THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 248204, August 24, 2020 ]PEOPLE v. JONATHAN JUARIZO EVARDONE +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JONATHAN JUARIZO EVARDONE, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. JONATHAN JUARIZO EVARDONE +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JONATHAN JUARIZO EVARDONE, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
Jonathan Juarizo Evardone (accused-appellant) appealed the Decision[1] dated April 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08988 affirming with modification the Decision[2] dated November 17, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 100 in Criminal Case Nos. 11-43069 to 11-43071 finding accused-appellant guilty of the crimes Robbery with Rape as provided for under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Accused-appellant was charged with Robbery with Rape under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC in the following separate Information, to wit:
Accused-appellant and the other person grabbed AAA's cellphone worth P500.00. When a tricycle passed by, AAA shouted for help but the tricycle driver did not stop.[8]
AAA was able to run but accused-appellant caught up with her. Accused-appellant then grabbed AAA's collar and he asked her if she was a woman. Accused-appellant then pulled her to the side of a red car, then he put his hands under AAA's shirt and mashed her breast. Accused-appellant then said "babae ka pala, sige na, humiga ka na." He pointed the knife against her left neck and forced her to lie down in the canal. There, accused-appellant, inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina.[9]
While accused-appellant was ravishing her, he said to AAA, "diba tiga-Sitio Broadway ka? May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din." Since accused-appellant and AAA cannot fit in the canal, the former ordered AAA to go back up the canal and to the side of the car. There, he ordered AAA to bend over and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina for the second time. Accused-appellant tried to stab AAA but the latter was able to parry the stab and was wounded on her right thumb. Thereafter, accused-appellant told her "Pasensiya ka na, hindi naman ako masamang tao, natalo long sa sugal at nakabatak lang."[10]
Accused-appellant's companion said "Pare, tama na yan kasi magliliwanag na." Accused-appellant replied "sandali na lang to, isa na lang." Thereafter, accused-appellant ordered AAA to go down the canal again, where for the third time, he inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina.[11] When the criminal act was done, accused-appellant threatened AAA not to report him to the police and that if AAA would get pregnant, she should look for him.[12]
When accused-appellant and his male companion left, AAA put on her shorts and hurriedly went home. AAA left her panty and her boxer shorts in the crime scene.[13]
When AAA arrived home, she told her ordeal to her brothers, sister and mother. Her brothers went to the crime scene to investigate, while AAA and her sister went to the police station to report the incident.[14]
AAA was examined and her Medico-Legal examination states:
The gay neighbor of AAA's aunt, gave four names, one of which is herein accused-appellant. On August 14, 2011, those four persons, including accused-appellant, were called in the barangay. At the barangay hall, AAA identified herein accused-appellant as the one who raped her.[17]
BBB, AAA's sister, testified that on August 12, 2011, around 5:00 a.m., AAA went home crying and informed them that she was robbed and raped. BBB described that AAA was wet and dirty.[18]
Accused-appellant testified that on August 12, 2011, he was at the wake of a certain Lydia Flores in Sampaguita Street, Brgy. Dela Paz, Antipolo City from 7 p.m. of August 11, 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of August 12, 2011. Accused-appellant was with his friends, namely, Randolph Felicedario, Jericho Lepata, Jomar Caranto, and Cyrus Ramirez. After they left the wake, they decided to eat lugaw in Sitio Broadway and stayed there for more than half hour and then they went home.[19]
On August 14, 2011, he and his friends were invited in the Barangay Hall. They were asked to stand up and a woman who was crying pointed at him. He did not say anything and they were allowed to go home. After two years, or on 2013, he was arrested.[20]
Jomar Caranto testified that they were at the wake of Lydia Flores from 6:30 p.m. of August 11, 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of August 12, 2011. After they left the wake, they rested for a few minutes in the corner of Banico Street. Thereafter, they proceeded in Sitio Broadway to eat lugaw. Around 6:30 a.m., they went home.[21]
Jomar testified that they met Nick, who they later found out was AAA's brother, asking them if they saw any suspicious man in the area. In Jomar's cross-examination, he admitted that in order to reach Sitio Broadway, they had to pass NHA Avenue and Lukban Street.[22]
On November 17, 2016, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of all the crimes he was charged, thus:
Accused-appellant argues that the testimony of AAA is incredible and grossly inconsistent with human experience to be believable. The prosecution failed to prove the robbery beyond reasonable doubt. AAA's testimony is marred with inconsistencies. In AAA's affidavit, she claimed that her phone, money and jewelry were taken before the alleged rape happened.[26] During AAA's testimony, she claimed that only her cellphone was taken. Then, in her re-direct testimony, she claimed that her jewelry was also taken. The prosecution was not able to prove the stolen articles, it failed to present any receipt, photographic evidence or corroborating testimony of the existence of the cellphone and jewelry. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the incidents of rape.[27] AAA in her affidavit stated that the first rape happened beside the car, the second is down the canal and third was beside the car again. Also, during the third incident of rape, accused-appellant attempted to stab AAA but the latter was able to deflect the attack and was only wounded in her right thumb.[28] However, during AAA's testimony, she relayed that the first incident happened at the canal, then the second was beside the car, and the third incident was at the canal. Likewise, AAA testified that the attempt to stab her happened during the second incident of rape.[29]
Accused-appellant also questions AAA's lack of resistance or instinct to escape even though there were moments that she could escape without danger to herself. Also, despite the fact that the place of incident was well-lit, AAA failed to identify the male companion of accused-appellant.[30] Further, accused-appellant argues that it is possible that AAA mistook the identity of the accused-appellant as her assailant. It could not be dismissed that the assailant has the same features and clothes as accused-appellant.[31]
Issue
The issues to be resolved in this petition is whether accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape.
