FACTS:

Juanito Cabigquez and Romulo Grondiano were charged with robbery and rape. The crime of rape was committed when Cabigquez forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim, AAA, in the presence of her children. Both accused pleaded not guilty. Cabigquez claimed he was in the house of a neighbor on the night of the incident, with a witness testifying to support his alibi. However, the trial court noted that Cabigquez's daughter was coaching the witness. A DNA analysis on the sperm taken from AAA did not match Cabigquez's DNA profile. Nonetheless, the trial court found both accused guilty. The accused appealed their convictions to the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The CA affirmed the trial court's decision, sentencing Cabigquez to reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape. Appellant Cabigquez then brought the case to the Supreme Court, reiterating his arguments before the CA.

The Court sustains the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, establish that one of the appellants raped the victim, even though the DNA test did not match the appellant's DNA profile. The totality of evidence, including the victim's daughter's identification of the appellant as the perpetrator and the findings of the medical examiner, establishes the appellant's guilt.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the identity of the perpetrator of the rape is duly established

2. Whether or not the DNA test results are inconclusive to exculpate or inculpate the appellant

3. Whether the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the rape and robbery was reliable and credible.

4. Whether the delay in revealing the identities of the perpetrators to the police affected the credibility of the witnesses.

5. Can the appellant seek acquittal based on the negative result of the DNA test?

6. Was the conviction for qualified rape justified?

7. Was the charge of conspiracy in the robbery case proven?

8. Was the amount of actual damages awarded by the trial court justified?

9. Should the sums awarded as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages be adjusted?

10. Was the modification of the penalty from death penalty to reclusion perpetua proper?

11. Whether the appellant is eligible for parole despite the imposition of reclusion perpetua.

12. Whether the trial court properly awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the private complainant.

RULING:

1. The totality of evidence satisfactorily established that it was indeed the appellant who raped the victim. The positive identification by the victim's daughter, who witnessed the entire incident, provides sufficient basis for the conviction of the appellant for rape.

2. Although the DNA test results were inconclusive to exculpate or inculpate the appellant, the presence of spermatozoa confirmed by an earlier laboratory test conducted on the victim's vaginal swab, together with other evidence, supports the conclusion that the appellant is the perpetrator of the rape.

3. The identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the rape and robbery was found to be reliable and credible. The fact that the victim, AAA, did not recognize the appellant and his co-accused, despite their familiarity, was not deemed significant. It must be considered that AAA and her daughter, BBB, were lying face down during the commission of the crimes, and it was BBB who had the opportunity to see the appellant. AAA was unable to move or see the appellant during the incident because she was afraid for her children. Therefore, the failure of AAA to recognize the appellant was justified.

4. The delay in revealing the identities of the perpetrators to the police did not affect the credibility of the witnesses. BBB explained that she was afraid that the attackers would carry out their threat to harm her and her family if they revealed the identities. The delay in reporting the incident and identifying the perpetrators was adequately explained by the fear of reprisal. Therefore, it did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses.

5. The appellant cannot seek acquittal based on the negative result of the DNA test. A positive DNA match is not necessary when the totality of the evidence presented before the court points to no other possible conclusion, i.e., appellant raped the private offended party. A positive DNA match may strengthen the evidence for the prosecution, but an inconclusive DNA test result may not be sufficient to exculpate the accused, particularly when there is sufficient evidence proving his guilt.

6. The conviction for qualified rape was justified. It was evident that the rape was committed in the presence and in full view of the victim's three minor children. This circumstance is sufficient to qualify the rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

7. The charge of conspiracy in the robbery case was proven. Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred upon the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest. In this case, circumstantial evidence, such as the creaking sound coming from the balcony and the fact that the appellant went inside the store as soon as his co-accused left, reasonably verify a discernment that someone stood by outside and close to the store's entrance during the looting, and that such person was the appellant. The fact that only the co-accused concealed his face reasonably indicates a prior agreement between them.

8. The amount of actual damages awarded by the trial court was justified. The trial court has the power to take judicial notice of the value of stolen goods because these are matters of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration.

9. The sums awarded as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be adjusted. Following prevailing jurisprudence, the private complainant is entitled to P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.

10. The modification of the penalty from death penalty to reclusion perpetua was proper in view of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. However, the appellant is not eligible for parole under Section 3 of the said law.

11. The appellant is not eligible for parole based on Section 3 of the law, which states that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

12. The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to the private complainant.

PRINCIPLES:

• Positive identification by a credible witness is sufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrator of a crime.

• DNA test results, although important in criminal investigation, are not the sole determining factor in establishing guilt or innocence. Other evidence may be considered in the totality of circumstances.

• Identification of the perpetrator of a crime may still be reliable even if the victim does not immediately recognize them, particularly if there were circumstances that hindered the victim's ability to make a positive identification.

• Delay in revealing the identities of the perpetrators to the police does not necessarily weaken the credibility of the witnesses, especially if there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, such as fear for personal safety.

• A positive DNA match is not necessary when the totality of the evidence points to the guilt of the accused in a rape case.

• The rape committed in the presence and in full view of minor children qualifies as qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.

• Conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence and does not require direct proof of a previous agreement.

• The trial court has the power to take judicial notice of the value of stolen goods in determining actual damages.

• the sums awarded as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages can be adjusted based on prevailing jurisprudence.

• The death penalty is prohibited under Republic Act No. 9346, but offenders are not eligible for parole.

• Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. (Section 3)