer Canico, Loloy Gibertas, Berfel
dela Cruz, and a certain John Doe. They were charged with Surigao City, Philippines, August 21, 1995."1
the crime of robbery with multiple rape and were indicted in Of the seven accused, the record reveals that five of them
an Amended Information which reads: remain at large. Only the first two were placed under the
"That on or about August 19, 1995, in Barangay Togbongon, custody of the authorities: Seguis and Estebe, and they are
City of Surigao, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this the appellants in this case. During arraignment, both entered
Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring, a plea of NOT GUILTY. Trial then proceeded.
confederating together and with mutual understanding with The prosecution's version of the story is based mainly on the
one another, with lewd designs and by means of force and private complainant's recollection of what happened that
intimidations (sic), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and dreadful night. The offended party is one Juliet A. Magamayo,
feloniously have carnal knowledge of Juliet A. Magamayo, a nineteen-year old unmarried girl residing at San Jose,
while the latter was already sleeping, by taking turns in Mainit, Surigao del Norte. According to her, in the afternoon
raping her against her will and without her consent and on of August 18, 1995 at about 3 o'clock, she went to Barangay
same occasion, accused with intent to gain and by means o Togbongon, Surigao City, a few kilometers away from the city
violence and intimidation, took, stole and carried away the proper. Her purpose was to collect a loan of fifty pesos from
following personal belongings of Juliet A. Magamayo, to wit:
Michael Balantucas, a friend of long standing whom she met woman. He inserted his penis into her vagina then made a
when she was still staying with her elder sister in Togbongon. push and pull movement. Feeling pain, she fought to free
She arrived there after approximately one hour of travel. As herself. She kicked her legs but Canico did not seem to mind
customary with friends, they exchanged pleasantries and a bit. After satisfying his lust, he stood up and put on his
stories, and basically caught up with old times. A while later, pants. He replaced Lolong Doquila in guarding Michael with a
accused Loloy Gibertas and Elmer Canico who were on their knife.
way to fetch water passed by the house. Michael introduced
them to Juliet. They shook hands and talked a little before The next time, it was Doquila who introduced his penis into
the two eventually left. Michael then invited Juliet to stay in the lady's private part. Perhaps realizing the futility of her
their home for the night because darkness was closing in. struggle, Juliet tried to appeal to their sense of mercy. She
Michael was living with his younger brother Rolando and begged him to stop, mainly because of the pain. This also
younger sister Lilibeth since their parents already died. Juliet proved fruitless. He made the same push and pull
agreed as she has slept in the place before. She thought that movements stopping only afterwards when he was able to
it was too late and perilous to go back home. satisfy his lust. Doquila was replaced by Lolong Gibertas who
had coital intercourse with the hapless victim. Again she
Little did Juliet know that, in a cruel twist of fate, danger resisted and shouted for help. The men around her told her
would visit her in the very refuge where she sought safety. to remain silent if she does not want to get killed. Shortly,
Following a dinner of cooked bananas plus a few more stories, Gibertas stood up and informed Berfel dela Cruz that it was
she and the Balantucas siblings prepared to retire. Juliet and his turn. Like the others before him, and like the others soon
Lilibeth slept in the house's only bedroom, which was lighted to follow, he forced himself on Juliet. When he had his fill, the
by a kerosene lamp. Michael was just outside the room's unidentified man also had sexual contact with her.
doorway while Rolando stayed in the sala. At about midnight,
Juliet was awakened by the noise brought about by the Almost after the five predators finished ravaging their prey,
commotion of five men who entered the house. She got up Adriano Seguis and Rosalito Estebe came into the room. Juliet
and saw Rodrigo Doquila pointing a knife at the throat of a already knew them even before this incident. She recognized
crouching Michael. She noticed that Lilibeth was not beside the two that night by means of a flashlight when Estebe
her anymore as it turned out that the young girl went to the brought to illuminate the area. Earlier, the small kerosene
kitchen to relieve herself. Afraid, she shouted for help to lamp had been extinguished by the five men. As expected,
Michael who understandably could not do anything being Estebe laid himself on top of the girl, who fought weakly
himself mentally preoccupied with, in a manner of speaking, against her new tormentor. He rammed his penis into her
saving his own neck. vagina. He got up on his feet only after some minutes of
sexual activity. Then Elmer Canico returned to the bedroom
At this juncture, Elmer Canico grabbed the hair of Juliet and and Juliet heard him announce that it was his turn again. For
commanded her to lie down on the floor. Loloy Gibertas held the second time that early morning, he succeeded in
her right hand even as someone else was holding her heft. copulating with her. The last one to have carnal knowledge
She struggled and twisted her body, so another man had to of Juliet against her will was Adriano Seguis. The latter
restrain her legs. Elmer Canico removed his pants and brief, inserted his male organ into her private part and performed
and knelt in front of her. He stripped Juliet of her pants and the same push and pull maneuverings using his buttocks. The
underwear before continuing to place himself on top of the
victim begged him to stop for she could not bear it anymore. For her part, Lilibeth Balantucas recounted, among other
Seguis told her to keep quiet. things, that she woke up at around midnight to answer a call
of nature. She went to the kitchen to urinate when five men
When Seguis was done, he rose to his feet and went to the suddenly entered the bedroom. She identified them to be the
kitchen. He came back with a plate of rice which he gave to accused Elmer Canico, Lolong Doquila, Loloy Gibertas and
the sobbing lady. Juliet pretended to eat the rice only so that Berfel dela Cruz. However, she did not know the fifth person.
she would not be raped anymore. She did not utter a word Tagging along were Adriano Seguis and Rosalito Estebe who
but cried a river of tears over her heartbreaking experience. pulled and dragged her out of the house. She was able to
She requested Seguis to help her up and she sat down in a recognize them because of the light coming from an electric
corner. Rosalito Estebe was seated on a nearby trunk. When bulb located in the kitchen. Outside, Seguis and Estebe
Seguis tried to blame her for what took place, she answered ordered her to keep quiet, or else they would kill her. Out of
that the five men sexually abused her. Michael appeared and extreme fear, she did not make any sound. After about one
Juliet asked him how it happened. Michael replied that he also hour, they also went inside the room. Lilibeth remained
did not know because they were all asleep when the incident where she was as they told her not to move.
started. Seguis and Estebe warned them not to tell anybody
of what transpired otherwise they might all be killed. It was Going back to Juliet's testimony, it appears that later in the
about one o'clock in the morning when the two remaining morning of August 19, 1995, someone fetched Francisco
accused left. Pecante, a member of the local CVO, who initially
investigated the incident. Then he sought Perfecto Pagas, the
Juliet discovered later on that she had been despoiled of her barangay captain of Togbongon. Together, they brought the
gold ring worth P4,000.00 and her gold bracelet worth victim to the Surigao Provincial Hospital where she was
P500.00. Furthermore, her cash money amounting to P50.00 physically examined and medically treated.
was no longer in her pant's pocket. She admitted though that
she was not aware who among the accused carried away the The attending physician, Dr. Panfilo Jorge Tremedal III,
aforementioned personal belongings while she was being testified that on August 19, 1995, he was a resident doctor
assaulted by them. of the hospital. He checked up the person of Juliet Magamayo
who complained that she has been raped. Among his findings
The prosecution presented two other witnesses who was an abrasion of the labia majora. In his expert opinion,
corroborated Juliet's testimony. Michael Balantucas the injury could have probably been caused by a blunt object
confirmed that the seven accused indeed illegally entered like an erect human penis. Another member of the medical
their house and took turns in sexually defiling Juliet. The staff was also presented by the prosecution: Elsa Adlawan
rapes were committed right before his eyes. He observed how who was employed as a medical technologies by the hospital.
one by one each of them was able to impose his own bestial She declared that on the same date, she received a vaginal
will against the lady. He very much wanted to help his visitor specimen taken from Juliet for a laboratory evaluation for the
whom he only invited that night. But as much as he wanted presence of spermatozoa. After conducting the required
to, he could not do anything, since all the while that the rape tests, she determined the said specimen to be positive for
was going on, somebody was pointing a knife at his throat. spermatozoa.
He was practically rendered impotent by the threat that
something bad might happen to him or his siblings.
With the prosecution resting its case, the defense made its The complaint was not pursued as he heard later on that she
counter-presentation of the facts. It first offered Nilda Cabug- has been paid. He admitted too that he failed to enter the
os, who, per her own declaration, is a friend of the victim but complaint in the official records on the excuse that Juliet
not related to her. She recalled that Juliet arrived at her anyway did not return anymore.
house in Togbongon at about four o'clock in the afternoon of
August 18, 1995, purportedly to collect a sum of money In his defense, the accused Adriano Seguis testified that on
Michael Balantucas owed her. They have only conversed for March 9, 1995, Juliet approached him and made a request
a brief moment when Juliet went her way, returning after for him to bear witness in a rape case she was about to file.
about two hours in the company of a male escort, one Jeffrey It was not clear whether this is the same incident of the
Lerio. Later, Juliet would again leave the house with Jeffrey alleged rape that she complained to Kagawad Pagas. He
for an undisclosed destination. By the time the clock struck claimed that it was the first time that they met, although they
eight, Juliet came back to the house. As a matter of became acquaintances after. At any rate this is not the
hospitality, Nilda extended an invitation to her guest to spend reason why he refused her. He simply had no knowledge of
the night in their abode, which invitation Juliet readily the incident.
accepted. The latter was already sleeping when some young Seguis must have felt history repeating itself right before his
men came to drop by. She rose to entertain her visitors. More very eyes. On the morning of August 19, 1995, at 6 a.m., he
than that, she went out with them. And although she asked arrived at the residence of Michael Balantucas. He went there
Nilda's permission, she did not say where they were going. It together with his co-accused Rosalito Estebe pursuant to a
was the last time she saw her that night. prior agreement that they would help Michael in harvesting
The next morning greeted Nilda with a neighbor's story that his crop of palay. In the uncanniest of coincidences, Juliet,
Juliet allowed herself to have sexual intercourse with several who was already there when he arrived, again was apparently
men in the house of Michael Balantucas. She replied that she involved in another case of rape which happened the previous
and her husband cautioned her about going out so late in the night, and once more asked him to testify for her. This time
night but Juliet's persistence made them yield. She the request was coupled with a threat that she would
remembered that Juliet was wearing maong pants and a implicate him in the legal action if he refused to cooperate.
blouse on the day of the incident. She also wore a cheap For the second time in as many instance, he rejected her
wristwatch worth about P35.00, a small belt worth plea. For scorning her twice, he incurred her fury. She made
approximately P30.00, a headband and shoes made of cloth. good her threat and implicated him.
She did not notice any fancy jewelry. In an unexpected turn of events, the defense called to the
Another witness, Perfecto Pagas, gave evidence that he is a witness stand Michael Balantucas who previously testified for
barangay kagawad of Togbongon for three years, although a the prosecution. He was this time singing a different tune. He
tricycle driver by vocation. He came to know of Juliet not only claimed that his conscience was bothering him, and he could
because she is a frequent passenger but allegedly due to her not suffer the burden of seeing two innocent men go to jail.
reputation in the locality of associating herself with different That is why he elected to testify even though he was aware
men. According to Pagas, sometime in March 1995, Juliet that he was courting criminal prosecution in changing his
complained to him in the office of the barangay council that testimony. Michael recanted his former testimony by
she was raped by five men. She did not identify any names. declaring that in the evening of August 18, 1995, he was
staying at his house with Juliet and his siblings, Rolando and After trial, the lower court pronounced the following
Lilibeth, when at around ten o'clock, five men arrived. These sentence:4
five were the accused Lolong Doquila, Elmer Canico, Loloy
Gibertas, Berfel dela Cruz, and a certain Rolando Ezperanza. "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds each of
They had a talk with Juliet wherein it was agreed that they the accused, Adriano Seguis or Adriano Seguis Jr. and
would "rent"2 her (i.e., have sex with her) that night for a Rosalito Estebe, guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a
fee of one thousand pesos. While the lady supposedly kept principal (sic) of the crime of simple rape under Article 335
her part of the bargain, the men did not. Instead they even of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of
had the audacity to take her bracelet and wristwatch when them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; and to pay
they left at about two o'clock dawn. Juliet was enraged. She one-half of the costs.
wanted to bring her "customers"3 to court not to collect the Each of the said accused is ordered to indemnify the victim,
bill but to charge them with rape. When Seguis and Estebe Juliet Magamayo, in the amount of P50,000.00 for the rape
arrived the next day, she asked the three of them (including committed by him."5
Michael) to testify in her behalf, otherwise she would
implicate them. As far as Michael knows, he was the only one Hence, the present appeal. In their brief, appellants raised
who acceded to the lady's demand. the lone assigned error, to wit:

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 "THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
1995, he saw her engage in sexual intercourse with multiple APPELLANTS GUILTY THOUGH NOT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
partners in their barrio. He himself did not take part in the BUT ONLY OF SIMPLE RAPE WITHOUT THEIR GUILT HAVING
orgy. Later, she asked him to be her witness as she intended BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT."
to file rape charges against the persons who had sex with It is to be noted that the accused in this case were originally
her. He refused as he heard that she has been paid the sum indicted for the felony of robbery with multiple rape, a special
of P1,000.00. Subsequently on May 14, 1995, which was the complex crime punishable under Art. 294, par. 1 of the
fiesta in Togbongon, Juliet again requested him to be a Revised Penal Code and which is committed "when the
witness in the complaint for rape she has filed against Ricky robbery shall have been accompanied by rape." The said
Antallan, Michael Balantucas, Jeffrey Lerio, Lolong Doquila, provision, needless to say, covers cases of multiple rapes.6
Elmer Canico and Berfel dela Cruz. When he rejected her, she This is primarily due to the fact that the juridical concept of
implicated him in the present case. this crime does not limit the consummation of rape against
In rebuttal, Juliet denied that she agreed to have sex with one single victim or to one single act, making other rapes in
anyone for P1,000.00. She reiterated her stand that she was excess of that number as separate, independent offense or
abused by all seven men. Furthermore, it is not true that she offenses. All the rapes are merged in the composite,
merely implicated Seguis and Estebe after the two declined integrated whole that is robbery with rape, so long as the
to be her witnesses. Both also had sex with her. 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 But the lower court's finding of their non-participation in the
is essentially a crime against property. The following are its robbery does not mean that they are totally guiltless. They
elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed will still be held accountable for whatever unlawful acts they
with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the may have committed, and for which acts they were charged.
property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done In a criminal action for robbery with rape, where the
with animo lucrandi; and, (4) the robbery is accompanied by prosecution failed to prove the robo or the participation of the
rape. To sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the robbery accused in it, the latter may still be convicted for the rape.
itself must be conclusively established; just as the fact that As already mentioned, the trial court has ruled that the
it was the accused who committed it the proved beyond appellants had carnal knowledge of the private complainant
reasonable doubt. The prosecution must be able to by using force and intimidation. It convicted them of one
demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and count of rape each because there was no showing that they
moral certainty, including the existence of a conspiracy, if conspired or assisted each other in committing those rapes.
any. Otherwise, those who were charged should be acquitted,
at least for the robbery. Proof of the rape alone is not We affirm the conviction.
sufficient to support a conviction for the crime of robbery with This Court has steadfastly adhered to the rule that when a
rape. woman testifies that she has been raped, and if her testimony
This is exactly the factual conclusion of the trial court, whose meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted
findings, to reiterate, "are accorded great weight and respect on the basis thereof.8 A rape victim who testifies in a
as trial judges are undeniably in the best position to weigh categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner,
the declaration of witnesses in light of their opportunity to and remains consistent, is a credible witness.9 If her story
observe physically the witnesses' conduct and attitude during had only been contrived, she would not have been so
trial."7 Thus said the court: composed and consistent throughout her entire testimony in
the face of intense and lengthy interrogation.10> In the case
"x x x However there is no sufficient evidence pointing to the at bar, the victim gave a direct and straight narration of the
herein two accused as the ones who divested the victim of events which only evinces the truthfulness of her testimony.
her money and valuables. The complainant herself admitted Her story is corroborated on its material points by an
that she did not know who among the many accused took her impartial and unbiased witness, Lilibeth Balantucas, who has
gold ring, bracelet and cash. All that she became aware of absolutely no personal interest in the outcome of this suit.
after her horrible experience was she no longer had the Also, the medical evidence is consistent with the theory that
aforementioned items. the complainant had been a victim of rape.

x x x There is a complete lack of evidence pointing to Adriano In addition, Juliet's credibility is bolstered by her
Seguis or Rosalito Estebe as the ones who took the valuables instantaneous report of the crime to the police. The incident
in question. In the absence of proof of conspiracy among the occurred in the early morning of August 19, 1995, and the
accused to commit the crime of robbery, they are liable only very next day, or on August 20, 1995, she executed her
for their own separate and individual acts." affidavit before the authorities of the Surigao City Police.
Besides, the appellants failed to prove any ulterior or o'clock the following morning allegedly to help Michael
improper motive which could have induced the victim and her Balantucas harvest his palay.
witness to testify against or falsely implicate them in the
commission of the crime.11 Indeed, if an accused had really Such submission must fail for obvious reasons. We have ruled
nothing to do with the crime, it is against the natural order that the defense of alibi is inherently weak and crumbles in
of events and human nature and against the presumption of the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who
good faith that the prosecution witness would falsely testify testified on affirmative matters that the accused-appellants
against the former.12 Thus, we adhere to the established rule were at the scene of the incident and were the victim's
that in the absence of any evidence to show that the assailants and perpetrators of the crime15 In the present
witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by any improper case, the appellants were positively identified by the victim,
motive, their identification of the accused-appellants should thus:
be given full faith and credit.13 "Prosec. Menor: After that person was finished, what
Appellants' defense that they were merely implicated by happened next?
Juliet as they refused to testify in her favor is far from Juliet : Then Adriano Seguis and Rosalito Estebe went up the
convincing. Both of them testified that they are not even house.
close friends of Juliet. As correctly pointed out by the
Solicitor-General, "It is quite contrary to human experience Q : Did they enter the room?
that a woman would narrate to somebody how she was used
sexually for a fee (and was not paid) and thereafter request A : Yes, sir. Rosalito entered the room first.
said person whom she hardly knew to testify in her favor to Q : By the way, do you know personally Rosalito Estebe?
support her complaint."14 Also, such motive if availing is
attributable only to Juliet. The same cannot be imputed to A : Yes, sir.
the other vital witness Lilibeth, who, to repeat, does not have
any interest in this case and yet explicitly declared that Q : For how long have you known him prior to the incident?
appellants were among the seven men who went to their A : A long time, sir.
house the night of August 18, 1995.
Q : In Barangay Togbongon?
In support of their lone assignment of error, the accused
advanced several arguments designed to destroy the A : Yes, sir.
credibility of the witness herself and then her testimony. We
are not impressed by these arguments. Q : You knew him because you have stayed in Togbongon,
Surigao City?
I
A : Yes, sir. It was Jolly who introduced (sic) to me.
Appellant's basic submission is a mere restatement of their
Q : How were you able to recognize that it was Rosalito
defense. They assert that they were not present at the scene
Estebe and Adriano Seguis who entered the room?
of the crime during the supposed moment that it was
unfolding. On the contrary, they arrived there only at six A : Because Rosalito and Adriano called for Michael "Tol".
Q : My question, how were you able to recognize Rosalito Q : Where did you go after you wake (sic) up?
Estebe and Adriano Seguis.
A : To the kitchen.
A : Estebe was bringing (sic0 a flashlight.
Q : When you reached the kitchen of your house, what
Q : How about Adriano Seguis? happened next?

A : He was there sitting near the head of Michael. A : Then some men entered our room.

Q : Was the room still lighted at that time. Q : How many were they?

A : No more, sir, only the flashlight. A : Five persons.

Q : Did you see the face of Rosalito Estebe? Q : How about you?

A : Yes, sir. A : I was outside because I was afraid and I was pulled.

Q : How were you able to see the faces of Adriano Seguis Q : By whom?
and Rosalito Estebe?
A : Dodong Estebe, Adriano Seguis.
A : The light from the flashlight was moving around.
Q : Including Estebe and Seguis, how many persons were
Q : Are you very sure that the two persons who came late there in the house, all in all?
were Adriano Seguis and Rosalito Estebe?
A : Seven persons.
A : Yes, sir." 16
Q : What did Seguis and Estebe do to you?
In addition, there is the testimony of Lilibeth Balantucas,
pointing to the two appellants as among those who entered A : Seguis and Estebe held my hands and told me to keep
their house at around midnight. Her testimonial narrative quite or they would kill me.
proved that Seguis and Estebe were in the Balantucas' xxx
residence at precisely or about the same time Juliet was being
raped. It fort rightly contradicted the assertions of the two Q : Considering that it was nighttime, how were you able
that they arrived there only about six o'clock in the morning to recognize them when they were able to drag you outside?
of the next day. According to her:
A : Because there was a light.
"x x x
Q : Light from what?
Prosec. Menor: You said you slept at about 12:00 (sic) o'clock
in the evening, what time did you awake up? A : From electric bulb.

Lilibeth: At 12:00 because I want to urinate. Q : And where was the electric bulb located or placed?

A : Outside.
Q : Are you referring to the post? appellant Rosalito Estebe to the effect that she is often seen
in the company of men. These recitals by themselves cannot
A : No, sir, it was came from our kitchen. be made sufficient basis for accepting the veracity of the
Q : Kitchen of your house? allegation. Greater amount of quantitative and qualitative
proof is needed.
A : Yes, sir."17
Moreover, it is unlikely that even a prostitute would agree to
Moreover, the defense of alibi is an issue of fact that hinges have sex continuously with five to seven men for one night
on credibility, the relative weight of which the trial court for a fee of P1,000.00. And it is even more unlikely that she
assigns to the testimony of the witnesses. Such assessment, would go to the extent of filing a case against them, two of
unless patently and clearly inconsistent, must be accepted, whom are acquaintances, have her parts physically
for verily a careful evaluation of the record does not reveal examined, and testify in court how she was ravaged by them
that the trial court's rejection of the defense of alibi is just to get even for their failure to pay. Obviously, the reason
inconsistent with the evidence on record.18 why Juliet went to court and opted to suffer the ordeal of
being interrogated on her harrowing experience is to obtain
Lastly, it puzzles this court why the appellants, despite their justice.
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 III
not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else Appellants next call our attention on the so-called badges or
when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown telltale signs of a perfected contract for sexual services
that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to be between Juliet and the accused. The appellants would like to
physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate impress upon this Court that an agreement would lend
vicinity at the time of its commission. The rule is settled that credence to their theory that she allowed herself to be used
for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirement of time that night by five men who in turn reneged on their word of
and place must be strictly met.19 paying her. As a consequence of which, she was left with no
II choice but to file this action and include the appellants as well
for refusing her request to be her witnesses. In the
Appellants contend that private complainant is not credible alternative, the agreement should demonstrate that if there
as she is known in the locality as a "scheming 19-year old was any sexual activity participated in by the woman and the
woman, of loose morals, engaged in the oldest trade, and appellants, it was at least consensual.
wise in her ways with the world."20 Consequently, it is a
misplaced gesture of sympathy and compassion to consider First. They argue that if it were true that Juliet was raped no
her truthful and a paragon of a Filipina's inbred modesty and less than eight times and by seven different men, she should
Christian virtues. The record, however, is bereft of any have sustained more injuries than mere superficial linear
evidence that Juliet is a woman for hire, except for the abrasion on the labia majora. This should manifest that every
statements of witnesses Nilda Cabug-os, Perfecto Pagas, and 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 siblings negates any idea of a misdeed. A reality check,
This is especially true if we take into consideration that two however, would show that the accused stayed for a while
men held Juliet's hands while she was being raped in after raping Juliet not to socialize with them, as in fact the
succession. Be that as it may, whatever wounds she might two warned them not to tell anybody of what happened or
have suffered is consistent with the hypothesis that she was they would be killed. Although it is correct that Seguis later
raped. As opined by Dr. Tremedal, an acknowledged expert showed some signs of remorse towards the victim, his acts
witness, her scars, by their very nature, must have been were belated and could no longer erase his crime. The
caused by a blunt object hitting the vagina with force, such ambiguous attitude of Seguis is understandable. While
as an erect male penis during sexual intercourse. succumbing to his uncontrollable lust, he remained quite
sympathetic to the plight of Juliet, who was an old
Second. Appellants ask how come Seguis and Estebe acquaintance. Nevertheless, the apparent regret shown by
preferred not to rape Lilibeth Balantucas herself who was Seguis after the act of rape could not undo what he had done.
already at their complete control during the time that It was too late for recriminations.
complainant was allegedly being gang-raped by the other five
accused inside the room? Why did they wait for the five to IV
finish and leave behind in the process a "fresh, sweeter, and
younger"22 Lilibeth? They claim that this is unnatural for On another point, appellants keep harping on the one
people driven by lust and bestial desire, unless there was a hundred eighty-degree turn around made by Michael on the
prior arrangement made by them with the victim. We are not stand. They say that if the alleged sexual congresses were
persuaded. Lust is not a respecter of time, place and true, and witnessed by Michael, it is highly unthinkable that,
circumstances, nor of persons and relationships,23 and despite the risk of facing criminal prosecution for false
neither is it a conformist to reason and good taste, nor testimony and perjury, he would still recant his previous
common sense even. When a man is overcome by lustful testimony in court in favor of the two. They stress that Juliet
passions, certainly it would be too much to expect that he will and Michael are more than good friends; and, the latter by
still concern himself with the age, scent or appearance of his force of circumstance should not hesitate to defend the
prospect. complainant's position.

Third. Appellants contend that Juliet's act of telling Adriano The Court fails to be impressed with the recantation of
Seguis, before she was raped by the latter, that she could not Michael Balantucas for several reasons. A recantation does
take it anymore is indicative of the existence of a prior not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration.25 Like any other
agreement with the seven accused for a fee of P1,000. Again, testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the
the argument lacks merit. When Juliet told Seguis that she relevant circumstances and especially the demeanor of the
could not take it, she was not asking for a "recess or witness on the stand. Moreover, it should be received with
timeout"24 as they insist, but was actually pleading that he caution as otherwise it could "make solemn trials a mockery
no longer rape her as she has suffered enough in the hands and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of
of the other accused. unscrupulous witnesses."26

Fourth. They assert that the subsequent act of Seguis and In any event, the eyewitness accounts of Juliet herself and
Estebe in socializing with the victim and the Balantucas Lilibeth are more than sufficient to prove beyond doubt the
participation of the appellants in the commission of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- appellee, vs.
assault. Even if the trial court had not given credence to the HERSON NAAG y LOBAS, accused-appellant.
first testimony of Michael, there still is enough indication to
ascertain their culpability. His declaration is merely PUNO, J.:
cumulative, or additional evidence of the same kind tending One of the more interesting conceptual exercises in the field
to establish the same point or factual issue.1âwphi1.nêt of Criminal Law is the characterization of a crime. The
V challenge is not only to prove existence of its elements. The
challenge is to correctly categorize it. In the case at bar, a
Lastly, appellants put private complainant to task for alleged man sexually defiled then immediately divested his woman-
marked contradictions and pure improbabilities surrounding victim of her belongings. Is he guilty of the special crime of
her story. For instance, they assert that it would be highly Robbery with Rape or the separate crimes of Robbery and
doubtful for Juliet not to notice who took away her gold ring Rape? The answer lies in his intent.
and gold bracelet, if in the first place there were any. So too
are they puzzled with how consistent she is in her perception The accused in this case is a certain indicted for Robbery with
of how long each accused raped her. To them this is a sure Rape under an Information which reads:
sign that her performance on the stand is rehearsed. "That on or about the 8th day of January, 1996 at Daraga,
The submission deserves scant attention. Verily, one cannot Albay x x x the above named accused, armed with a screw
expect a victim of such nerve-racking experience to become driver, by means of violence and intimidation, did then and
aware of every minute detail of the event, or question her there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal
keenness to observe one aspect of it but not another. It is knowledge of the complainant Desiree Gollena, against her
understandable for the poor victim not to remember who will, by inflicting upon her with the use of said screw multiple
particularly among the seven took away her valuables. At serious physical injuries, and thereafter said accused, having
that point, her ring and bracelet were not that important to been fully satisfied of his carnal lust over said Desiree Gollena
her. Regarding the time, it could well be the only thing that and believing her to be dead, with intent of gain, divested
concerned her mind. In any event, these contradictions or and took her personal belongings, to wit: (1) one bag
improbabilities, as appellants would put it, cannot erode the containing clothes worth P500.00 (2) one gold bracelet worth
credibility of Juliet's testimony. PI,500.00 (3) wallet containing Pl,800.00 and (4) ladies
wristwatch valued at P600.00 to the damage and prejudice
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of said Desiree Gollena.
of Surigao City in Criminal Case No. 4581 is AFFIRMED in
toto. Costs against appellants. ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."1