Ruling of the Court
The conviction is affirmed with modification as to penalty.
Central in accused-appellant's arguments in reversing his conviction is the credibility of the victim AAA in relating the crime. Accused-appellant argues that AAA's affidavit stating that her phone, money and jewelry were taken before the alleged rape happened. During AAA's testimony, she claimed that only her cellphone was taken. Then, in her re-direct testimony, she claimed that her jewelry was also taken. Also, AAA in her affidavit stated that the first rape happened beside the car, the second is down the canal and third was beside the car again. Also, during the third incident of rape, accused-appellant attempted to stab AAA but the latter was able to deflect the attack and was only wounded in her right thumb. However, during AAA's testimony, she relayed that the first incident happened at the canal, then the second was beside the car, and the third incident was at the canal. Likewise, AAA testified that the attempt to stab her happened during the incident of rape.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed by the trial court because of its opportunity to observe their demeanor while testifying on the stand, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts. In this case, accused-appellant was not able to show Us any good reason from deviating with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the testimony of AAA is credible, natural, convincing, consistent and supported by the evidence on the record.
Under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7659, prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when by reason of, or on the occasion of the robbery, the same was accompanied by rape. Thus, to be convicted of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape, the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, the personal property of the victim, and rape was just committed on the occasion thereof. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant's original intent was to rob AAA as evidenced by the fact that when accused-appellant approached AAA, he suddenly poked a knife at AAA's neck, declared a hold-up and took her cellphone. The fact that the prosecution was not able to show any receipt of the cellphone does not negate the fact that AAA was robbed.[32]
The prosecution was also able to prove that on the occasion of the robbery, AAA was raped by accused-appellant. The testimony of AAA that she was raped was supported by the Medico-Legal Report. The arguments of the accused-appellant that AAA's testimony was marred with inconsistencies especially as to where the three incidents of rape happened cannot be considered to reverse accused-appellant's conviction. It is well-settled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim does not automatically discredit the credibility of the witness.[33] It should be borne in mind that minor inconsistencies are to be expected when a victim recalls her harrowing and traumatic experience which are commonly too painful and agonizing to recount, especially in a courtroom setting. Further, inconsistencies on inconsequential matters that has nothing to do on the elements of the crime cannot result to the acquittal of the accused-appellant. Whether the first rape happened down the canal or beside the car, or where the succeeding rapes happened, the same fact still rings through, that accused-appellant indeed committed the atrocious act on AAA. The place where the rape was committed is not an essential element of the crime. AAA was consistent that accused-appellant raped her three times on the morning of August 12, 2011.[34]
Likewise, the lack of resistance of AAA cannot be taken as evidence that rape was not committed. Physical resistance to a rape need not be established where it is shown that the rape victim was threatened or intimidated into submission by the assailant. Here, AAA was consistent in her testimony that accused-appellant was armed with a knife when he committed the atrocious act. We cannot ascribe to AAA a uniform reaction to a rape incident. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. After all, resistance is not an element of rape and its absence does not negate AAA's claim that the accused-appellant consummated his bestial act.[35]
Accused-appellant's argument that he was mistaken as the assailant because AAA might have confused his appearance with that of the real assailant is incredulous. Be it noted that AAA testified that accused-appellant's face was familiar to her but she does not know his name. Also, AAA testified that when accused-appellant was raping her, she was looking at his face. The natural reaction of victims of a crime is to strive to know the identity of their assailants by looking at their appearance, features, and movements and observing the manner the crime was perpetrated to create a lasting impression that could not be erased easily in their memory. In this case, aside from the fact that AAA pointed at accused-appellant among the four persons presented in the barangay hall, she was consistent during trial in pointing the accused-appellant as the person who robbed and raped her.
Since the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed the crime, the latter's denial and alibi cannot be considered by this Court, especially in light of the positive identification of AAA. Accused-appellant claimed that he was at the wake of a certain Lydia Flores from 7:00 p.m. of August 11, 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of August 12, 2011. After they left the wake they went in Sitio Broadway to eat lugaw. However, based on the testimony of accused-appellant and his friend, Jomar, the place of the incident, the place of the wake and the place where they ate lugaw are all in the same barangay. Accused-appellant was not able to show that it is physically impossible for him to be at the place of the incident on the time of the incident. Thus, his alibi cannot be considered by this Court. Be it noted that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which can easily be concocted and fabricated.
Nevertheless, the penalty prescribed by the CA and the damages awarded need to be modified in keeping with the recent jurisprudence and the rules.
Under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC, states that the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is to be imposed when on the occasion of the robbery, a rape was committed. Article 63 of the RPC provides that when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance is present, the lesser penalty is to be imposed. In this case, since no mitigating or aggravating circumstance is present, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
While it is true that the CA, correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the inclusion of the phrase "without the eligibility for parole" is erroneous. As such, said phrase should be deleted. Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the phrase "without the eligibility for parole" is used to emphasize that the accused-appellant should have been sentenced to suffer the penalty of death had it not been for R.A. 9346. In this case, however, accused-appellant is only sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua since there is no aggravating circumstance that is alleged in the Information and proven during the trial in order to impose the supreme penalty of death.
Corollarily, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be reduced to P75,000.00. As provided for in People v. Jugueta,[36] in special complex crimes such as Robbery with Rape and the penalty is only reclusion perpetua the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages is P75,000.00.
