View full case

ERNESTO GARCES v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

On August 2, 1992, the petitioner Ernesto Garces and his co-accused Rosendo Pacursa, Senando Garces, Antonio Pira, Jr., and Aurelio Pira were charged with Forcible Abduction with Rape. The incident allegedly took place on the said date in the evening at a tobacco barn in Abra, Philippines.

The accused were charged with conspiring, confederating, and mutually helping each other in forcibly abducting and raping the victim. Rosendo Pacursa was accused of forcibly abducting and raping the victim, while Ernesto Garces was accused of being an accessory to the crime.

After trial, the trial court found Rosendo Pacursa guilty of Forcible Abduction with Rape and Ernesto Garces guilty as an accessory to the crime. Antonio Pira, Jr., and Aurelio Pira were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.

Pacursa and Garces appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, but Pacursa later withdrew his appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court.

The case involves the forcible abduction with rape of the complainant, referred to as AAA. The accused-appellant, Ernesto Garces, acted as an accessory to the crime.

The trial court found the testimony of AAA to be credible, consistent, and unwavering, even during cross-examination. AAA stated that Pacursa forcibly took her against her will, used force and intimidation, and had sexual intercourse with her. Grace Liberto, a prosecution witness, corroborated AAA's testimony by stating that she saw AAA immediately after the incident, crying, with disheveled hair, and wearing only one slipper.

The medico-legal findings also showed that there was a laceration in AAA's private parts possibly caused by sexual contact. The accused intended to rape the victim when he took her to a tobacco barn, so forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape.

The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place were not proven since there was no evidence that the accused deliberately sought nocturnity or an isolated place to facilitate the commission of the crime.

Although Pacursa withdrew his appeal, the court's ruling that the crime committed is simple rape and not forcible abduction with rape still applies to him.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not nocturnity and uninhabited place can be considered aggravating circumstances in this case.

  2. Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the accused.

  3. Whether or not the failure of the complainant to testify during her direct examination about the covering of her mouth by the petitioner when she was pulled out of the barn affects her credibility.

  4. Whether or not the threats made by the accused can be attributed to the petitioner.

  5. Whether or not the acquittal of the other co-accused affects the liability of the petitioner.

  6. Whether the petitioner should be convicted as an accessory to the crime.

  7. Whether the petitioner is liable as an accomplice or as an accessory.

  8. Whether Rosendo Pacursa is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

  9. Whether Ernesto Garces is guilty as an accomplice to the crime of rape.

RULING:

  1. Nocturnity and uninhabited place cannot be considered aggravating circumstances in this case due to lack of evidence.

  2. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused.

  3. The failure of the complainant to testify during her direct examination about the covering of her mouth by the petitioner does not affect her credibility.

  4. The threats made by both Pacursa and the petitioner can be attributed to the petitioner.

  5. The acquittal of the other co-accused does not affect the liability of the petitioner.

  6. The petitioner should not be convicted as an accessory to the crime.

  7. The petitioner is liable as an accomplice, not as an accessory.

  8. Rosendo Pacursa is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 15 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

  9. Ernesto Garces is found guilty as an accomplice to the crime of rape and is also sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 15 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The mere fact that the rape was committed at nighttime does not make nocturnity an aggravating circumstance.

  • The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated in the absence of evidence that the accused actually sought an isolated place to better execute their purpose.

  • Denial and alibi are weak defenses and cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of credible witnesses.

  • For alibi to prosper, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence his presence at another place at the time of the offense and the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.

  • Evidence in criminal cases includes all documents, affidavits, or sworn statements of the witnesses and other supporting evidence.

  • A sworn statement forms an integral part of the prosecution evidence and should not be ignored as long as it is presented as evidence in open court.

  • The court should review, assess, and weigh the totality of the evidence presented by the parties.

  • The use of vague pronouns does not negate the logical conclusion of who issued the threats.

  • The acquittal of other co-accused does not affect the liability of the remaining accused.

  • An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the duty of the Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment.

  • Accomplices are those who, not being included in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

  • The penalty for accomplices in a consummated crime is the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for the felony.

  • Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

  • The complainant in rape cases is entitled to an award of civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages.

  • Accomplice liability: An accomplice is a person who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. The accomplice is liable as a principal if the crime committed is different from that intended, but if the crime committed is the one intended, the accomplice is liable for the offense actually committed (Article 18, Revised Penal Code).

  • Civil Indemnity ex delicto: Civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory and awarded to the offended party without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of the crime. It is intended to compensate the victim for the physical, moral, and psychological sufferings caused by the commission of the crime (People v. Victoriano, G.R. No. 210539, June 8, 2020).

  • Subsidiary liability: An accomplice is solidarily liable with the principal only if the law specifically provides for it. In this case, the petitioner, as an accomplice, is held solidarily liable with the principal for half of the civil indemnity ex delicto awarded to the offended party (Article 110, Revised Penal Code).