SO ORDERED. He pleaded "not guilty" during arraignment and the action


proceeded to trial.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that Desiree was a


G.R. No. 136394 February 15, 2001 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 gate with her pants down and hanging on one leg. It was
visit her family. She took the bus and by about 4 o'clock in already 5 o'clock in the morning. The wife of the engineer
the morning, she alighted at the town's Freedom Park in telephoned local police authorities for assistance. In the
Daraga. She crossed a street where two tricycles were meantime, Desiree was brought to the Albay Provincial
parked. She woke up one of the drivers and inquired whether Hospital where she was given medical treatment. Dr. Jose
she could be brought to Sipi. Getting a positive response, she Solano testified that the girl was in pain when he examined
boarded it. Upon reaching her place, she told him to stop and her and that she sustained multiple lacerations and stab
handed to him her fare. To her surprise, what she received in wounds on different parts of her body, and had blackening of
return was not loose change, but a slap. her left and right eyes. Dr. Aileen Francis Bartilet examined
Desiree's genitalia and noted the absence of any sign of
The driver then began to maul her. Desiree fought back as injury: there was no bleeding, no laceration of the hymen, no
hard as she could, but this made the driver more ferocious in contusion in the vulvar wall of the vagina, and no abrasion.
his assault. She was strangled, boxed and kicked. She was
repeatedly stabbed with a screw driver on her face, head, and Later that morning of January 8, 1996, policemen came to
different parts of her body. Her head was banged against the the hospital to investigate the incident. Desiree gave a
sidecar. She realized that her struggle was in vain and would description of the suspect as well as the tricycle. The next
only put her life in greater danger. She stopped resisting and day, on January 9, SPO1 Pastor Perena Jr. and SPO 2
pretended to be dead. Domingo Mabini happened to apprehend one Herson Naag y
Lobas, a tricycle driver, for driving a public utility tricycle
He then transported her to another place. He lifted her from without the necessary license. Naag and the vehicle were
the tricycle and she thought she would be thrown to a ravine brought to the police station of Daraga. Perena and Mabini
or cliff beside what appeared to be an abandoned house. realized that Naag fit the description of the malefactor given
lnstead, she was tossed to the ground, The driver removed by Desiree. They brought the confiscated student driver's
her pants and panties. She could not resist, fearing death, permit of Naag (which contains his photograph) to the
After her garments were removed, her legs were spread hospital for identification. Their hunch was confirmed when
apart and he copulated with her. Desiree, upon being shown the permit, identified the man in
After satisfying his lust, the driver took her wristwatch worth the picture as the one who raped and robbed her.
P600.00, a bracelet worth P1,500.00 and fled with her bag When the policemen returned to the station, Naag was
containing her clothes, wallet containing P1,800,00 in cash, already gone, but not without leaving his tricycle behind.
and some loose change. When Desiree sensed that he has They brought the tricycle to the hospital for identification.
left the premises, she rolled down the ravine. She did not Desiree did not have any difficulty in identifying the tricycle
have the energy to stand and walk and so she crawled until as the same vehicle she boarded on the morning of January
she reached a house, which turned out to be the dwelling 8. A criminal complaint was then filed against Naag. On
place of witness Engineer Antonio Balacano located at Sybil February 25, 1996, he was arrested by the NBI agents of
Subdivision, Sipi, Daraga. She cried for help. Naga City at Tagkawayan, Quezon.
Engr. Balacano responded to Desiree's call for assistance. He The accused alleged, in his defense, that it was impossible
saw Desiree, a bloodied girl, cold and torn, squatting by the 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 doubt of the crime of Rape under Art. 335 (1) of the Revised
house approximately seven kilometers away from where it Penal Code as amended, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer
happened. His tricycle was not in a serviceable condition the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua with all
then, and he was repairing it the night before. It was fixed the accessory penalties thereto appertaining, to pay Desiree
only on January 9 since he was able to buy the spare part Gollena P50,000.00 as Indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
that he needed at about 8:30 a.m. of January 8. The previous damages.
day was a Sunday and almost all of the motor shops were
closed. Hence, he alleged that he could not have operated on The accused Herson Naag y Lobas is also found GUILTY
the Sipi route on the 8th as his tricycle was not in running beyond reasonable doubt of the separate crime of Robbery
condition. He explained that he was in Tagkawayan when he under Art. 294 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, and taking into
was arrested because he had undergone hospitalization and consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law he is hereby
was on an errand. sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of ten (10)
years of Prision mayor medium in its maximum period as the
The defense also called two other witnesses to the stand who minimum to fourteen (14) years, ten months and twenty (20)
backstopped the testimony of the accused. It presented his days of Reclusion Temporal medium period in its medium
wife who basically reiterated the story of her husband. She period as the maximum and to return the ladies wrist watch
said that he was with her from the night of January 7 up to worth P600.00, bracelet worth P1,500.00, bag of clothes
the morning of January 8, at about 8:30, when he had to buy worth P500.00 or their total value of P2,600.00 if return
the spare part that he needed for his tricycle. Similarly, it cannot be had and the cash of P1,800.00. Costs against the
presented a certain Lino Era, a next-door neighbor who accused.
recalled seeing the accused at about 10 o'clock in the evening
of January 7 doing some repairs on his tricycle.1âwphi1.nêt SO ORDERED."3

In the end, the trial court chose not to believe Naag, It held: Dissatisfied with the verdict, the accused interposed this
appeal. In his brief, he made this lone assignment of error:
The accused in his defense put up alibi, a shabby excuse, a "The Lower Court erred in finding the accused guilty of the
defense indicties never seem to tire of. (People vs. separate crimes of Robbery and Rape."4
Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380) This defense of the accused
cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim We affirm the conviction.
Desiree of the accused and of the tricycle. This defense of There is no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the lower
alibi is worthless in the face of his being positively identified court. Well-entrenched is the rule that an appellate court will
by the victim Desiree. (People vs. Rivera, 242 SCRA 26)"2 generally not disturb the assessment of the trial court on
However, the trial court did not convict him of the crime he factual matters considering that the latter, as a trier of fact,
was originally charged with, which is Robbery with Rape. is in a better position to appreciate the same. The only
Instead he was meted out two different sentences for the exceptions allowed are when the trial court has plainly
separate crimes of Robbery and Rape, viz: overlooked certain facts of substance which, if considered,
may affect the result of the case, or in instances where the
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused Herson evidence fails to support or substantiate the lower court's
Naag y Lobas is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable findings and conclusions, or where the disputed decision is
based on a misapprehension of facts.5 This case does not fall for at 4 o'clock in the morning, she would have just wanted
under any of the exceptions. Hence, there is no reason for us to go home and rest in the comfort of her bed.
to modify the factual findings of the lower court.
We are not persuaded. Desiree could not have failed to
Even then, the appellant raises two points in support of his recognize the appellant because she was the victim of the
assignment of error designed to sow in our minds seeds of assault. A truism founded on ordinary experience is that
doubt. The first relates to the medical evidence on record victims of criminal, violence often strive hard to recognize
while the second deals with his identity. their assailants.10 Furthermore, a victim has a natural knack
in remembering the face of an assailant for she, more than
The appellant capitalizes, firstly, on Dr. Bartilet's testimony anybody else, would be interested in bringing the malefactor
on the absence of fresh injury on the private part of the to justice.11 On the other hand, it would be unnatural for
offended party although she was examined almost someone who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse
immediately after the assault. According to him, the findings somebody other than the real culprit.12
of said medical expert negate the charge of rape. On the
other hand, the prosecution contends that the lack of injury To be sure, Desiree was very emphatic in her identification of
and the healed laceration could be attributed to the sexual the appellant as her assailant, thus:
intercourse she had with her boyfriend.
"Court: Now that person Herson Naag, how is he related
The appellant's argument fails to impress. It is to be noted to the accused in this case?
that Dr. Bartilet herself explained that her findings did not
eliminate the possibility of sexual intercourse. She opined Desiree : He is the one and same person who raped and
that it must have been done "only outside the vagina: but robbed me.
within the external vulva by merely pushing and giving some Q: You said it was the first time you saw the accused on
force to it."6 She added that the appellant could have January 8, 1996. It was still dark is (sic) it not?
ejaculated and discharged semen on the external genitalia
even without penetrating into the vagina. A: It was bright at the centro.

In rape cases, what is material is that there is penetration of Q: But it was not in park (sic) he was sleeping at that
the female organ no matter how slight.7 In a long line of time in his tricycle. Is it not? (sic)
decisions, we have ruled that the only essential point is to
prove the entrance or at least the introduction of the male A: It was bright because there were lights.
organ into the labia of the pudendum.8 Hence, the moment Q: But you saw him only once on Jan. 8, 1996. How were
the accused's penis knocks at the door of the pudenda it you able to recognize him in the Municipal building when you
suffices to constitute the crime of rape.9 were asked to identify him after one month, being detained?
The appellant next assails the identification made by Desiree. A: As I have said, I can never forget his face."13
He contends that it was still dark at the time of the incident.
He argues that when people board a tricycle, they do not Moreover, Desiree should have no difficulty in identifying the
usually focus their attention on the driver. He states that the appellant because when she first approached him at the
identity of the driver could be the least of Desiree's concern
centro to hire his services, the place was bright and well- A: The policeman told me to identify the person in the
lighted. ID.

The appellant further argues that Desiree's initial Q: Were you told that the owner of the ID was
identification of him through his picture is unreliable apprehended for violation of traffic law?
considering the physical and emotional state she was in at
that time. It is urged that due to her physical and mental A: No, Sir. I was just asked to identify him.
instability, the showing of the student permit must have Q: After the ID was shown to you that was the time when
generated a prejudice ill her mind that "the person shown in you also gave them the description of the person, is (sic) it
the picture of the driver's ID is the one who assaulted her."14 not?
The argument proceeds from a wrong assumption. It A: No, Sir. It was on Jon. 8,1996 when I gave the
assumes that the picture was shown before the victim gave description of the tricycle driver."16
the description to the police. It was the other way around.
Thus: We shall now ascertain the nature and extent of the criminal
responsibility of the appellant. The issue is whether the crime
"Court: Have you seen him in that parking area before committed by him is Robbery with Rape or the two separate
January 8, 1996? felonies of Robbery and Rape.
Desiree : No, your honor. In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true
Q: Now, while you were in the Hospital you said that an intent of the accused must first be determined because it is
ID was shown to you and the picture of a person and whose his intent that determines the offense he has committed. This
picture you recognize to be that of a person who raped you. Court in People vs. Dinolo,17 citing the cases of People vs.
Who showed you that picture? Conostre18 and People vs. Foigono,19 held:

A: The Police Officer. "x x x if the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape was
committed even before the asportation, the crime is robbery
Q: How come that the Policeman was able to go to Albay with rape. But if the original plan was to rape but the accused
Provincial Hospital with that ID? after committing the rape also committed the robbery when
the opportunity presented itself, the offense should be
A: Because when they interviewed me in the hospital, viewed as separate and distinct. To be liable for the complex
I gave them the description of the accused and his tricycle."15 crime of robbery with rape the intent to take personal
The point is made more explicit during Desiree's cross- property of another must precede the rape."
examination: We must ascertain the force which moved the appellant when
"Atty. Gomez (continuing on cross-examination) he employed violence and intimidation against the person of
Desiree. It is true that the appellant raped Desiree before she
Q: Now, on that date Jan. 9, 1996 were you told by the was dispossessed of her personal properties. This, however,
policemen that the person whose ID was shown to you was is not decisive. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code does
one of their suspects? not distinguish whether the rape was committed before,
during or after the robbery. It suffices that the robbery was We disagree, however, on the ruling of the trial court that the
accompanied by rape.20 appellant is guilty of robbery. He should only be convicted of
theft because, when he took the personal properties of
We agree with the conclusion of the trial court that rape was Desiree, the element of violence and intimidation was no
the primary intent of the appellant and his taking away of the longer present. While it is true that he inflicted force upon her
belongings of the victim was only a mere afterthought. person, that was with the view and in pursuance of the rape,
Although the trial court did not state the reasons for its ruling, not of the taking. When the asportation happened, Desiree
there exists sufficient evidence on record from where such was near lifeless, incapable of putting any form of opposition.
deduction can be made.
The penalty for theft is determined by the value of the
First. It is obvious from the degree and character of the property taken. Under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code,
violence and intimidation which the appellant employed (and any person guilty of theft shall be punished by "the penalty
when he employed it) upon Desiree that his intent was to of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if
rape her. He applied such force as to render her resistance to the value of the thing stolen is more than 200 pesos but does
his lust inutile. The kind of force used was unnecessary if he not exceed 6,000 pesos." Applying the Indeterminate
only planned to rob Desiree. On the other hand, the excessive Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be meted out on the
force was clearly meant to attain his lustful scheme. appellant Naag should be anywhere within the range of 2
Resultantly, when he finally forced his bestial desire on her, months and 1 day to 6 months of arresto mayor; and the
he was able to traverse, in a manner of speaking, the path of maximum should be within the range of 6 months and 1 day
least resistance. to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional. Considering
Second. The appellant transported Desiree from where he that no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the
first mauled her to an abandoned place. All the time that commission of the crime, the appellant should be sentenced
Desiree was helpless after her mauling, appellant did not to an indeterminate prison term of 4 months and 21 days of
concern himself with robbing Desiree even if he could have arresto mayor maximum as the minimum, to 1 year, 8
done so with ease if not with impunity. Instead, he months and 21 days of prision correccional as the maximum.
preoccupied himself in finding a location more suited, nay, IN VIEW WHEREOF, the impugned decision is hereby
comfortable, for his plan of lying, with her. Needless to say, MODIFIED. The accused-appellant Herson Naag y Lobas
an abandoned house fits well. is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Lastly, at no time did the appellant ask for the belongings of RAPE under Article 335 (1) of the Revised Penal Code as
Desiree. Neither did he search her for valuables, except for amended, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
the wallet in her pants. What is apparent is that he only: (1) of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory
took her watch and bracelet, both easily seen and noticeable, penalties thereto appertaining, to pay Desiree Gollena
and (2) fled with her bag which was already in the tricycle. P50,000.00 as, indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral
These overt acts only indicate that he decided to take Desiree damages.
' s belongings as an afterthought and only when the The accused-appellant Herson Naag y Lobas is also found
opportunity presented itself. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the separate crime of
THEFT under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and
taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law, properties: one (1) colored T.V., one (1) VHS, assorted
he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment jewelries, one (1) alarm clock and one (1) radio cassette, all
of 4 months and 21 days of arresto mayor maximum as the valued at SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) owned by
minimum, to 1 year, 8 months and 21 days of prision the said Rosita Quilates, and that on the same occasion, the
correccional as the maximum, and to return the ladies said accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one
wristwatch worth P600.00, bracelet worth Pl,500.00, bag of another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
clothes worth P500.00 or their total value of P2,600.00 if feloniously have sexual intercourse with Maribeth Bolito
return cannot be made and the cash of Pl,800.00. Costs against her will to the damage and prejudice of the
against the accused. aforenamed victims.