As to the other two counts of rape that was committed by the accused-appellant, the CA acquitted accused-appellant of the said crimes not because of reasonable doubt or lack of evidence but because accused-appellant cannot be convicted separately of the two counts of rape committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. The two counts of rape committed on the occasion of the robbery are absorbed by one composite crime of Robbery with Rape.
While the two counts of rape cannot be treated as an aggravating circumstance for increasing the penalty, they can however be considered for the entitlement of the victim for additional damages. As held in the case of Jugueta, it is provided that:
Accordingly, AAA should be awarded for additional P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary damages for the other two incidents of rape.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08988 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 11-43069, accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone is ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of the three (3) incidents of rape committed. He is likewise ORDERED to pay a legal interest of six percent (6%) on the total amount of damages computed from the finality of this judgment until full payment thereof.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Gesmundo, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Zalameda, J., Pls. see separate opinion.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on August 24, 2020 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on March 1, 2021 at 8:53 a.m.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court); rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Gengos-Ignalaga; CA rollo, pp. 43-55.
[3] The real name of the victim and of the members of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act" and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC entitled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names".
[4] CA rollo, p. 44.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 45.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.; TSN dated March 11, 2014, pp. 6-7.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Rollo, p. 6.
[13] CA rollo, p. 45.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 51.
[16] Id. at 45.
[17] Id. at 46.
[18] Id. at 45.
[19] Id. at 46.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 55.
[24] Rollo, p. 19.
[25] 402 Phil. 584 (2001).
[26] CA rollo, p. 27.
[27] Id. at 28-29.
[28] Id. at 30.
[29] Id. at 30-31.
[30] Id. at 35.
[31] Id. at 37.
[32] People v. Belmonte, 813 Phil. 240, 246 (2017), citing People v. Tamayo, 434 Phil. 642 (2002).
[33] See People v. Cabralan, 682 Phil. 164 (2012).
[34] People v. Alipio, 618 Phil. 38, 48 (2009).
[35] People v. Arnaiz, 538 Phil. 479, 517 (2006).
[36] 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
[37] Id. at 850-852 (2016).
[38] 370 Phil. 506 (1999).
[39] 614 Phil. 625 (2009).
ZALAMEDA, J.:
I join the ponencia in upholding accused-appellant's conviction for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Nonetheless, I write to convey my views on the ponencia's modification of the penalty.
With due respect, I agree with the penalty imposed by the CA. The Informations sufficiently alleged an aggravating circumstance to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility, for parole.[1] To recall, the Informations specifically stated that AAA was raped not only "while in a sitting position" but was also "ordered to bend over against her will and consent."[2]
In People v. Alfanta,[3] the Court held that the sexual position employed during rape may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In an act of rape where the perpetrator enters the victim from behind, the means employed was ruled to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, viz.:
Further, the manner and means employed by accused-appellant in the rape incidents were fully established during trial. The CA considered AAA's straightforward account as to how she was raped by the accused multiple times on occasion of the robbery:
Indeed, there is as yet no jurisprudence where an aggravating circumstance alleged in the Information of the absorbed component crime has been treated as aggravating in the resulting complex crime. Conversely, We can view this dearth of jurisprudence to mean that there is yet no prohibition precluding courts from appreciating an aggravating circumstance from an absorbed crime.
To determine whether the alleged aggravating circumstance may be considered by the court, it is helpful to first examine the ratio behind the requirement that an Information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstance mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[7]
In People v. Solar,[8] the Court stressed the Constitutional imperative that no person should be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. An. essential component of the right to due process in criminal proceedings is the right of the accused to be sufficiently informed, in writing, of the cause of the accusation against him. These requirements are imposed to ensure that the accused is sufficiently apprised of the acts and circumstances with which he is being charged.[9] Simply put, the underlying purpose is to inform the accused of the acts and circumstances comprising the criminal charge.
The issue that now confronts this Court is this: if an aggravating circumstance was alleged under the Information of an absorbed component crime, can courts consider the accused as having been informed of this aggravating circumstance? I answer in the affirmative.
In robbery with multiple rapes, all the rapes are merged in the composite, integrated whole comprising the single crime of robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery.[10] Thus, it cannot be denied that the accused had already been informed, in writing, of the acts and circumstances alleged in the other Informations before the component rapes were absorbed. Necessarily, the allegations in the Informations for the component rapes should likewise be considered as integrated into the Information for robbery with rape because the purpose of Section 8, Rule 110 had been, satisfied. Ultimately, the accused remains sufficiently informed of the acts and circumstances with which he is being charged.
The Court's decision in People v. tuppal is instructive.[11] In that case, the accused was charged under four (4) separate Informations for murder, frustrated murder, attempted murder, and robbery. All charges were subsequently merged into one (1) special indivisible or composite crime of robbery with homicide. For the purpose of reckoning the appropriate penalty, the Court considered the injuries inflicted as an aggravating circumstance.[12]
In the present case, all charges under the three (3) Informations should also be considered as merged into one (1) special indivisible crime of robbery with rape, which necessarily includes the allegations of aggravating circumstances.
Incidentally, the CA herein acquitted the accused for the other two (2) incidents of rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
Since an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire base for review, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction, over the case and renders such court competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[14]
Herein, considering the two (2) additional rapes were merely absorbed in the robbery with rape charge, thus, the proper manner in disposing the separate charges, instead of an acquittal, should have been to indicate that all other charges have been merged into the special complex crime. This manner of disposal was also employed in Tuppal, wherein the trial court did not acquit the. accused under any of the Informations. Instead, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the single offense of robbery with homicide, as all other charges have been merged in said offense.[15] Hence, the dispositive portion should be modified to indicate that all charges have been, merged into a single charge of robbery with rape.
