SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - ANTONIO ORTIZ, CHARITO CHAVEZ,
EDWIN DASILIO and JERRY DOE, Appellants. |
G.R. No. 179944
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio Morales, Brion, ABAD, JJ. Promulgated: September 4,
2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
For
review on certiorari is the Decision[1] dated July 18, 2007 of the Court of Appeals,
in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01305, which affirmed with modification the Decision[2] dated August 23, 2004 of the Regional Trial
Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 32, in Criminal Case No. P-3064, convicting
appellants Antonio Ortiz, Charito Chavez and Edwin Dasilio for the crime of robbery
with rape.
In an Information[3] dated
That on or about P30,000.00) Pesos and cash of Three Thousand (P3,000.00),
all valued at a total amount of Thirty[-]Three Thousand (P33,000.00)
Pesos Philippine Currency, but before leaving with the loots the
above-named accused, with violence,
force and intimidation of person, at gun point succeeded in having carnal knowledge
of the same AAA, one after the other, in taking their turns in satisfying their
carnal desires, against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the spouses, BBB
and AAA.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, appellants Ortiz, Chavez and
Dasilio pleaded not guilty to the charge. Whereupon, trial ensued.
The factual antecedents follow.
On
Thereafter, Jerry Doe called Dasilio inside the camalig.
Dasilio, who was then armed with a
sword, ordered Candido to sit beside Dennis, who was interminably crying out of
fear. Father and son were then made to
lie face down while appellants tied their hands with a tie wire.
At about the same time, spouses AAA and BBB were
watching television inside their house, which was situated just 12 to 15 meters
from the camalig, when
they heard Dennis crying. BBB proceeded
to Candido’s house to investigate but he was also herded inside Candido’s house
where he was tied by Dasilio. Thereafter,
Candido, Dennis and BBB were ordered to proceed to BBB’s house. On their way there, BBB saw Ortiz and Chavez.
Jerry Doe and Chavez went to BBB’s house ahead of
the group, and tied AAA’s hands with plastic tape. After Ortiz and Dasilio arrived, appellants ransacked
the spouses’ house while Jerry Doe held AAA at gunpoint. Subsequently, the four victims were shoved
inside the spouses’ bedroom. Jerry Doe
and Dasilio continued to loot the house while Chavez and Ortiz acted as
lookout.
After the looting was over, AAA was asked to get
food from the camalig. After feeding Candido, she was again ordered
to get water from the camalig. This time, Jerry Doe and the appellants
accompanied AAA.
While in the camalig, Jerry Doe ordered
AAA to remove her shorts and panty. AAA
pleaded with Jerry Doe and appellants not to rape her, but despite her pleas, the
four took turns in raping her in the presence of each other.
After succeeding in raping AAA, the four all went
back to the house of AAA and BBB. Before
leaving, the four warned the victims not to venture out as they had allegedly placed
a grenade at the door. Heeding the
warning, the victims kept mum until morning. As soon as they verified that there was no
grenade by the door, they went out and reported the incident to the police
authorities.
During the investigation, SPO2 Nestor Huerno
recovered a calculator, which was one of the items taken from AAA and BBB’s
house on the night of the robbery, from Asuncion Casiano. Upon the police’s inquiry, Casiano declared
that his neighbor, Dasilio, bartered the said calculator in exchange for some
grocery items from her store. Additionally,
Florentino Bueno, a friend of the appellants, emerged during the investigation.
He said that Ortiz and Chavez invited
him a week before
Satisfied that the prosecution has discharged its
duty to prove the guilt of the appellants, the trial court rendered a decision
on
The decretal portion of the trial court’s decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is rendered in
favor of the People of the
1.
Finding the accused Antonio Ortiz, Charito Chavez,
and Edwin Dasilio (also spelled as Dacillo), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Robbery with Multiple Rape, defined and penalized under Article 294, subsection
1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, and considering the
aggravating circumstance that it was committed by an armed band, and with
ignominy, sentences all of them, to death;
2.