SO ORDERED. 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


G.R. No. 130650 September 10, 2002 remain at large. Only Mario Verceles, Felix Corpuz and Jerry
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Soriano were brought to the jurisdiction of the court. During
MARIO VERCELES, FELIX CORPUZ, MAMERTO SORIANO arraignment, the three accused, duly assisted by counsel,
(At large), PABLO RAMOS (At large), and JERRY pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, the
SORIANO (State Witness), accused, prosecution filed a motion to discharge accused Jerry Soriano
MARIO VERCELES and FELIX CORPUZ, accused- as a State Witness. The court proceeded with the trial of the
appellants. case pending the resolution of the said motion to
discharge.1âwphi1.nêt
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The trial court subsequently discharged accused Jerry
Accused Mario Verceles alias "Baldog", Felix Corpuz, Mamerto Soriano and received his testimony as state witness.
Soriano alias "Merto", Pablo Ramos and Jerry Soriano were According to Soriano, on October 18, 1996, the five accused
charged with the crime of Robbery with Rape committed as boarded a tricycle owned by Mario Verceles to visit his cousin
follows: in barangay Goliso, located at the boundary of Urbiztondo. At
8:00 in the evening, they proceeded to barangay Malibong to
That on or about the 19th day of October, 1996, in the visit Pepe, a compadre of Mamerto Soriano. Before reaching
morning, in barangay Malibong, municipality of Urbiztondo, Pepe’s place, they stopped at the house of Jerry’s
province of Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction grandmother, Rosita Quilates. Jerry sensed that his
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, companions had an evil plan, so he and Pablo Ramos tried to
conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with leave. However, Mamerto Soriano poked a gun at Jerry and
intent of gain and by means of force upon things, entered the told them not to leave. Then, they tied Jerry and Pablo under
house of one Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the a mango tree. The three proceeded to the house of Rosita
grills of the window which they used as an ingress and once Quilates. While waiting for the three, Jerry and Pablo fell
inside, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and asleep. When they woke up at 2:00 a.m., they saw the three
feloniously take and cart away the following personal accused carrying a TV set, VHS and other things. They helped
the three load the items in the tricycle. Then they went home - Result : Negative for sperm
to San Jacinto, Pangasinan. Several days later, they sold the
items and Jerry was given three hundred pesos.2 SPO2 Eduardo Fernandez, who investigated the robbery,
The prosecution witness Maribeth Bolito testified that on testified that the malefactors entered through the window of
October 19, 1996 at around 2:00 in the morning, she was one of the bedrooms of the house; that they took personal
awakened by a man fondling her breast and other private properties valued at P60,000.00; that Maribeth Bolito was
parts. She tried to resist and fight back but her strength sexually abused; and that a necklace was recovered from
proved too weak against her aggressor. Furthermore, the Felix Corpuz.5
man had a gun pointed at her head. She later identified her Mrs. Rosita Quilates testified that she learned from her
aggressor as Mamerto Soriano. While she was being granddaughter, Maribeth Bolito, that her house was robbed
ravished, she saw two men standing at the door, whom she and her personal belongings were missing; and that she was
identified as accused Mario Verceles and Felix Corpuz. able to recover the properties from a certain Andres Tirano,
Soriano undressed her then kissed her on the body and who bought them from accused Mamerto Soriano.
fondled her breasts for five minutes. She pretended to be
thirsty, so Soriano, holding her tightly, brought her to the In their defense, Felix Corpuz testified that on October 19,
kitchen. There he removed his pants and laid her on the floor 1996, he was in Manila working as a carpenter in a
and tried to insert his penis inside her vagina. Maribeth lost construction firm. He stayed in Manila from October 5, 1996,
consciousness and when she came to, her private part was and did not visit his hometown until the completion of the job
very painful and the three accused were gone.3 contract on October 27, 1996. He first learned that he was a
suspect in a crime on November 3, 1996.6
Dra. Revelina Millan, who examined Maribeth on October 20,
1996, made the following findings:4 Ernesto Lambino, Jr. corroborated the testimony of Felix
Corpuz. He testified that he was the one who recruited Felix
- GO IMP : September 2nd week/96 to work in Tambo, Rizal, Parañaque as a mason carpenter.
They arrived in Manila on October 5, 1996 and Felix started
3 days his work on October 6, 1996 until October 26, 1996.7

- SKIN : No hematoma Accused Mario Verceles, for his part, testified that in the
evening of October 18, 1996, he attended the wake of
No Abrasion Crispulo de Guzman at Barangay San Vicente, San Jacinto,
Pangasinan. There he played cards up to 4:00 a.m. of
- IE : with healed laceration at 9 o’clock October 19, 1996. He left the place at 5:00 a.m. He only
position 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
- For vaginal smear for presence of spermatozoa 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 The requirements for the discharge and utilization of an
portion of which reads:9 accused as a state witness are enumerated in Rule 119,
Section 1712 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, viz:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds
accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles guilty beyond a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape defined accused whose discharge is requested;
and penalized under Article 294, 1, as amended, of the
Revised Penal Code, and there being neither mitigating nor b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper
aggravating circumstance, the Court hereby sentences each prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony
to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Both Felix Corpuz of the accused;
and Mario Verceles are likewise ordered to pay jointly and c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially
solidarily the victim Maribeth Bolito the sum of Two Hundred corroborated in its material points;
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) for moral damages, One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) for exemplary d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
damages and to pay Rosita Quilates the sum of Twenty One
Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) on the value of the properties e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any
which were not recovered and further orders that the offense involving moral turpitude.
recovered TV, VHS appliances and necklace be returned to its The trial court did not err in discharging Jerry Soriano to be
lawful owner. utilized as a state witness. First, the testimony of Jerry
SO ORDERED. Soriano was absolutely necessary as the prosecution has no
direct evidence to prove the identity of the malefactors
Accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles interposed the Mamerto Soriano, Felix Corpuz, Mario Verceles and Pablo
instant appeal. They alleged that the trial court erred in Ramos. The record reveals that the five accused were
discharging Jerry Soriano as a state witness, in appreciating together on the night the robbery and rape took place. He
conspiracy among the accused, in not considering as may not have witnessed the actual robbery and rape, but he
mitigating circumstance the voluntary surrender of Mario has personal knowledge of the robbery when he saw the
Verceles, and in awarding damages to the private three accused return to the place where he and Pablo Ramos
complainants. were allegedly tied, carrying with them the properties said to
have been stolen. Second, Jerry Soriano’s testimony was
The appeal lacks merit. corroborated in its material points by other prosecution
Accused-appellants contend that the discharge of Jerry witnesses and physical evidence. These are: (a) the
Soriano did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of testimony of Maribeth Bolito that there were three
Court. They contend that Soriano’s testimony does not malefactors, one of whom sexually abused her and two of
constitute direct evidence; at most, it was circumstantial in whom just stood at the door; (b) the testimony of Rosita
nature and of minuscule importance. 10 Moreover, Jerry Quilates that her properties were stolen; and (c) the
Soriano was the most guilty for he admitted his guilt with testimony of SPO2 Renato Solomon that they were able to
regard to the commission of the crime together with Mamerto recover the stolen properties from a certain Andres Tirano
Soriano.11 who bought them from accused Mamerto Soriano. Lastly,
Jerry Soriano does not appear to be the most guilty for he of hearing the witnesses testify and observing their
was not a co-conspirator in the robbery with rape. He merely deportment and manner of testifying.16
accompanied the accused and received three hundred pesos
as his share in the proceeds of the sale of the stolen We agree with the trial court that conspiracy has been
properties. Besides, the question of whether Jerry Soriano sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Accused-appellants
appears to be the most guilty is a factual issue. The were one in design with accused Mamerto Soriano in taking
discretionary judgment of the trial court on this matter is personal properties belonging to others without the latter’s
seldom interfered with by appellate court except in case of consent by breaking one of the windows to be used as their
grave abuse of discretion.13 We find no good reason to disturb ingress. In the course of the robbery, one of them,
the trial court’s findings of facts. particularly Mamerto Soriano, succumbed to lustful desires
and raped Maribeth Bolito while accused-appellants just
Granting ex gratia argumenti that not all the requisites of a stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Mamerto
valid discharge are present, the improper discharge of an Soriano. We have previously ruled that once conspiracy is
accused will not render inadmissible his testimony nor detract established between two accused in the commission of the
from his competency as a witness. Any witting or unwitting crime of robbery, they would be both equally culpable for the
error of the prosecution in asking for the discharge, and of rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the
the court in granting the petition, no question of jurisdiction robbery, unless any of them proves that he endeavored to
being involved, cannot deprive the discharged accused of the prevent the other from committing the rape.17 The rule in this
acquittal provided by the Rules, and of the constitutional jurisdiction is that whenever a rape is committed as a
guarantee against double jeopardy.14 consequence, or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who
took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of
On the matter of whether rape was committed, we agree with robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in the
the trial court’s ruling that neither the healed lacerations on rape.18
the vagina of the victim nor the absence of spermatozoa
negates rape. When an alleged victim of rape says she was In trying to mitigate his criminal liability, accused-appellant
violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that Mario Verceles argued that the trial court erred in not
rape had been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony considering the circumstance of voluntary surrender in his
meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted favor. Upon learning that police authorities were searching
on the basis thereof.15 for him in connection with the alleged crime, he immediately
proceeded to the barangay captain of his place and
In the case at bar, the victim’s declaration of her sexual voluntarily surrendered himself. However, the Solicitor
ordeal, which was given in a straightforward, convincing, General argues that the surrender of accused-appellant Mario
credible and satisfactory manner, shows no other intention Verceles was not voluntary and spontaneous for it took him
than to obtain justice for the wrong committed by accused- 16 days to show up from the commission of the crime on
appellant Mamerto Soriano against her. The Court finds no October 19, 1996 to November 4, 1996.19
reason to depart from the rule that the trial court’s evaluation
of the credibility of the testimonies of the witnesses is For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be
accorded great weight because it has the unique opportunity 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 of one or more aggravating circumstances.27 As regards the
agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. There must be a value of the properties belonging to Rosita Quilates that were
showing of spontaneity and an intent to surrender not recovered, the records are bereft of any evidence to
unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused support such claim. Lastly, Maribeth Bolito should have been
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to spare them the trouble awarded the sum of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity, as it is
and expense concomitant to his capture.20 Voluntary mandatory upon a conviction of rape. Such indemnity is
surrender is not a mitigating circumstance where it appears distinct from moral damages and based on different jural
that the purpose of the accused in going to the authorities is foundations.28
for an entirely different matter as to inquire merely about a
warrant of arrest in connection with a pending case against WHEREFORE, the assailed decision finding accused-
the accused for rape.21 appellants Mario Verceles and Felix Corpuz guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape punished
Evidence shows that Mario Verceles’ surrender to the under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code and
authorities was not spontaneous and unconditional. He sentencing them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua,
submitted himself to the police only to clear the matter and is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of
to know the reason why the police were looking for him22 and moral damages is reduced from P200,000.00 to P50,000.00;
when asked what his involvement was to the alleged robbery the award of exemplary damages is DELETED for lack of
and rape, he answered that he does not know anything about basis and the sum of P50,000.00 is awarded for civil
the crime.23 In People v. Abella,24 we held that when the indemnity.
accused goes to a police station merely to clear his name and
not to give himself up, voluntary surrender may not be SO ORDERED.
appreciated. On the basis of the foregoing, accused-appellant
Mario Verceles is not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.1âwphi1.nêt

We thus hold that accused-appellant’s defense of alibi and United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
denial cannot overcome Maribeth Bolito’s positive testimony
that she was raped and that her grandmother’s house was UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laura
robbed, especially since this was substantially corroborated SALGADO and Daniel Pacheco-Gonzales, Defendants-
by the other prosecution witnesses. Time-honored is the rule Appellants.
that the positive and categorical assertions of witnesses Nos. 07-2163, 07-2393.
generally prevail over bare denials.25
Decided: March 17, 2008
In line with established jurisprudence,26 we are constrained
to modify the award of moral damages from P200,000.00 to Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and WOOD,
P50,000.00, as this award is not intended to enrich the victim Circuit Judges.Renai Scherri Rodney (argued), Office of the
but to compensate for her suffering. Moreover, the trial court United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
committed a reversible error when it awarded exemplary William H. Theis, Office of the Public Defender Program, Gary
damages in the amount of P100,000.00 despite the absence J. Ravitz (argued), Ravitz & Palles, Chicago, IL, for
Defendant-Appellant, Daniel Pacheco-Gonzales. William H. such person of mail matter, or of any money, or other
Theis (arued), Terence F. MacCarthy, Office of the Federal property of the United States”. But the informant was
Defender Program, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant. empty handed-whether to protect the money from the
informant, or the informant from Pacheco-Gonzales, the
Remberto Juarez offered to buy ten kilograms of cocaine from record does not disclose.
David Elias, who introduced Daniel Pacheco-Gonzales to
Juarez as his supplier. But when Pacheco-Gonzales could The prosecutor insists that lucre is beside the point. The
not come up with the cocaine, he and Elias decided to rob argument runs:  first, an informant is covered by § 2114
Juarez instead. They told Juarez that the cocaine was in because he is on the government's side and needs assurance
hand;  a meeting was arranged;  Elias and Pacheco-Gonzales of safety, and after all he might have been carrying money
hired some aides (including Laura Salgado, who was to drive to buy cocaine;  second, robbers need not know their victim's
the getaway car). Elias, Pacheco-Gonzales, and Salgado, connection to the federal government, see United States v.
plus some henchmen, arrived at the site of the transaction Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975);
and tried to rob Juarez's lieutenant of the purchase money.  third, in a prosecution for attempt, impossibility is no
They learned, to their horror, that both sides of this defense, see United States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d 792, 797 (7th
transaction were faking. Juarez was working for the Drug Cir.2000), so the fact that there was no money to steal is
Enforcement Agency;  his lieutenant was an informant;  the irrelevant. The district court's instructions to the jury
site of the transaction was teeming with concealed agents. reflected this understanding. If the first step is right,
Soon Elias, Pacheco-Gonzales, and Salgado were in custody. everything else follows. But is the first step right?