With all three (3) charges merged, I see no impediment in applying the aggravating circumstance of ignominy sufficiently alleged in the second Information for rape. At any rate, accused-appellant has already been fully informed, in writing, of the acts and circumstances with which he was being charged.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the appeal. However, accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
[1] Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 4 August 2015.
[2] The Informations for Criminal Case Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071 read:
Criminal Case No. 11-43070
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout[s] is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means offeree, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], while on a sitting position against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 11-43071
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout[s] is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means of force, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then, and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], who was ordered to bend over against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases supplied)
[3] People v. Alfanta y Alo, G.R. No. 125633, 09 December 1999, 378 Phil. 95-122 (1999).
[4] Id.
[5] CA Decision pp. 8-11.
[6] Also known as the Safe Spaces Act:
Section 4. Gender-Based Streets and Public Spaces Sexual Harassment. — The crimes of gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment are committed through, any unwanted and uninvited sexual actions or remarks against any person regardless of the motive for committing such action or remarks.
Gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment includes catcalling, wolf-whistling, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and sexist slurs, persistent uninvited comments or gestures on a person's appearance, relentless requests for personal details, statement of sexual comments and suggestions, public masturbation or flashing of private parts, groping, or any advances, whether verbal or physical, that is unwanted and has threatened one's sense of personal space and physical safety, and committed in public spaces such as alleys, roads, sidewalks and parks. Acts constitutive of gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment are those performed in buildings, schools, churches, restaurants, malls, public washrooms, bars, internet shops, public markets, transportation terminals or public utility vehicles.
[7] SECTION 8. Designation of the Offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances, If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
[8] G.R. No. 225595, 06 August 2019.
[9] Id.
[10] People v. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 402 Phil. 584-607 (2001).
[11] People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, 13 January 2003, 443 Phil. 92-107 (2003).
[12] Id.
[13] Section 2. Contents of the judgment. — x x x
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. x x x
[14] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 234190, 01 October 2018.
[15] People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, 13 January 2003, 443 Phil. 92-107 (2003).
On March 12, 1999, the trial court found the appellant guilty. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused SATURNINO TUPPAL beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the proper offense of Robbery with Homicide, all the other charges having been merged in said offense, defined and penalized under par. 1 of Article 294, Revised Penal Code, with one aggravating circumstance, that of nocturnity, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law; to indemnify the heirs of Bartolo Atuan, Jr. the sum of PhP50,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence and an additional sum of PhP20,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages plus moral damages in the sum of PhP200,000.00 and exemplary damage[s] in the sum of PhP50,000.00; to pay to Florfina Solito the sum of PhP2,500.00 which the accused forcibly took from her and PhP60,000.00 for actual and compensatory damage; and, to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied.]
Accused-appellant was charged with Robbery with Rape under Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and two counts of Rape under Article 266-A of the RPC in the following separate Information, to wit:
The prosecution established that on August 12, 2011 around 4:30 p.m., AAA was walking along NHA Avenue towards the jeepney terminal to go to work, when suddenly two persons, one of whom was later identified as accused-appellant while the other person was never identified, approached AAA and poked a knife at her and declared a hold-up.[7]Criminal Case No. 11-43069
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob, and divest [AAA][3], her cellular phone, money and jewelry, against her will and consent, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said [AAA], against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]Criminal Case No. 11-43070
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means of force, threat, and intimidation, with the use of a knife did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one AAA, while on a sitting position against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]Criminal Case No. 11-43071
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means of force, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one AAA, who was ordered to bend over against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Accused-appellant and the other person grabbed AAA's cellphone worth P500.00. When a tricycle passed by, AAA shouted for help but the tricycle driver did not stop.[8]
AAA was able to run but accused-appellant caught up with her. Accused-appellant then grabbed AAA's collar and he asked her if she was a woman. Accused-appellant then pulled her to the side of a red car, then he put his hands under AAA's shirt and mashed her breast. Accused-appellant then said "babae ka pala, sige na, humiga ka na." He pointed the knife against her left neck and forced her to lie down in the canal. There, accused-appellant, inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina.[9]
While accused-appellant was ravishing her, he said to AAA, "diba tiga-Sitio Broadway ka? May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din." Since accused-appellant and AAA cannot fit in the canal, the former ordered AAA to go back up the canal and to the side of the car. There, he ordered AAA to bend over and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina for the second time. Accused-appellant tried to stab AAA but the latter was able to parry the stab and was wounded on her right thumb. Thereafter, accused-appellant told her "Pasensiya ka na, hindi naman ako masamang tao, natalo long sa sugal at nakabatak lang."[10]
Accused-appellant's companion said "Pare, tama na yan kasi magliliwanag na." Accused-appellant replied "sandali na lang to, isa na lang." Thereafter, accused-appellant ordered AAA to go down the canal again, where for the third time, he inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina.[11] When the criminal act was done, accused-appellant threatened AAA not to report him to the police and that if AAA would get pregnant, she should look for him.[12]
When accused-appellant and his male companion left, AAA put on her shorts and hurriedly went home. AAA left her panty and her boxer shorts in the crime scene.[13]
When AAA arrived home, she told her ordeal to her brothers, sister and mother. Her brothers went to the crime scene to investigate, while AAA and her sister went to the police station to report the incident.[14]
AAA was examined and her Medico-Legal examination states:
Findings:AAA, together with her sister, went to their aunt who lived in a house where a wake was being held at the time of the incident. There, AAA relayed the physical description of accused-appellant. AAA claimed that accused-appellant was wearing black shirt and shorts pants and that his chin was long or "patulis na baba."[16]
Hymen: presence of deep healing laceration of 6 and 9 o'clock positions with erythema and laceration at the fossa navicularis about 0.5 cms. Erythematous labia minor is noted.