Ordering all of the accused to pay the spouses BBB
and AAA the sum of P30,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as
indemnity and P50,000.00 each as moral damages, for every rape committed
by them as well as that committed by Jerry Doe, an indicted co-conspirator, to
AAA, or P200,000.00 in all, solidarily, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[5]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in a Decision
dated July 18, 2007 affirmed the ruling of the trial court, with the modification
that: (1) the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346;[6]
(2) actual damages was reduced to P28,082.00 as established from the
testimony of AAA and BBB; and (3) exemplary damages was awarded in favor of AAA
in the amount of P25,000.00.
The fallo of the appellate
court’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the P28,082.00; to solidarily
pay the offended parties P50, 000.00 as civil indemnity, solidarily, (sic);
to solidarily pay AAA P50,000.00 each or a total of P200,000.00
as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Hence, the present appeal.
On
Appellants anchor their appeal on the sole assignment of
error that:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ROBBERY WITH MULTIPLE RAPE.[9]
Appellants argue that the calculator, which was bartered by
Dasilio, was not one of the items allegedly stolen from the spouses as the same
was not specifically enumerated in the complaint filed by them. They assert that the inclusion of the
calculator as a lost item was a mere afterthought to bolster the prosecution’s
theory that appellants perpetrated the crime as its possession can be easily
traced to one of them.[10]
Further, appellants assert that AAA’s testimony regarding the
alleged rapes should be taken with caution because she gave similar testimonies
regarding the different incidents of rape. They maintain that a witness whose testimony
is perfect in all aspects lays herself open to suspicion of having been coached
or having memorized statements earlier rehearsed.[11]
Finally, appellants maintain that their defense of alibi
should not have been viewed immediately with disfavor since there are
situations where an innocent person accused of committing a crime may really
have no other defense but denial and alibi. Besides, the onus probandi in
establishing the guilt of an accused lies with the prosecution, and conviction
should not rest on the weakness of the defense.[12]
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters
that appellants’ conviction was not anchored solely on the recovery of the
calculator, and cites several valid reasons why their alibi was disregarded, including
the fact that appellants were positively identified by the private complainants
as the malefactors. The OSG further
argues that appellants are now estopped from objecting to the admission of the
calculator in evidence as they failed to do so when the prosecution presented
SPO2 Huerno, Casiano and AAA to testify on the recovery of the calculator and
its identification as one of the things stolen from the spouses.[13]
The OSG adds that the testimony of AAA on the commission of the
rapes is worthy of credence. It cites
the ruling of this Court that when an alleged victim of rape says that she was raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed,
and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convicted on the basis thereof.[14]
Simply, the issue for our resolution is: Did the prosecution prove
beyond reasonable doubt appellants’ guilt for the crime of Robbery with Rape?
We rule in the affirmative.
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons —Penalties.—Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
x x x x
Simply, robbery with rape is committed when the following
elements concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence
against or intimidation of persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi;
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.[15]
In this case, we find the evidence sufficient to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that appellants committed the crime of robbery with rape.
The first three elements were proven by the following
established facts: the victims categorically identified appellants as the ones
who threatened them and took their personal belongings; all appellants held weapons;
appellants entered the house of Candido, herded Candido and his son, Dennis, in
a corner of their house and tied their hands; BBB heard the cries of Dennis and
when he checked where the cries were coming from, appellants intercepted him
and tied his hands as well; appellants entered the house of BBB and AAA, and thereafter
ransacked the said house taking valuable items.[16] From the foregoing, it is clear that the crime
of robbery was committed.
The trial court likewise did not err in
admitting and giving weight to the testimony of Asuncion Casiano and SPO2
Nestor Huerno that Dasilio bartered the calculator which was identified as part
of appellants’ loot from the victims. Section
36, [17]
Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that where the proponent
offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party as inadmissible for any
reason, the latter has the right to object. The failure to object, when there is an
opportunity to speak, operates as a waiver of the objection. Here, appellants failed to timely object to
the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution; hence, the same was
validly admitted and considered by the trial court in arriving at its judgment.[18]
Absent any showing that the trial court overlooked or
misappreciated certain facts or circumstances of weight and influence which, if
considered, would affect the result, we find no reason to overturn the trial
court’s finding of robbery which is fully supported by the evidence on record.