Elias pleaded guilty;  Pacheco-Gonzales and Salgado were The scope of § 2114(a) depends not on who “needs
convicted after separate jury trials. Pacheco-Gonzales has protection” or anything similar, but on what is in the victim's
been convicted of conspiracy to steal money from the United pocket. Any person who has lawful custody of any mail
States, 18 U.S.C. § 371, attempting to rob a person having matter or “any money or other property of the United States”
custody of money belonging to the United States, 18 U.S.C. is covered;  status as a federal employee is unnecessary.
§ 2114(a), and possessing firearms in furtherance of an Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 105 S.Ct. 479, 83
attempted robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). His total L.Ed.2d 472 (1984). But this informant did not carry any
sentence comes to 93 months. Salgado has been convicted mail matter, or any money or property of the United States.
of the conspiracy charge alone;  her sentence is 60 months. So the attempt to rob the informant did not violate §
2114(a). It's really that simple. (This may account for our
The informant (anonymous to protect his safety) was inability to find any opinion of either a district or appellate
supposed to be carrying $170,000 to pay for the cocaine. court addressing the prosecution's theory;  apparently it has
Had that much, or indeed any, cash been in his control, there never been used before.)
would be no problem with the conviction under § 2114(a),
which makes it a crime to assail “any person having lawful If the prosecution were right, then any robbery or attempt to
charge, control, or custody of any mail matter or of any rob anyone, anyplace, anytime, would violate § 2114(a), for
money or other property of the United States, with intent to the person might have been carrying “mail matter”-everyone
rob, steal, or purloin such mail matter, money, or other does, from time to time. It would be implausible to treat §
property of the United States, or robs or attempts to rob any 2114(a) as federalizing the law of robbery. If the DEA wants
to make sure that the robbery or attempted robbery of an weapon or causes bodily injury, but no one fired a gun and
informant can be prosecuted in federal court, it should issue the informant was uninjured.)
a shiny dollar coin to everyone involved in a drug transaction.
Feola holds that knowledge of the victim's status is not an
Most of the prosecutor's presentation is devoted to a parade element of the offense;  it is enough if the victim actually is a
of horribles rather than an analysis of the statutory text. federal employee on official duty or a “person assisting such
Suppose, the brief asks, a gang of robbers descends on a an officer or employee in the performance of such duties”.
post office only to find that the day's receipts had just been We asked at oral argument if it would be possible to
shipped out. How absurd to say that such an attempted prosecute under § 111 for attempt when the victim was not
robbery could be prosecuted only in state court! Doubtless a federal employee on duty (or assisting one), on the theory
there is a substantial federal interest in prosecuting that impossibility is no defense. The prosecutor allowed that
attempted robberies of post offices, but it isn't necessary to the victim must be an on-duty federal employee (or assisting
stretch § 2114(a) to that end. Another statute, 18 U.S.C. one);  otherwise § 111 turns into an all-purpose assault
§ 2115, covers post offices whether or not they have cash statute covering everyone in the United States. Yet § 111
on hand. Likewise the robbery or attempted robbery of any has the same structure as § 2114(a):  the statute identifies
federal employee acting in the course of his duties is within a covered person by that person's relation to the national
the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 111, whether or not the employee government, then makes it a crime to take certain acts
is carrying cash or any other federal asset. concerning that protected person. Just as federal
employment or assistance is essential to coverage under §
Section 111, the law at issue in Feola, is worth a look, 111, so possession of mail or federal property is essential
because it tells us something about how § 2114(a) works. under § 2114(a).
Section 111(a) provides for punishment of “Whoever-(1)
forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or Because the prosecutor concedes that the informant was
interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this not carrying any money or other property belonging to the
title while engaged in or on account of the performance of United States, Pacheco-Gonzales is entitled to be acquitted
official duties”. Section 1114 in turn identifies “any officer of the charge under § 2114(a). He does not contest his
or employee of the United States or of any agency in any firearms conviction under § 924(c)(1)(A). That leaves the
branch of the United States Government (including any conspiracy count, on which both Salgado and Pacheco-
member of the uniformed services) while such officer or Gonzales were convicted. It charges that Elias, Pacheco-
employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of Gonzales, and Salgado conspired “to rob a person having
official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or lawful charge of money of the United States, by means of
employee in the performance of such duties or on account of force and violence and by intimidation, in violation of Title 18,
that assistance”. So Pacheco-Gonzales might have been United States Code, Section 2114(a).” Lest this seem to fall
prosecuted under § 111 for intimidating the informant- with the § 2114 conviction, the prosecutor observes that the
though we could not find any case discussing whether § conspiracy is the agreement itself and precedes any overt
1114 makes such a prosecution possible-but the maximum act, so that it does not matter whether the conspirators
penalty would have been one year in prison. (Section 111(b) succeed in fulfilling their objective. Just as it does not
raises the maximum to 20 years if the assailant uses a deadly matter that a bank that conspirators planned to rob turned
out to lack deposit insurance, see United States v. Shively,
715 F.2d 260, 266-67 (7th Cir.1983), so it is irrelevant that commit a crime against the United States, though in the
the informant turned out to be empty handed, the argument event they managed to commit one. Pacheco-Gonzales and
concludes. Salgado neither agreed to steal money from the United
States (for they did not know that the person posing as the
By emphasizing that the crime of conspiracy is the agreement buyer was an informant) nor succeeded in doing so (for the
rather than the completed offense, see United States v. informant was not carrying any of the DEA's cash). Both
Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 115 S.Ct. 382, 130 L.Ed.2d 225 the conspiracy and the attempted robbery could have been
(1994);  United States v. Lechuga, 994 F.2d 346 (7th prosecuted under state law;  the attempted robbery also
Cir.1993) (en banc), the prosecutor avoids one problem (that might have been prosecuted under § 111. The only federal
the informant's pockets were empty) at the cost of another. crime Pacheco-Gonzales succeeded in committing involved
For there is no evidence that the conspirators agreed “to rob improper possession of firearms.
a person having lawful charge of money of the United States”.
That's the last thing they wanted to do. Had they known The difficulty that the prosecutor has encountered in this case
that Juarez was leading them into a trap, they would not have and a handful of others, such as United States v. Radomski,
planned a robbery. What Elias, Pacheco-Gonzales, and 473 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.2007), comes from the fact that there
Salgado agreed to do was to rob someone who they believed is no federal statute directly addressing theft of money in the
to be a private actor. course of a drug transaction. One statute, 18 U.S.C. §
2118, deals with the theft of drugs, but only when the victim
At this point the prosecution again invokes Feola and argues had lawful possession of them. Sometimes piggyback
that plotters need not foresee the federal link to the person jurisdiction will supply a means to prosecute in federal court;
they set out to rob. That takes Feola too far. The Supreme  repeated thefts of drugs or drug money, in violation of state
Court stressed in Feola that the elements of the § 111 law, could establish a pattern of racketeering that supports a
offense do not include the assailant's knowledge of the federal conviction under RICO. See, e.g., United States v.
victim's employment status. But the elements of a Moore, 363 F.3d 631 (7th Cir.2004). An unfulfilled promise
conspiracy offense do include knowing what makes the to deliver drugs, if made by phone, might support a charge
planned activity criminal. If three people agree to rob a of wire fraud (we need not decide whether it would). But
building thinking it to be a drug store, the fact that the store Elias and Pacheco-Gonzales were not professional thieves;
turns out to contain a postal counter does not make them  they just thought they saw an opportunity for one big score,
guilty of conspiring to rob a post office. If the conspirators and the indictment does not allege that they used phones or
appear and rob the postal substation, they have committed mails to deceive Juarez. Congress may, or may not, think
the substantive offense under § 2115 but not (retroactively) that there ought to be a federal law covering what Elias and
a conspiracy to rob the postal station. The crime of Pacheco-Gonzales set out to do. Existing federal criminal
conspiracy is committed, or not, before the substantive crime laws don't cover the subject, and it is an important norm of
begins. the criminal process that federal courts do not bend the
So too if three people plan to steal the money to be used in statutes on the books to criminalize acts just because of a
a drug deal:  if the buyer turns out to have money of the belief that they ought to be forbidden.
United States, the robbers violate § 2114(a) but not § 371, Salgado's conviction is reversed. Pacheco-Gonzales's
the conspiracy statute, for they did not agree ex ante to convictions under § 371 and § 2114 are reversed;  his
sentence under § 924 is vacated, and the case is remanded Upon arraignment all of the defendants plead guilty, and as
for imposition of a sentence appropriate now that the § 924 to the defendant Santiago Rubi (alias Santiago Lucero) and
offense is the sole conviction. the appellant, as principal, each was sentenced to ten years
and one day of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties,
EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge. and to pay one-fourth of the costs. The defendant Juan Tubog
was sentenced to five months and ten days of arresto mayor.
From this judgment the defendant Florencio Postrero appeals
without assigning any error.
G.R. No. L-26284 November 17, 1926

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-


appellee, vs. JUAN TUBOG, ET AL., defendants. JOHNS, J.:
FLORENCIO POSTRERO (alias Dionisio Castreto),
appellant. His attorney de oficio in his brief says:

Eulalio Chaves for appellant. That after a careful study of the case, the undersigned
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee. attorney de oficio finds that the penalty imposed by the trial
court is in accordance with the law, and, therefore,
STATEMENT recommends that same be confirmed.

This is an appeal by the defendant Florencio Postrero (alias The Attorney-General says that the penalty is in accord with
Dionicio Castrero) from a judgment of the Court of First the provisions of article 508 of the Penal Code. He then cites
Instance of Bohol finding him and his co-defendants guilty of the decision of this court in People vs. Callueg, G. R. No.
the crime of robbery. The information is as follows: 19939, promulgated on September 15, 1923, 1 in which in the
opinion written by the present Chief Justice, it is said:
That on or about June 22, 1926, in the muncilipality of Jagna,
Province of Bohol, Philippine Islands, and within the It is not alleged in the information that the house where the
jurisdiction of this court, the above-named defendants did robbery was committed was inhabited. The crime of robbery
willingly and criminally, with intent of gain and through force in an inhabited house is different from that of robbery in an
upon things, conspiring and armed with weapons, did take, unihabited house, and the penalty prescribed by law for the
steal and carry away the iron safe "Safe Thomas Perry & Son, one and the other is also different, the penalty for the latter
Bilston" containing the sum of P1,930 and other articles in crime being less severe. While the evidence shows that the
the store, said defendants having broken the lock of one of house in question was inhabited yet as this circumstance is
the doors of the store and a part of the safe for the purpose not alleged in the information, we can only convict the
of opening the same, and the defendant Juan Tubog as defendant in accordance with the terms of the information
accessory after the fact. considering the robbery as committed in an uninhabited
house.
Contrary to law.
Therefore the judgment appealed from is modified, and the broken into the effect that it was an inhabited house, public
defendant is sentenced, under article 512 of the Penal Code, building or edifice "by alleging that it was the tienda of the
to one year and one day, prisidio correccional, and in addition Chinaman Go Bongco." That opinion was signed by Arellano,
to pay the indemnity imposed in the judgment appealed Chief Justice, and Justices Torres, Trent, and Carson. Justice
from, with costs. Johnson concurred in the result Justice Auraullo wrote a very
forcible dissenting opinion. In that case, the information
The Attorney-General then says that in the instant case, the specifically charged the commission of the crime of robbery
information does not allege that the store in which the as defined and penalized in article 508, and that it was
robbery was committed was inhabited at the time of the committed in the tienda of a Chinaman by forcibly breaking
commission of the crime, and that for want of which, the with arms the wall of the building.
penalty should be imposed under article 512 of the Penal
Code. In the instant case, the appellant is not specifically charged
with a violation of article 508, and the information alleges
Article 508 is as follows: that the entrance was made by breaking "the lock of one of
Any armed person who shall commit a robbery in an inhabited the doors of the store." The fact that entrance was made in
house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship that manner clearly implies and carries with it the further fact
shall suffer a penalty ranging from presidio mayor in its that there was no person inside the store at the time the lock
medium degree to cadena temporal in its minimum degree . was broken, and that the defendants had to break the lock to
... get into the store.