External physical injuries: 1. Incised wound, right thumb, measuring 2x0.2 cms, 1 cm medial to its ant. Midline. 2. Incised wound, right middle finger, measuring 1x0.1 cms. 1 cm medial to its ant. Midline.
x x x x
Conclusion:
Medical evaluation shows recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen, Barring unforeseen complications, above external physical injuries will heal in less than 9 days.[15]
The gay neighbor of AAA's aunt, gave four names, one of which is herein accused-appellant. On August 14, 2011, those four persons, including accused-appellant, were called in the barangay. At the barangay hall, AAA identified herein accused-appellant as the one who raped her.[17]
BBB, AAA's sister, testified that on August 12, 2011, around 5:00 a.m., AAA went home crying and informed them that she was robbed and raped. BBB described that AAA was wet and dirty.[18]
Accused-appellant testified that on August 12, 2011, he was at the wake of a certain Lydia Flores in Sampaguita Street, Brgy. Dela Paz, Antipolo City from 7 p.m. of August 11, 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of August 12, 2011. Accused-appellant was with his friends, namely, Randolph Felicedario, Jericho Lepata, Jomar Caranto, and Cyrus Ramirez. After they left the wake, they decided to eat lugaw in Sitio Broadway and stayed there for more than half hour and then they went home.[19]
On August 14, 2011, he and his friends were invited in the Barangay Hall. They were asked to stand up and a woman who was crying pointed at him. He did not say anything and they were allowed to go home. After two years, or on 2013, he was arrested.[20]
Jomar Caranto testified that they were at the wake of Lydia Flores from 6:30 p.m. of August 11, 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of August 12, 2011. After they left the wake, they rested for a few minutes in the corner of Banico Street. Thereafter, they proceeded in Sitio Broadway to eat lugaw. Around 6:30 a.m., they went home.[21]
Jomar testified that they met Nick, who they later found out was AAA's brother, asking them if they saw any suspicious man in the area. In Jomar's cross-examination, he admitted that in order to reach Sitio Broadway, they had to pass NHA Avenue and Lukban Street.[22]
On November 17, 2016, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of all the crimes he was charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Jonathan Juarizo Evardone guilty of the [crime] Robbery with Rape under Article 294 par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for Criminal Case No. 11-43069.On April 3, 2019, the CA affirmed with modification the conviction of the accused-appellant, to wit:
For Criminal Cases No. 11-43070 and 11-43071, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Jonathan Juarizo Evardone guilty of the TWO COUNTS of Rape under Article 266-ANo. 2, in relation to Article 266-B, 2nd paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count.
Accused is ordered to pay private complainant AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P75,000.00 as moral damages.
The preventive imprisonment of accused Jonathan Juarizo Evardone is credited in his favor.
SO ORDERED.[23]
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.The CA acquitted the accused-appellant on the two counts of rape since Article 294 of the RPC is not limited to a single victim or one instance of rape. In People v. Seguis,[25] the crime of Robbery with Rape covers multiple rapes accompanying the robbery and all the rapes shall be merged in a single crime of robbery with rape.
Accordingly, the Decision dated 17 November 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 100, Antipolo City is hereby MODIFIED as follows:(1) Insofar as Criminal Case Nos. 11- 43070 and 11-43071 are concerned, appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of two (2) counts of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.SO ORDERED.[24] (Emphasis and italics in the original)
(2) With respect to Criminal Case No. 11-43069 convicting appellant of robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the same is AFFIRMED. However, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
(3) Appellant is ORDERED to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, in addition to the awards of moral damages and civil indemnity which are increased to P100,000.00.
(4) Finally, pursuant to the pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames and Felipe Bordey, Jr., appellant is further ORDERED to pay legal interest on all awarded damages at 6% per annum from the filing of the Information on 18 October 2011 until the finality of this Decision, and another 6% per annum from such finality until full payment.
Accused-appellant argues that the testimony of AAA is incredible and grossly inconsistent with human experience to be believable. The prosecution failed to prove the robbery beyond reasonable doubt. AAA's testimony is marred with inconsistencies. In AAA's affidavit, she claimed that her phone, money and jewelry were taken before the alleged rape happened.[26] During AAA's testimony, she claimed that only her cellphone was taken. Then, in her re-direct testimony, she claimed that her jewelry was also taken. The prosecution was not able to prove the stolen articles, it failed to present any receipt, photographic evidence or corroborating testimony of the existence of the cellphone and jewelry. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the incidents of rape.[27] AAA in her affidavit stated that the first rape happened beside the car, the second is down the canal and third was beside the car again. Also, during the third incident of rape, accused-appellant attempted to stab AAA but the latter was able to deflect the attack and was only wounded in her right thumb.[28] However, during AAA's testimony, she relayed that the first incident happened at the canal, then the second was beside the car, and the third incident was at the canal. Likewise, AAA testified that the attempt to stab her happened during the second incident of rape.[29]
Accused-appellant also questions AAA's lack of resistance or instinct to escape even though there were moments that she could escape without danger to herself. Also, despite the fact that the place of incident was well-lit, AAA failed to identify the male companion of accused-appellant.[30] Further, accused-appellant argues that it is possible that AAA mistook the identity of the accused-appellant as her assailant. It could not be dismissed that the assailant has the same features and clothes as accused-appellant.[31]
The issues to be resolved in this petition is whether accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape.
The conviction is affirmed with modification as to penalty.