As to the attendant rape, we find the testimony of AAA worthy
of full faith and credence. As observed by
the appellate court:
While appellants would like to persuade us that AAA’s testimony deserves no merit, it is beyond cavil that appellants raped AAA as an afterthought after robbing valuable items in the house.
First, records show that AAA cried during her direct examination. Such spontaneous emotional outburst strengthens her credibility. The Supreme Court has held that the crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience.
Second, although the examination of Dr. Fajardo of AAA’s genital area revealed no laceration in her hymen, it is a settled rule that laceration is not an element of the crime of rape. Simply put, the absence of lacerations does not negate rape. Moreover, hymenal lacerations after sexual congress normally occur on women who have had no prior sexual experience. In this case, AAA is a married woman, who has had prior sexual experience. In the case of People v. Llanita, the Supreme Court noted that the strength and dilatability of the hymen are invariable; it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse.
Third, the Supreme Court has held, time and time again, that no woman in her right mind would declare to the whole world that she was raped, unless she is telling the truth….
x x x x
Finally, in the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of private complainant AAA to falsely testify against appellants, her testimony deserves great weight and credence.[19]
x x x x
The victim’s declaration of her sexual ordeal, which was
given in a straightforward, convincing, credible and satisfactory manner, shows
no other intention than to obtain justice for the wrong committed by the appellants
against her. The Court finds no reason
to depart from the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of
the testimonies of the witnesses is accorded great weight because it has the
unique opportunity of hearing the witnesses testify and observing their
deportment and manner of testifying.[20]
Regarding appellants’ defense of alibi, the same cannot prevail
over the positive identification of appellants as perpetrators of the crime
charged. For alibi to prosper, it is not
enough for the appellants to prove that they were somewhere else when the crime
was committed. They must further
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission.[21] Here, appellants interposed the alibi that
they were at a place other than Brgy. xxx, xxx, xxx xxx at the time the crime
was committed; however, no one corroborated their testimonies. Hence, we agree that their alibi deserves no merit.
Considering the above, the appellate court did not err in
affirming appellants’ conviction for the crime of Robbery with Rape as defined
under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. In view of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled,
“An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
We, however, modify the award of civil indemnity. In line with prevailing jurisprudence, the
civil indemnity to be awarded should be P75,000.00, not P50,000.00,
since the crime committed by the appellants is qualified by circumstances,
including the use of firearms and of superior number, which warrant the
imposition of the death penalty.[23]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated P75,000.00. Costs de oficio.
|
SO ORDERED. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-20. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 30-32. Penned by Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon.
[3] Records, p. 2.
[4] In
line with the Court’s ruling in People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426, the real name of the rape victim in
this case is withheld and instead fictitious initials are used to represent
her. Also, the personal circumstances of
the victim or any other information tending to establish or compromise her
identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members will
likewise be withheld; See also Resolution dated
[5] CA rollo, p. 32.
[6] An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,
approved on
[7] Rollo, p. 19.
[8]
[9] CA rollo, p. 58.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191,
[16] Rollo, p. 8.
[17] SEC. 36. Objection.—Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
x x x x
[18] Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio, G.R. No. 169454, December 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 479, 494.
[19] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[20] People v. Verceles, G.R. No. 130650,
[21] People v. Bracero, G.R. No. 139529,
[22] An Act to Provide for an Indeterminate Sentence and Parole for All Persons Convicted of certain Crimes by the Courts of the Philippine Islands; To Create a Board of Indeterminate Sentence and to Provide Funds Therefor; and for Other Purposes (Act No. 4103, as amended), approved and effective on December 5, 1933.
[23] People v. Jabiniao, Jr., G.R. No.
179499,