It will be noted that the language thus used is confined and In a criminal statute the word "store" was a well-defined legal
limited to "a robbery in an inhabited house." It will also be meaning, which is clearly distinguished from the meaning of
noted that in the instant case, the robbery was "in the store the words "an inhabited place."
of the Chinaman Jo Ebe, who is the owner of the safe," and Words and Phrases, vol. 7, page 6672, it is said:
that it is alleged "said defendants having broken the lock of
one of the doors of the store." That is to say, the information "Said" is defined by Webster as any place where goods are
alleges that the crime was committed "in the store" through sold, either by wholesale or retail.
the breaking of "the lock of one of the doors of the store,"
and the information does not allege that the store was used "Store" is defined by Worcester as a building or room in which
or occupied as "an inhabited house." It does not even allege goods of any kind are kept for sale, and especially for the sale
that the store is attached to, connected with, or a part of, "an of goods.
inhabited house." The question is thus presented as to The word "store" as applied to a building is intended to
whether the word "store" is "an inhabited house," within the designate a place where traffic is carried on in goods, wares
meaning of article 508. and merchandise.
In the United States vs. Vega (31 Phil., 450), this court held: Page 6673.
An information which charges the commission of a crime
under paragraphs 2 and 4, of article 508, of the Penal Code, The use of the word "store" in an indictment changing
is sufficiently explicit as to the character of the building breaking into a store is not sufficient to show the breaking
and entering of a building, in violation of a statute making SO ORDERED.
the breaking of certain designated buildings and other
buildings criminal, but which does not include stores among
the buildings specially enumerated. (Commonwealth vs. G.R. No. L-1339 November 28, 1903
Monagle, 1 Mass., 517.)
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PEDRO
Defining "an inhabited building," the same author in vol. 4 MAGSINO, defendant-appellant.
page 3604, says:
Perfecto Gabriel for appellant. Solicitor-General Araneta for
Any building which has usually been occupied by any person appellee.
lodging therein at night is an "inhabited building.
COOPER, J.:
An "inhabited building" is any building, any part of which has
usually been occupied by any person lodging therein at night. The defendant, Pedro Magsino, is charged with the offense of
robbery committed in the following manner:
It is a matter of more or less common knowledge that many
Chinese use and occupy a tienda or store as a dwelling. Even Mariano Dy-Seng, a Chinaman, loaded at the railway station
so, that custom is largely confined to that particular class of in the town of Angeles, on August 27, 1902, 70 pilones of
people, and is largely confined to that particular class of sugar to be shipped to Manila. As soon as the merchandise
people, and is not in general use among all classes. was invoiced, it was shipped with the knowledge and
intervention of the station master Geronimo Manalo on the
For failure of the information to allege that the store was used car K, No. 300, on the 29th of the same month. When the car
occupied as "an unhabitted place" at the time of the arrived at Manila it contained only 36 pilones of sugar, 34
commission of the crime, the contention of the Attorney- pilones of the amount shipped by Dy-Seng being lacking; that
General must be sustained. lawphil.net the accused, Pedro Magsino, agent at the said station,
As the law now exists, the penalty for the commission of abstracted by force by unnailing the strips of cloth used to
robbery committed in "an inhabited place" comes under seal up the door of the car which contained the said sugar,
article 508, and the penalty for the commission of that crime and that, after the abstraction, again fastened the door of the
in a store, standing alone and within itself comes under the car.
provisions of article 512 which provides: The defendant was convicted on October 1, 1902, and was
Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in any sentenced to the penalty of one year and ten months of
building other than those mentioned in paragraph one of presidio correccional, with the accessories of article 58 of the
article five hundred and eight shall be punished by presidio Penal Code, and was adjudged to make restitution to Mariano
correccional in its medium and maximum degrees, etc. Dy-Seng of 34 pilones of sugar, or to pay to the latter the
sum of $246.50, with its value, and, in case of insolvency, to
For such reasons, the penalty of the lower court is modified the corresponding subsidiary punishment at the rate of one
and reduced, and the defendant is sentenced to four years, day for each 12 ½ pesetas, and to the payment of costs. The
nine months, and ten days of presidio correccional, and in all defendant appeals from this judgment.
other respects, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is contended by counsel for the defendant: (1) That the the right of the defendant upon the merits, no judgment
court erred in permitting Geronimo Manalo, station master of having been rendered in favor of such intervening party.
the railway company, to prosecute the case, the party injured
being the Chinaman Dy-Seng; (2) that the proof is II. The next assignment of error — that is, that the evidence
insufficient to show that the defendant had any participation is insufficient to show the participation of the defendant in
in the abstraction of the sugar, either as author, accomplice, the taking of the sugar — will require a review of the
or encubridor, and (3) that the court erred in qualifying the evidence.
offense as robbery, the facts charged in the complaint It appears that the defendant, Magsino, was an employee and
consisting in the act of unnailing and renailing the strip of agent of the railway company at the station of Angeles; that
cloth placed over the door as a seal, this act being not the Chinaman Mariano Dy-Seng, on August 28, 1902, carried
included within the provisions of article 512 of the Penal to the station 70 pilones of sugar, which was loaded under
Code. the direction of the defendant as such agent, in a freight car,
I. As to the first objection — that is, that the injured party for shipment to Manila. Mariano Dy-Seng, as the shipper,
was the Chinaman, Dy-Seng, and that Geronimo Manalo, the sealed the car after it was loaded by placing upon the door a
station master, should not have been permitted to prosecute strip of cloth, the customary way of sealing a freight-car door,
the case — it is sufficient to say that the information was the defendant at the time being near by. The defendant, as
signed by the provincial fiscal and the prosecution was agent of the company, then issued a certificate to Dy-Seng
conducted by him in the court below. The case cited by to the effect that the car contained 70 pilones of sugar of the
counsel, the United States vs. The Municipality of Santa Cruz, weight of 7,000 kilos. The sugar was shipped and invoiced to
1
is not applicable here. In the case cited the prosecution was Chua-Koko in Manila. When the car reached San Fernando
not carried on by the provincial fiscal, but it was instituted Pampanga, en route to Manila, it was again weighed and was
and carried on by the municipality of Santa Cruz, which found to contain but 3,110 kilos, about 36 pilones of the
municipality had no direct interest and was not entitled under sugar. When it reached Manila, it was examined by Chua-
the provisions of section 107 of General Orders, No. 58, as Koko, the consignee, and was found to contain only 36
the person injured, to take part in the prosecution of the pilones of sugar. Dy-Seng examined the car at Manila and
offense and to recover damages for injuries sustained by found that the strip of cloth nailed over the door as a seal had
reason of the same. been broken.

The judgment was rendered in favor of Dy-Seng for the It appears that on August 27 one Espiridion Basilio was
damages resulting from the taking of the 34 pilones of sugar, making some shipments of sugar to Malolos, having shipped
and no judgment has been rendered in favor of Geronimo two cars of 70 pilones each to that station; that he
Manalo. accompanied these shipments to Malolos, and, while at
Malolos on August 29, 1902, one Pedro Sondiango arrived
Where the complaint is signed by the provincial fiscal and the there, having in his charge an invoice of 34 pilones of sugar
prosecution is carried on by the Government, it is sufficient which had been shipped from Angeles to Malolos. This invoice
authority for the prosecution; that others who were not was sent by the defendant, Magsino, to Basilio, with the
entitled to recover damages or carry on the prosecution, request that the latter should assist the former in making the
intervened in the case, is not such error as tends to prejudice sale of the sugar mentioned in the invoice. Basilio answered
saying he did not have time to attend to the sale of the sugar The defendant on cross-examination denied that the 34
for the defendant, on account of his having to leave for pilones of sugar shipped form Angeles to Malolos was his
Manila, and turned over the invoice to a Chinaman, Tomas property, or that he never made any claim to it. He also
Iñiguez, leaving the sugar with him. Basilio, after his return denied the statement of Hilaria de la Cruz, to the effect that
to Angeles, in a conversation with the defendant, asked she returned over to him the 200 pesos, which she testified
defendant where the sugar came from. The defendant replied to having received from the Chinaman Tomas Iñiguez at
that it came from his father, to whom it had been delivered Malolos.
as rent by Tomas Dizon. After the return of Basilio to Angeles,
at the request of the defendant, Basilio sent one Hilaria de la There is attached to the brief of defendant's counsel an
Cruz from Angeles to Malolos to look after the sugar, she affidavit of Hilaria de la Cruz in which she states that her
bearing a letter to the Chinaman Tomas Iñiguez. Upon the testimony on the trial was given at the request of her brother-
presentation of this letter to Tomas Iñiguez at Malolos, he in-law, Espiridion Basilio, that she had also been threatened
delivered to Hilaria 200 pesos as a payment on account of with death by Geronimo Manalo, the station master at
the sugar which had been left in his charge by Basilio. Hilaria Angeles, if she did not testify in the manner in which she did
testified that she returned with the money to Angeles and on the trial of the case and states that it was not true that
there turned it over to the defendant.lawphi1.net she delivered any money to the defendant, Magsino, at any
time on account of the sale of the sugar.
The defendant testified in his own behalf and made the
following statement with reference to the shipment of the 34 This declaration on oath can not be considered in the decision
pilones of sugar from Angeles to Malolos: He stated that in of this case, as it was not delivered at the trial and is not
the course of his duties as agent at the station, whenever the contained in the record, nor would it be entitled to any weight
station master was absent and the merchandise was sent to if considered. Her testimony given in the trial was consistent
the station for loading, he attended to supplying the car; that and has the appearance of being true.
between 6 and 7 o'clock of the morning of August 28, 1902, The following facts in the case seem to be uncontroverted:
Espiridion Basilio requested a car for the loading of some
sugar; that at this hour the station master, Manalo, had not That 34 pilones of the 70 pilones of sugar belonging to Dy-
arrived; that about 7 o'clock in the morning he gave an order Seng, and loaded on the car at Angeles, were taken out of
for the loading of the sugar, and that the car was loaded the car before it reached Manila. This was shown by the
between 9 and 10 o'clock; that on the same day after the testimony of Dy-Seng, who examined the car after it reached
sugar had been loaded, Basilio entered the office and asked Manila, and by testimony that the car was short this amount
him to invoice the sugar, and to this the defendant replied when reweighed en route at San Fernando, Pampanga,; that
that the train was then in sight and that he would send the the exact amount of this shortage was about the same time
invoice to Basilio at Malolos; that Basilio, after leaving $7.06, shipped from Angeles to Malolos, that this shipment to
the amount of freight charges on the car to Malolos, took the Malolos was not made through accident or mistake is shown
train for Malolos; that on the following day the defendant, by the testimony of the defendant, who states that he
seeing Pedro Sondiango in the station, and learning that shipped 34 pilones of sugar from Angeles to Malolos,
Sondiango was going to Malolos, requested him to take the consigned to Basilio, the invoice for which he sent to Basilio
invoice to Basilio. at Malolos by Pedro Sondiango, and by the testimony of
Basilio, who states that he received from the hands of Pedro belonging to him and shipped it to Malolos as a part of the
Sondiango the invoice of the shipment, and by the testimony shipment of Basilio, in the hope, perhaps, of securing the
of Sondiango that the defendant gave him the invoice at cooperation of Basilio in the theft.
Angeles, which he deliver to Basilio at Malolos; that the 34
pilones of sugar were surreptitiously taken may be inferred The testimony is entirely sufficient to fix upon the defendant
from the fact that it was placed in the hands of the Chinaman the crime of abstracting the 34 pilones of sugar belonging to
Tomas Iñiguez for sale, and that both the defendant, who Dy-Seng.
loaded it, and the consignee, Basilio, who received it at III. The only question that remains to be determined is
Malolos, deny any claim to it. whether the offense committed is that of robbery as defined
The opportunity of the defendant for abstracting the sugar and punished by article 512 of the Penal Code or is that or
from the car of Dy-Seng and reshipping it to Malolos was estafa. This article reads as follows:
superior to that of Basilio. In the performance of his duties ART. 512. Robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a
as agent at Angeles the loading of cars was intrusted to the building which is not one of those mentioned in the first
defendant, thus affording him, without suspicion, the paragraph of article 508, if the value of the objects robbed
opportunity of handling the sugar in the car loaded for Dy- should exceed 1,250 pesetas, shall be punished with the
Seng and reloading it on the car sent to Malolos; while, on punishment of presidio correccional in its medium and
the other hand, it is entirely improbable that Basilio could maximum degree, providing that any of the following
have performed this act at the station undiscovered by the circumstances be attendant, among them: Wrongful entry;
employees of the railway company. breaking of walls, roofs, or floors, the forcing of doors,
These circumstances tend strongly to corroborate the wardrobes, etc., coffers, or any other kind of furniture or
testimony of the witnesses who testified against the locked or sealed objects.
defendant. The testimony of Basilio plainly made out the case We think that the car in which the sugar belonging to Dy-
against the defendant. His testimony is direct and positive Seng was loaded came within the meaning of this section of
that he was in Malolos at the time the invoice was sent him, the Penal Code. The word "building" mentioned in article 512
and that it was sent by the defendant with the request that was evidently intended to embrace any kind of structure, not
the sugar be sold for his account. The testimony of Hilaria de mentioned in first paragraph of article 508, used for the
la Cruz was also direct and positive, to the effect that she storage or safe-keeping of personal property.
went to Malolos to make the collection from the Chinaman
Tomas Iñiguez, and collected from him $200 on account of That there was a breaking by force we think is also shown by
the sale of the sugar, and delivered this amount to the the evidence. The car, after being loaded, was by the owner
defendant. of the cargo, Dy-Seng, closed by nailing a strip of cloth over
the door so as to seal it, the customary manner of sealing a
It seems probable that the defendant availed himself of the freight car. Dy-Seng testified that, upon the examination of
confusion which might occur by the shipment at the same the car at Manila, the strip of cloth had been unnailed and
time of a like quantity of sugar belonging to Dy-Seng and again nailed over the door. This was a breaking by force
belonging to Basilio, and, taking advantage of this, within the meaning of the statute.
abstracted from the car of Dy-Seng the 34 pilones of sugar
IV. We think the court also properly applied the aggravating that is, arresto mayor in its minimum and medium degree,
circumstance mentioned in No. 10 of article 10 of the Penal wherefore, the crime falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Code — that is, that it was an act committed with abuse of the municipal court. Over the objection of the city fiscal, who
confidence. It was the duty of the defendant to superintend contended that the phrase "hulled rice" was not within the
the loading of cars, and he availed himself, of the opportunity meaning of the "semilla alimenticia" as used in the Spanish
which this office afforded him for abstracting the sugar. text of the aforesaid article 303 of the Revised Penal Code,
the court sustained the motion with instructions to the fiscal
There was no error committed by the Court of First Instance to file the information in the municipal court. From this order
in the conviction of and in the absence imposed upon the the fiscal appealed to this court.
defendant. The judgment is therefore affirmed, and the costs
of this appeal adjudged against the defendant. The information alleges that the thing stolen consisted of
seven sacks of rice; and the accused contends that from the
definitions given in the Funk and Wagnall's dictionary and in
that of Webster: "The term rice does not only mean hulled
rice but also includes palay, as the seed is locally known, as
G.R. No. L-45749 January 29, 1938 well as the plant itself. If the word rice includes the grain in
its original state without the hull being taken away, then the
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. conclusion is inevitable that "rice" is inclined under the term
ARSENIO MESIAS Y REGALA (alias Arsenio Osias), "semilla alimenticia" or cereal seeds as the appellant puts. .
defendant-appellee. . . It may be that the thing stolen was really hulled rice
Office of the Solicitor General Tuason for appellant. (arroz) but there is nothing in the complaint which shows that
Jesus de Veyra for appellee. fact. The complaint merely alleges that the object stolen was
seven sacks of rice. It may be hulled rice (arroz) or it may be
CONCEPCION, J.: rice seeds ( palay). Under the circumstances, it is submitted
that the doubt should always be resolved in favor of the
The question raised on this appeal has to do with the correct accused."
translation in English of the words "semilla alimenticia" in
speaking of the crime of robbery, defined and penalized in The whole question arises from the translation of the words
article 303 of the Revised Penal Code, corresponding to "semilla alimenticia" used in article 303 of the Revised Penal
article 511 of the old Penal Code. The accused in this case, Code in Spanish into the English word "cereal." The
according to the allegations of the information, entered into translation is evidently incorrect because "cereal" simply
a warehouse by breaking the padlock of the door, and took means grains either of palay, wheat or corn, etc., while the
away seven sacks of rice valued at P42. Before arraignment, words "semilla alimenticia" have a broader meaning,
he filed a motion to dismiss the information, on the allegation inasmuch as "semilla" (seedling) "is a part of the fruit of the
that the seven sacks of rice were cereal within the meaning plant which produces it when it germinates under proper
of this word as it is used in the English text of the Revised condition." (Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 16th edition
Penal Code; therefore, the penalty imposable in this case is of 1936.) And according to Groizard, the commentator on the
that provided in the second to the last paragraph of article Penal Code (volume 6 page 222), "seedling is the immediate
302 in connection with article 303 of the Revised Penal Code; product of the soil." Hulled rice (arroz) is not the immediate
and natural product of the soil, but the product obtained from CASAMPOL, RICHARD ESTREMOS, JORNIE DELA PENA,
unhulled rice ( palay) through the employment of labor. JESUS MACTAN, MARLON CAMPORAZO, FERNANDO
Hulled rice (arroz) is, therefore, not seedling. Flour which is BIRING, MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, JOSEPH
obtained from wheat through the employment of labor, is AURELIO, RONNIE JUEZAN, BERNARDO VILLACARLOS,
likewise not seedling (semilla alimenticia) according to the RICARDO SALES, MARLON ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS
decision of the Supreme Court of the Spain of July 5, 1881, REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH MAYONADO,
published in the Gazette of September 15 ( Vide, 3 Penal JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES, JOLLY
Code, 4th edition, page 400).1ªvvphïl.nët CABALLERO and ROPLANDO ARCENAS, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF
In cases of doubt in the interpretation of the Revised Penal THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Code, the Spanish text should prevail (People vs. Samonte,
G. R. No. 36559, July 26, 1932).