Central in accused-appellant's arguments in reversing his conviction is the credibility of the victim AAA in relating the crime. Accused-appellant argues that AAA's affidavit stating that her phone, money and jewelry were taken before the alleged rape happened. During AAA's testimony, she claimed that only her cellphone was taken. Then, in her re-direct testimony, she claimed that her jewelry was also taken. Also, AAA in her affidavit stated that the first rape happened beside the car, the second is down the canal and third was beside the car again. Also, during the third incident of rape, accused-appellant attempted to stab AAA but the latter was able to deflect the attack and was only wounded in her right thumb. However, during AAA's testimony, she relayed that the first incident happened at the canal, then the second was beside the car, and the third incident was at the canal. Likewise, AAA testified that the attempt to stab her happened during the incident of rape.
Time and again, this Court has reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed by the trial court because of its opportunity to observe their demeanor while testifying on the stand, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts. In this case, accused-appellant was not able to show Us any good reason from deviating with the findings of the RTC and the CA that the testimony of AAA is credible, natural, convincing, consistent and supported by the evidence on the record.
Under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. (R.A.) 7659, prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when by reason of, or on the occasion of the robbery, the same was accompanied by rape. Thus, to be convicted of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape, the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, the personal property of the victim, and rape was just committed on the occasion thereof. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant's original intent was to rob AAA as evidenced by the fact that when accused-appellant approached AAA, he suddenly poked a knife at AAA's neck, declared a hold-up and took her cellphone. The fact that the prosecution was not able to show any receipt of the cellphone does not negate the fact that AAA was robbed.[32]
The prosecution was also able to prove that on the occasion of the robbery, AAA was raped by accused-appellant. The testimony of AAA that she was raped was supported by the Medico-Legal Report. The arguments of the accused-appellant that AAA's testimony was marred with inconsistencies especially as to where the three incidents of rape happened cannot be considered to reverse accused-appellant's conviction. It is well-settled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim does not automatically discredit the credibility of the witness.[33] It should be borne in mind that minor inconsistencies are to be expected when a victim recalls her harrowing and traumatic experience which are commonly too painful and agonizing to recount, especially in a courtroom setting. Further, inconsistencies on inconsequential matters that has nothing to do on the elements of the crime cannot result to the acquittal of the accused-appellant. Whether the first rape happened down the canal or beside the car, or where the succeeding rapes happened, the same fact still rings through, that accused-appellant indeed committed the atrocious act on AAA. The place where the rape was committed is not an essential element of the crime. AAA was consistent that accused-appellant raped her three times on the morning of August 12, 2011.[34]
Likewise, the lack of resistance of AAA cannot be taken as evidence that rape was not committed. Physical resistance to a rape need not be established where it is shown that the rape victim was threatened or intimidated into submission by the assailant. Here, AAA was consistent in her testimony that accused-appellant was armed with a knife when he committed the atrocious act. We cannot ascribe to AAA a uniform reaction to a rape incident. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. After all, resistance is not an element of rape and its absence does not negate AAA's claim that the accused-appellant consummated his bestial act.[35]
Accused-appellant's argument that he was mistaken as the assailant because AAA might have confused his appearance with that of the real assailant is incredulous. Be it noted that AAA testified that accused-appellant's face was familiar to her but she does not know his name. Also, AAA testified that when accused-appellant was raping her, she was looking at his face. The natural reaction of victims of a crime is to strive to know the identity of their assailants by looking at their appearance, features, and movements and observing the manner the crime was perpetrated to create a lasting impression that could not be erased easily in their memory. In this case, aside from the fact that AAA pointed at accused-appellant among the four persons presented in the barangay hall, she was consistent during trial in pointing the accused-appellant as the person who robbed and raped her.
Since the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed the crime, the latter's denial and alibi cannot be considered by this Court, especially in light of the positive identification of AAA. Accused-appellant claimed that he was at the wake of a certain Lydia Flores from 7:00 p.m. of August 11, 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of August 12, 2011. After they left the wake they went in Sitio Broadway to eat lugaw. However, based on the testimony of accused-appellant and his friend, Jomar, the place of the incident, the place of the wake and the place where they ate lugaw are all in the same barangay. Accused-appellant was not able to show that it is physically impossible for him to be at the place of the incident on the time of the incident. Thus, his alibi cannot be considered by this Court. Be it noted that denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses which can easily be concocted and fabricated.
Nevertheless, the penalty prescribed by the CA and the damages awarded need to be modified in keeping with the recent jurisprudence and the rules.
Under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the RPC, states that the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is to be imposed when on the occasion of the robbery, a rape was committed. Article 63 of the RPC provides that when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and there is neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance is present, the lesser penalty is to be imposed. In this case, since no mitigating or aggravating circumstance is present, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
While it is true that the CA, correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the inclusion of the phrase "without the eligibility for parole" is erroneous. As such, said phrase should be deleted. Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, the phrase "without the eligibility for parole" is used to emphasize that the accused-appellant should have been sentenced to suffer the penalty of death had it not been for R.A. 9346. In this case, however, accused-appellant is only sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua since there is no aggravating circumstance that is alleged in the Information and proven during the trial in order to impose the supreme penalty of death.
Corollarily, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P100,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages should be reduced to P75,000.00. As provided for in People v. Jugueta,[36] in special complex crimes such as Robbery with Rape and the penalty is only reclusion perpetua the civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages is P75,000.00.
As to the other two counts of rape that was committed by the accused-appellant, the CA acquitted accused-appellant of the said crimes not because of reasonable doubt or lack of evidence but because accused-appellant cannot be convicted separately of the two counts of rape committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. The two counts of rape committed on the occasion of the robbery are absorbed by one composite crime of Robbery with Rape.
While the two counts of rape cannot be treated as an aggravating circumstance for increasing the penalty, they can however be considered for the entitlement of the victim for additional damages. As held in the case of Jugueta, it is provided that:
IV. For Special Complex Crimes like Robbery with Homicide, Robbery with Rape, Robbery with Intentional Mutilation, Robbery with Arson, Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Murder, Carnapping with Homicide or Carnapping with Rape, Highway Robbery with Homicide, Qualified Piracy, Arson with Homicide, Hazing with Death, Rape, Sodomy or Mutilation and other crimes with death, injuries, and sexual abuse as the composite crimes, where the penalty consists of indivisible penalties:Further, awarding AAA P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary damages each for the other two incidents of rape is consistent with the ruling of this Court in People v. Candelario[38] The accused in this case was charged with the crime of Robbery with Multiple Rape since the accused rape the victim multiple times. This Court convicted the accused with a single crime of Robbery with Rape but the victim was awarded additional damages to the victim for each count of the rape committed on the victim. Also in the case of People v. Antonio Ortiz,[39] the accused was also charged with Robbery with Multiple Rape where the four accused took turns in raping the victim. This Court convicted the accused with a single crime of Robbery with Rape but also awarded the victim damages for each incident of rape committed upon her by the four accused.
1. Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346:
a. Civil indemnity - P100,000.00
b. Moral damages - P100,000.00
c. Exemplary damages - P100,000.00
x x x x
2.1 Where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, other than the above-mentioned:
a. Civil indemnity - P75,000.00
b. Moral damages - P75,000.00
c. Exemplary damages - P75,000.00
x x x x
Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that for every additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.[37] (Emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, AAA should be awarded for additional P75,000.00 civil indemnity, P75,000.00 moral damages and P75,000.00 exemplary damages for the other two incidents of rape.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 3, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08988 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Accordingly, in Criminal Case No. 11-43069, accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone is ORDERED to pay AAA the amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages, P75,000.00 as exemplary damages and P75,000.00 as civil indemnity for each count of the three (3) incidents of rape committed. He is likewise ORDERED to pay a legal interest of six percent (6%) on the total amount of damages computed from the finality of this judgment until full payment thereof.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Gesmundo, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Zalameda, J., Pls. see separate opinion.
March 1, 2021
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on August 24, 2020 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on March 1, 2021 at 8:53 a.m.
| | Very truly yours, |
(SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III | |
Division Clerk of Court |
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court); rollo, pp. 3-20.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Gengos-Ignalaga; CA rollo, pp. 43-55.
[3] The real name of the victim and of the members of her immediate family are withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act" and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC entitled "Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names".
[4] CA rollo, p. 44.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 45.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.; TSN dated March 11, 2014, pp. 6-7.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Rollo, p. 6.
[13] CA rollo, p. 45.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 51.
[16] Id. at 45.
[17] Id. at 46.
[18] Id. at 45.
[19] Id. at 46.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 55.
[24] Rollo, p. 19.
[25] 402 Phil. 584 (2001).
[26] CA rollo, p. 27.
[27] Id. at 28-29.
[28] Id. at 30.
[29] Id. at 30-31.
[30] Id. at 35.
[31] Id. at 37.
[32] People v. Belmonte, 813 Phil. 240, 246 (2017), citing People v. Tamayo, 434 Phil. 642 (2002).
[33] See People v. Cabralan, 682 Phil. 164 (2012).
[34] People v. Alipio, 618 Phil. 38, 48 (2009).
[35] People v. Arnaiz, 538 Phil. 479, 517 (2006).
[36] 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
[37] Id. at 850-852 (2016).
[38] 370 Phil. 506 (1999).
[39] 614 Phil. 625 (2009).
SEPARATE OPINION
ZALAMEDA, J.:
I join the ponencia in upholding accused-appellant's conviction for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Nonetheless, I write to convey my views on the ponencia's modification of the penalty.
The Informations sufficiently alleged the aggravating circumstance of ignominy |
With due respect, I agree with the penalty imposed by the CA. The Informations sufficiently alleged an aggravating circumstance to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility, for parole.[1] To recall, the Informations specifically stated that AAA was raped not only "while in a sitting position" but was also "ordered to bend over against her will and consent."[2]
In People v. Alfanta,[3] the Court held that the sexual position employed during rape may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In an act of rape where the perpetrator enters the victim from behind, the means employed was ruled to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, viz.:
With respect to ignominy, the victim testified that after appellant had inserted his penis into her vagina, appellant ordered her to lie face down and while in that position had his penis into her anus. Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down again and this time he inserted his finger inside her. The Solicitor General correctly invoked the case of People vs. Saylan, where this Court said: The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior, but also 'the same position as dogs do' i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.The Informations herein specifically described with particularity accused-appellant's act of raping AAA from behind. The conscious use of this position in committing the crime of rape unnecessarily added ignominy, humiliation, and disgrace to AAA's' suffering, Thus, this aggravating circumstance may be properly appreciated in the imposition of penalty.
Article 14, paragraph 17, of the Revised Penal Code considers to be an aggravating circumstance any means employed or circumstance brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. The circumstance, it is said, pertains to the moral order arid adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.[4]
Further, the manner and means employed by accused-appellant in the rape incidents were fully established during trial. The CA considered AAA's straightforward account as to how she was raped by the accused multiple times on occasion of the robbery:
Q. And after that, you said that he pulled you towards the parked vehicle[.] [W]hat did Jonathan do next?AAA's sister, BBB, testified that when AAA came home, the latter was wet and dirty as a result of suffering through multiple rapes in a canal. Moreover, accused-appellant made cruel and hurtful remarks before and during the rapes against AAA, which added insult to injury, such as: "babae ka pala, sige na humiga ka na" and "May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din." These statements are considered gender-based slurs, the use of which are punishable under Republic Act No. 11313.[6] Taken as a whole, accused-appellant's acts increased AAA's anguish and suffering from the ordeal.