In conclusion, inasmuch as hulled rice (arroz) cannot be PUNO, J.:


considered as seedling (semilla alimenticia), the offense with
which the appellee is charged in the information does not fall This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
under article 303 of the Revised Penal Code but under the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 affirming the
second to the last paragraph of article 302 where the offense decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Palawan in
therein defined is penalized with arresto mayor in its Criminal Case No. 10429 convicting petitioners of the offense
maximum degree to prision correccional in its minimum of illegal fishing with the use of obnoxious or poisonous
degree; an offense which falls under the jurisdiction of the substance penalized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
Court of First Instance. 704, the Fisheries Decree of 1975.

The appealed order is reversed, and it is ordered that this In an Information dated October 15, 1992, petitioners were
case be remanded to the court of origin so that it may charged with a violation of P.D. 704 committed as follows:
proceed with the trial thereof on the merits, without costs. That on or about the 30th day of September 1992, at Brgy.
SO ORDERED. San Rafael, Puerto Princesa City, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused crew members and fishermen of F/B Robinson owned
by First Fishermen Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by
Richard Hizon, a domestic corporation duly organized under
G.R. No. 119619 December 13, 1996 the laws of the Philippines, being then the owner, crew
RICHARD HIZON, SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO members and fishermen of F/B Robinson and with the use of
ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO, RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG said fishing boat, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
TAI FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA PENA, JONEL feloniously the said accused conspiring and confederating
AURELIO, GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO together and mutually helping one another catch, take or
DUMAYBAG, DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO VILLANUEVA, gather or cause to be caught, taken or gathered fish or
FRANCISCO ESTREMOS, ANGEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO fishery aquatic products in the coastal waters of Puerto
Princess City, Palawan, with the use of obnoxious or
poisonous substance (sodium cyanide), of more or less one Inspection/Apprehension Report was prepared and the boat,
(1) ton of assorted live fishes which were illegally caught thru its crew and fishermen were charged with the following
the use of obnoxious/poisonous substance (sodium cyanide). violations:
1
1. Conducting fishing operations within Puerto Princesa
The following facts were established by the prosecution: In coastal waters without mayor's permit;
September 1992, the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Maritime Command of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan received 2. Employing excess fishermen on board (Authorized — 26;
reports of illegal fishing operations in the coastal waters of On board — 36);
the city. In response to these reports, the city mayor 3. Two (2) Hongkong nationals on board without original
organized Task Force Bantay Dagat to assist the police in the passports. 3
detection and apprehension of violators of the laws on fishing.
The following day, October 1, 1992, SPO3 Enriquez directed
On September 30, 1992 at about 2:00 in the afternoon, the the boat captain to get random samples of fish from the fish
Task Force Bantay Dagat reported to the PNP Maritime cage of F/B Robinson for laboratory examination. As
Command that a boat and several small crafts were fishing instructed, the boat engineer, petitioner Ernesto Andaya,
by "muro ami" within the shoreline of Barangay San Rafael of delivered to the Maritime Office four (4) live lapu-lapu fish
Puerto Princesa. The police, headed by SPO3 Romulo inside a plastic shopping bag filled with water. SPO3 Enriquez
Enriquez, and members of the Task Force Bantay Dagat, received the fish and in the presence of the boat engineer
headed by Benito Marcelo, Jr., immediately proceeded to the and captain, placed them inside a large transparent plastic
area and found several men fishing in motorized sampans bag without water. He sealed the plastic with heat from a
and a big fishing boat identified as F/B Robinson within the lighter. 4
seven-kilometer shoreline of the city. They boarded the F/B
Robinson and inspected the boat with the acquiescence of the The specimens were brought to the National Bureau of
boat captain, Silverio Gargar. In the course of their Investigation (NBI) sub-office in the city for examination "to
inspection, the police saw two foreigners in the captain's determine the method of catching the same for record or
deck. SP03 Enriquez examined their passports and found evidentiary purposes." 5 They were received at the NBI office
them to be mere photocopies. The police also discovered a at 8:00 in the evening of the same day. The receiving clerk,
large aquarium full of live lapu-lapu and assorted fish Edna Capicio, noted that the fish were dead and she placed
weighing approximately one ton at the bottom of the boat. 2 the plastic bag with the fish inside the office freezer to
They checked the license of the boat and its fishermen and preserve them. Two days later, on October 3, 1992, the chief
found them to be in order. Nonetheless, SP03 Enriquez of the NBI sub-office, Onos Mangotara, certified the
brought the boat captain, the crew and the fishermen to specimens for laboratory examination at the NBI Head Office
Puerto Princesa for further investigation. in Manila. The fish samples were to be personally transported
by Edna Capicio who was then scheduled to leave for Manila
At the city harbor, members of the Maritime Command were for her board examination in Criminology. 6 On October 4,
ordered by SP03 Enriquez to guard the F/B Robinson. The 1992, Ms. Capicio, in the presence of her chief, took the
boat captain and the two foreigners were again interrogated plastic with the specimens from the freezer and placed them
at the PNP Maritime Command office. Thereafter, an inside two shopping bags and sealed them with masking tape.
She proceeded to her ship where she placed the specimens fish for their food. They were still fishing in their sampans at
in the ship's freezer. 4:00 P.M. when a rubber boat containing members of the PNP
Maritime Command and the Task Force Bantay Dagat
Capicio arrived in Manila the following day, October 5, 1992 approached them and boarded the F/B Robinson. The
and immediately brought the specimens to the NBI Head policemen were in uniform while the Bantay Dagat personnel
Office. On October 7, 1992, NBI Forensic Chemist Emilia were in civilian clothes. They were all armed with guns. One
Rosaldes conducted two tests on the fish samples and found of the Bantay Dagat personnel introduced himself as
that they contained sodium cyanide, thus: Commander Jun Marcelo and he inspected the boat and the
FINDINGS: boat's documents. Marcelo saw the two foreigners and asked
for their passports. As their passports were photocopies,
Weight of Specimen. . . . . . 1.870 kilograms Marcelo demanded for their original. The captain explained
that the original passports were with the company's head
Examinations made on the above-mentioned office in Manila. Marcelo angrily insisted for the originals and
specimen gave POSITIVE RESULTS to the threatened to arrest everybody. He then ordered the captain,
his crew and the fishermen to follow him to Puerto Princesa.
test for the presence of SODIUM CYANIDE. . . . He held the magazine of his gun and warned the captain
"Sige, huwag kang tatakas, kung hindi babarilin ko kayo!" 8
REMARKS: The captain herded all his men into the boat and followed
Sodium Cyanide is a violent poison. 7 Marcelo and the police to Puerto Princesa.

In light of these findings, the PNP Maritime Command of They arrived at the city harbor at 7:45 in the evening and
Puerto Princesa City filed the complaint at bar against the were met by members of the media. As instructed by
owner and operator of the F/B Robinson, the First Fishermen Marcelo, the members of the media interviewed and took
Fishing Industries, Inc., represented by herein petitioner pictures of the boat and the fishermen. 9
Richard Hizon, the boat captain, Silverio Gargar, the boat The following day, October 1, 1992, at 8:00 in the morning,
engineer, Ernesto Andaya, two other crew members, the two Amado Villanueva, one of the fishermen at the F/B Robinson,
Hongkong nationals and 28 fishermen of the said boat. was instructed by a policeman guarding the boat to get five
Petitioners were arraigned and they pled not guilty to the (5) fish samples from the fish cage and bring them to the
charge. As defense, they claimed that they are legitimate pier. Villanueva inquired whether the captain knew about the
fishermen of the First Fishermen Industries, Inc., a domestic order but the guard replied he was taking responsibility for
corporation licensed to engage in fishing. They alleged that it. Villanueva scooped five pieces of lapu-lapu, placed them
they catch fish by the hook and line method and that they inside a plastic bag filled with water and brought the bag to
had used this method for one month and a half in the waters the pier. The boat engineer, Ernesto Andaya, received the
of Cuyo Island. They related that on September 30, 1992 at fish and delivered them to the PNP Maritime Office. Nobody
about 7:00 A.M., they anchored the F/B Robinson in the east was in the office and Andaya waited for the apprehending
of Podiado Island in Puerto Princesa City. The boat captain officers and the boat captain. Later, one of the policemen in
and the fishermen took out and boarded their sampans to the office instructed him to leave the bag and hang it on a
nail in the wall. Andaya did as he was told and returned to FOOK, SHEK CHOR LUK, EFREN DELA PENA, JONEL AURELIO,
the boat at 10:00 A.M. 10 GODOFREDO VILLAVERDE, ANGELITO DUMAYBAG,
DEOMEDES ROSIL, AMADO VILLANUEVA, FRANCISCO
In the afternoon of the same day, the boat captain arrived at ESTREMOS, ARNEL VILLAVERDE, NEMESIO CASAMPOL,
the Maritime office. He brought along a representative from JORNIE DELA CRUZ, JESUS MACTAN, FERNANDO BIRING,
their head office in Manila who showed the police and the MENDRITO CARPO, LUIS DUARTE, RONNIE JUEZAN,
Bantay Dagat personnel the original passports of the BERNARDO VLLLACARLOS, RICARDO SALES, MARLON
Hongkong nationals and other pertinent documents of the F/B ABELLA, TEODORO DELOS REYES, IGNACIO ABELLA, JOSEPH
Robinson and its crew. Finding the documents in order, MAYONADO, JANAIRO LANGUYOD, DODONG DELOS REYES,
Marcelo approached the captain and whispered to him ROLANDO ARCENAS and JOLLY CABALLERO guilty beyond
"Tandaan mo ito, kapitan, kung makakaalis ka dito, reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Fishing with the use
magkikita pa rin uli tayo sa dagat, kung hindi kayo lulubog of obnoxious or poisonous substance commonly known as
ay palulutangin ko kayo!" It was then that SP03 Enriquez sodium cyanide, committed in violation of section 33 and
informed the captain that some members of the Maritime penalized in section 38 of Presidential Decree No. 704, as
Command, acting under his instructions, had just taken five amended, and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating
(5) pieces of lapu-lapu from the boat. SP03 Enriquez showed circumstances appreciated and applying the provisions of the
the captain the fish samples. Although the captain saw only Indeterminate Sentence Law, each of the aforenamed
four (4) pieces of lapu-lapu, he did not utter a word of accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
protest. 11 Under Marcelo's threat, he signed the imprisonment ranging from a minimum of EIGHT (8) YEARS
"Certification" that he received only four (4) pieces of the fish. and ONE (1) DAY to a maximum of NINE (9) YEARS and FOUR
12 (4) MONTHS and to pay the costs.
Two weeks later, the information was filed against Pursuant to the provisions of Article 45, in relation to the
petitioners. The case was prosecuted against thirty-one (31) second sentence of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, as
of the thirty-five (35) accused. Richard Hizon remained at amended:
large while the whereabouts of Richard Estremos, Marlon
Camporazo and Joseph Aurelio were unknown. a) Fishing Boat (F/B) Robinson;

On July 9, 1993, the trial court found the thirty one (31) b) The 28 motorized fiberglass sampans; and
petitioners guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment for a
minimum of eight (8) years and one (1) day to a maximum c) The live fishes in the fish cages installed in the F/B
of nine (9) years and four (4) months. The court also ordered Robinson, all of which have been respectively shown to be
the confiscation and forfeiture of the F/B Robinson, the 28 tools or instruments and proceeds of the offense, are hereby
sampans and the ton of assorted live fishes as instruments ordered confiscated and declared forfeited in favor of the
and proceeds of the offense, thus: government.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby SO ORDERED. 13


rendered finding the accused SILVERIO GARGAR, ERNESTO On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
ANDAYA, NEMESIO GABO, RODRIGO ABRERA, CHEUNG TAI trial court. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that: Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure and the arrest
of persons without a judicial warrant. 16 As a general rule,
I any evidence obtained without a judicial warrant is
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is,
THAT THE MERE "POSITIVE RESULTS TO THE TEST FOR THE however, subject to certain exceptions. Some of these are:
PRESENCE OF SODIUM CYANIDE" IN THE FISH SPECIMEN, 17 (1) a search incident to a lawful of arrest; 18 (2) seizure
ALBEIT ILLEGALLY SEIZED ON THE OCCASION OF A of evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving motor
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND ARREST, IS ADMISSIBLE AND vehicle; 19 and (4) search in violation of customs laws. 20
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE PETITIONERS' CONVICTION OF Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and
THE CRIME OF ILLEGAL FISHING. aircrafts for violations of customs laws have been the
II traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a
search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that a vessel
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out
HOLDING THAT THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF GUILT of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must
UNDER SEC. 33 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 704 CANNOT be sought and secured. Yielding to this reality, judicial
PREVAIL AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF authorities have not required a search warrant of vessels and
INNOCENCE, SUCH THAT THE GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE aircrafts before their search and seizure can be
OF ILLEGAL FISHING MUST STILL BE PROVED BEYOND constitutionally effected. 21
REASONABLE DOUBT.
The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing
III vessels and boats breaching our fishery laws. These vessels
are normally powered by high-speed motors that enable
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT them to elude arresting ships of the Philippine Navy, the
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND Coast Guard and other government authorities enforcing our
ACQUITTING THE PETITIONERS. 14 fishery laws. 22
The Solicitor General submitted a "Manifestation in Lieu of We thus hold as valid the warrantless search on the F/B
Comment" praying for petitioners' acquittal. 15 Robinson, a fishing boat suspected of having engaged in
The petitioners, with the concurrence of the Solicitor General, illegal fishing. The fish and other evidence seized in the
primarily question the admissibility of the evidence against course of the search were properly admitted by the trial
petitioners in view of the warrantless search of the fishing court. Moreover, petitioners failed to raise the issue during
boat and the subsequent arrest of petitioners. More trial and hence, waived
concretely, they contend that the NBI finding of sodium their right to question any irregularity that may have
cyanide in the fish specimens should not have been admitted attended the said search and seizure. 23
and considered by the trial court because the fish samples
were seized from the F/B Robinson without a search warrant. Given the evidence admitted by the trial court, the next
question now is whether petitioners are guilty of the offense
of illegal fishing with the use of poisonous substances. Again,
the petitioners, joined by the Solicitor General, submit that The discovery of dynamite, other explosives and chemical
the prosecution evidence cannot convict them. compounds containing combustible elements, or obnoxious
or poisonous substance, or equipment or device for electric
We agree. fishing in any fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman
Petitioners were charged with illegal fishing penalized under shall constitute a presumption that the same were used for
sections 33 and 38 of P.D. 704 24 which provide as follows: fishing in violation of this Decree, and the discovery in any
fishing boat of fish caught or killed by the use of explosives,
Sec. 33. Illegal fishing, illegal possession of explosives obnoxious or poisonous substance or by electricity shall
intended for illegal fishing; dealing in illegally caught fish or constitute a presumption that the owner, operator or
fishery/aquatic products.— It shall be unlawful for any person fisherman were fishing with the use of explosives, obnoxious
to catch, take or gather or cause to be caught, taken or or poisonous substance or electricity.
gathered fish or fishery/aquatic products in Philippine waters
with the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous xxx xxx xxx
substance, or by the use of electricity as defined in Sec. 38. Penalties. — (a) For illegal fishing and dealing in
paragraphs (l), (m) and (d), respectively, of section 3 hereof: illegally caught fish or fishery/aquatic products. — Violation
Provided, That mere possession of such explosives with intent of Section 33 hereof shall be punished as follows:
to use the same for illegal fishing as herein defined shall be
punishable as hereinafter provided: Provided, That the xxx xxx xxx
Secretary may, upon recommendation of the Director and
subject to such safeguards and conditions he deems (2) By imprisonment from eight (8) to ten (10) years, if
necessary, allow for research, educational or scientific obnoxious or poisonous substances are used: Provided, That
purposes only, the use of explosives, obnoxious or poisonous if the use of such substances results 1) in physical injury to
substance or electricity to catch, take or gather fish or any person, the penalty shall be imprisonment from ten (10)
fishery/aquatic products in the specified area: Provided, to twelve (12) years, or 2) in the loss of human life, then the
further, That the use of chemicals to eradicate predators in penalty shall be imprisonment from twenty (20) years to life
fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific fishery or death;
practices without causing deleterious effects in neighboring xxx xxx xxx 25
waters shall not be construed as the use of obnoxious or
poisonous substance within the meaning of this section: The offense of illegal fishing is committed when a person
Provided, finally, That the use of mechanical bombs for killing catches, takes or gathers or causes to be caught, taken or
whales, crocodiles, sharks or other large dangerous fishes, gathered fish, fishery or aquatic products in Philippine waters
may be allowed, subject to the approval of the Secretary. with the use of explosives, electricity, obnoxious or poisonous
substances. The law creates a presumption that illegal fishing
It shall, likewise, be unlawful for any person knowingly to has been committed when: (a) explosives, obnoxious or
possess, deal in, sell or in any manner dispose of, for profit, poisonous substances or equipment or device for electric
any fish or fishery/aquatic products which have been illegally fishing are found in a fishing boat or in the possession of a
caught, taken or gathered. fisherman; or (b) when fish caught or killed with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity are found in a fishing boat. Under these instances, evidence that the owner and operator of the fishing boat or
the boat owner, operator or fishermen are presumed to have the fisherman had used such substances in catching fish. The
engaged in illegal fishing. ultimate fact presumed is that the owner and operator of the
boat or the fisherman were engaged in illegal fishing and this
Petitioners contend that this presumption of guilt under the presumption was made to arise from the discovery of the
Fisheries Decree violates the presumption of innocence substances and the contaminated fish in the possession of
guaranteed by the Constitution. 26 As early as 1916, this the fisherman in the fishing boat. The fact presumed is a
Court has rejected this argument by holding that: 27 natural inference from the fact proved. 32
In some States, as well as in England, there exist what are We stress, however, that the statutory presumption is merely
known as common law offenses. In the Philippine Islands no prima
act is a crime unless it is made so by statute. The state having
the right to declare what acts are criminal, within certain well- facie. 33 It can not, under the guise of regulating the
defined limitations, has the right to specify what act or acts presentation of evidence, operate to preclude the accused
shall constitute a crime, as well as what proof shall constitute from presenting his defense to rebut the main fact presumed.
prima facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the 34 At no instance can the accused be denied the right to rebut
defendant the burden of showing that such act or acts are the presumption. 35 thus:
innocent and are not committed with any criminal intent or
intention. 28 The inference of guilt is one of fact and rests upon the
common experience of men. But the experience of men has
The validity of laws establishing presumptions in criminal taught them that an apparently guilty possession may be
cases is a settled matter. It is generally conceded that the explained so as to rebut such an inference and an accused
legislature has the power to provide that proof of certain facts person may therefore put witnesses on the stand or go on
can constitute prima facie evidence of the guilt of the accused the witness stand himself to explain his possession, and any
and then shift the burden of proof to the accused provided reasonable explanation of his possession, inconsistent with
there is a rational connection between the facts proved and his guilty connection with the commission of the crime, will
the ultimate fact presumed. 29 To avoid any constitutional rebut the inference as to his guilt which the prosecution seeks
infirmity, the inference of one from proof of the other must to have drawn from his guilty possession of the stolen goods.
not be arbitrary and unreasonable. 30 In fine, the 36
presumption must be based on facts and these facts must be
part of the crime when committed. 31 We now review the evidence to determine whether
petitioners have successfully rebutted this presumption. The
The third paragraph of section 33 of P.D. 704 creates a facts show that on November 13, 1992, after the Information
presumption of guilt based on facts proved and hence is not was filed in court and petitioners granted bail, petitioners
constitutionally impermissible. It makes the discovery of moved that the fish specimens taken from the F/B Robinson
obnoxious or poisonous substances, explosives, or devices be reexamined. 3 7 The trial court granted the motion. 38 As
for electric fishing, or of fish caught or killed with the use of prayed for, a member of the PNP Maritime Command of
obnoxious and poisonous substances, explosives or electricity Puerto Princesa, in the presence of authorized
in any fishing boat or in the possession of a fisherman representatives of the F/B Robinson, the NBI and the local
Fisheries Office, took at random five (5) live lapu-lapu from The absence of cyanide in the second set of fish specimens
the fish cage of the boat. The specimens were packed in the supports petitioners' claim that they did not use the poison in
usual manner of transporting live fish, taken aboard a fishing. According to them, they caught the fishes by the
commercial flight and delivered by the same representatives ordinary and legal way, i.e., by hook and line on board their
to the NBI Head Office in Manila for chemical analysis. sampans. This claim is buttressed by the prosecution
evidence itself. The apprehending officers saw petitioners
On November 23, 1992, Salud Rosales, another forensic fishing by hook and line when they came upon them in the
chemist of the NBI in Manila conducted three (3) tests on the waters of Barangay San Rafael. One of the apprehending
specimens and found the fish negative for the presence of officers, SPO1 Demetrio Saballuca, testified as follows:
sodium cyanide, 39 thus:
ATTY. TORREFRANCA ON CROSS-EXAMINATION:
Gross weight of specimen = 3.849 kg.
Q: I get your point therefore, that the illegal fishing
Examinations made on the above-mentioned specimens gave supposedly conducted at San Rafael is a moro ami type of
NEGATIVE RESULTS to the tests for the presence of SODIUM fishing [that] occurred into your mind and that was made to
CYANIDE. 40 understand by the Bantay Dagat personnel?
The Information charged petitioners with illegal fishing "with A: Yes, sir.
the use of obnoxious or poisonous substance (sodium
cyanide), of more or less one (1) ton of assorted live fishes" Q: Upon reaching the place, you and the pumpboat, together
There was more or less one ton of fishes in the F/B Robinson's with the two Bantay Dagat personnel were SPO3 Romulo
fish cage. It was from this fish cage that the four dead Enriquez and Mr. Benito Marcelo and SPO1 Marzan, you did
specimens examined on October 7, 1992 and the five not witness that kind of moro ami fishing, correct?
specimens examined on November 23, 1992 were taken.
Though all the specimens came from the same source A: None, sir.
allegedly tainted with sodium cyanide, the two tests resulted Q: In other words, there was negative activity of moro ami
in conflicting findings. We note that after its apprehension, type of fishing on September 30, 1992 at 4:00 in the
the F/B Robinson never left the custody of the PNP Maritime afternoon at San Rafael?
Command. The fishing boat was anchored near the city
harbor and was guarded by members of the Maritime A: Yes, sir.
Command. 41 It was later turned over to the custody of the
Philippine Coast Guard Commander of Puerto Princesa City. Q: And what you saw were 5 motorized sampans with
42 fishermen each doing a hook and line fishing type?

The prosecution failed to explain the contradictory findings A: Yes, sir. More or less they were five.
on the fish samples and this omission raises a reasonable Q: And despite the fact you had negative knowledge of this
doubt that the one ton of fishes in the cage were caught with moro ami type of fishing, SP03 Enriquez together with Mr.
the use of sodium cyanide. Marcelo boarded the vessel just the same?

A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx 43 Prosecution witness SPO1 Bernardino Visto testified that for
the first laboratory test, boat engineer Ernesto Andaya did
The apprehending officers who boarded and searched the not only get four (4) samples of fish but actually got five (5)
boat did not find any sodium cyanide nor any poisonous or from the fish cage of the F/B Robinson. 4 7 The Certification
obnoxious substance. Neither did they find any trace of the that four (4) fish samples were taken from the boat shows on
poison in the possession of the fishermen or in the fish cage its face the number of pieces as originally "five (5)" but this
itself. An Inventory was prepared by the apprehending was erased with correction fluid and "four (4)" written over
officers and only the following items were found on board the it. 48 The specimens were taken, sealed inside the plastic bag
boat: and brought to Manila by the police authorities in the absence
ITEMS QUANTITY REMARKS of petitioners or their representative. SP02 Enriquez testified
that the same plastic bag containing the four specimens was
F/B Robinson (1) unit operating merely sealed with heat from a lighter. 49 Emilia Rosales, the
NBI forensic chemist who examined the samples, testified
engine (1) unit ICE-900-BHP that when she opened the package, she found the two ends
sampans 28 units fiberglass of the same plastic bag knotted. 50 These circumstances as
well as the time interval from the taking of the fish samples
outboard motors 28 units operating and their actual examination 51 fail to assure the impartial
mind that the integrity of the specimens had been properly
assorted fishes more or less 1 ton live safeguarded.
hooks and lines assorted Apparently, the members of the PNP Maritime Command and
xxx xxx xxx 44 the Task Force Bantay Dagat were the ones engaged in an
illegal fishing expedition. As sharply observed by the Solicitor
We cannot overlook the fact that the apprehending officers General, the report received by the Task Force Bantay Dagat
found in the boat assorted hooks and lines for catching fish. was that a fishing boat was fishing illegally through "muro
45 For this obvious reason, the Inspection/Apprehension ami" on the waters of San Rafael. "Muro ami" according to
Report prepared by the apprehending officers immediately SPO1 Saballuca is made with "the use of a big net with
after the search did not charge petitioners with illegal fishing, sinkers to make the net submerge in the water with the
much less illegal fishing with the use of poison or any fishermen surround[ing] the net." 52 This method of fishing
obnoxious substance. 46 needs approximately two hundred (200) fishermen to
execute. 53 What the apprehending officers instead
The only basis for the charge of fishing with poisonous
discovered were twenty eight (28) fishermen in their
substance is the result of the first NBI laboratory test on the
sampans fishing by hook and line. The authorities found
four fish specimens. Under the circumstances of the case,
nothing on the boat that would have indicated any form of
however, this finding does not warrant the infallible
illegal fishing. All the documents of the boat and the
conclusion that the fishes in the F/B Robinson, or even the
fishermen were in order. It was only after the fish specimens
same four specimens, were caught with the use of sodium
were tested, albeit under suspicious circumstances, that
cyanide.
petitioners were charged with illegal fishing with the use of
poisonous substances.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted and the decision


of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15417 is reversed
and set aside. Petitioners are acquitted of the crime of illegal
fishing with the use of poisonous substances defined under
Section 33 of Republic Act No. 704, the Fisheries Decree of
1975. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like