A. When he said "babae kapala", he lay me down on the canal.
Q. Did you follow his order?
A. Yes, ma'am[,] because his knife was pointed on the left side of my neck.
Q. When you lay down[,] what did he do?
A. In [sic] inserted his penis to my vagina.
Q. When he ordered you to lie down and before he inserted his penis into your vagina, what[,] if any[,] did he order you?
A. He told me "babae kapala, sige na humiga ka na".
Q. And you said he inserted his penis into your vagina, what did you feel?
A. It was painful.
Q. And while he was doing that, what was he saying to you[,] if any?
A. He said, "di ba taga-Sitio Broadway ka? May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din."
x x x
Q. When you were on top of the canal, what did he do next?
A. Pinatuwad po niya ako at ipinasok niya ulit yung titi niya.
Q. When he asked you to bend down and inserted his penis into your vagina, what was he saying[,] if any?
A. Sabi po niya, lalagyan po niya ko ng marka, tapos po, sinalag ko po yung saksak niya.
Q. Where did he stab you?
A. Hindi po natuloy[.] [D]apat po sasaksakin niya ko, sinalag ko, kaya nga po may sugat ako dito ([T]he witness is pointing to her right thumb). x x x
x x x
Q. So, the accused told you to go down to the canal, did you follow him?
A. Yes, ma'am[,] because the knife was still pointing to my neck ([W]itness is pointing to her left neck).
Q. When you were already down on the canal, what did he do to you?
A. He said "last na to" and he told me not to report to the police because he will kill me. Sinabi rin po niya na pag nabuntis ako, hanapin ko lang daw siya.
Q. What did he actually do to you when you were already down on the canal?
A. Ganun din po. Ipinasok niya ang titi niya sa ari ko.
Q. What was your position then when he inserted his penis into your vagina?
A. Nakaganito po, kasi, eto po yung canal eh...([T]he witness is raising both of her legs).[5]
Ignominy may be appreciated if alleged, in the Informations of the absorbed component crimes |
Indeed, there is as yet no jurisprudence where an aggravating circumstance alleged in the Information of the absorbed component crime has been treated as aggravating in the resulting complex crime. Conversely, We can view this dearth of jurisprudence to mean that there is yet no prohibition precluding courts from appreciating an aggravating circumstance from an absorbed crime.
To determine whether the alleged aggravating circumstance may be considered by the court, it is helpful to first examine the ratio behind the requirement that an Information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstance mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[7]
In People v. Solar,[8] the Court stressed the Constitutional imperative that no person should be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. An. essential component of the right to due process in criminal proceedings is the right of the accused to be sufficiently informed, in writing, of the cause of the accusation against him. These requirements are imposed to ensure that the accused is sufficiently apprised of the acts and circumstances with which he is being charged.[9] Simply put, the underlying purpose is to inform the accused of the acts and circumstances comprising the criminal charge.
The issue that now confronts this Court is this: if an aggravating circumstance was alleged under the Information of an absorbed component crime, can courts consider the accused as having been informed of this aggravating circumstance? I answer in the affirmative.
In robbery with multiple rapes, all the rapes are merged in the composite, integrated whole comprising the single crime of robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery.[10] Thus, it cannot be denied that the accused had already been informed, in writing, of the acts and circumstances alleged in the other Informations before the component rapes were absorbed. Necessarily, the allegations in the Informations for the component rapes should likewise be considered as integrated into the Information for robbery with rape because the purpose of Section 8, Rule 110 had been, satisfied. Ultimately, the accused remains sufficiently informed of the acts and circumstances with which he is being charged.
The Court's decision in People v. tuppal is instructive.[11] In that case, the accused was charged under four (4) separate Informations for murder, frustrated murder, attempted murder, and robbery. All charges were subsequently merged into one (1) special indivisible or composite crime of robbery with homicide. For the purpose of reckoning the appropriate penalty, the Court considered the injuries inflicted as an aggravating circumstance.[12]
In the present case, all charges under the three (3) Informations should also be considered as merged into one (1) special indivisible crime of robbery with rape, which necessarily includes the allegations of aggravating circumstances.
Incidentally, the CA herein acquitted the accused for the other two (2) incidents of rape. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED.As shown in the fallo, the CA did not indicate whether the prosecution's evidence absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The CA erred in rendering an acquittal without specifying one of the reasons under Section 2, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.[13] The merging of composite crimes is not among the valid reasons to acquit an accused.
Accordingly, the Decision dated 17 November 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 100, Antipolo City, is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
(1) Insofar as Criminal Cases Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071 are concerned, appellant is ACQUITTED of the charge of two (2) counts of simple rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
(2) With respect to Criminal Case No. 11-43069 convicting appellant of robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the same is AFFIRMED. However, the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
(3) Appellant is ORDERED to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00, in addition to the awards of moral damages and civil indemnity which are increased to P100,000.00.
(4) Finally, pursuant to the pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames and Felipe Bordey, Jr., 34 appellant is further ORDERED to pay legal interest on all awarded damages at 6% per annum from the filing of the Information on 18 October 2011 until the finality of this Decision, and another 6% per annum from such finality until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
Since an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire base for review, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction, over the case and renders such court competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[14]
Herein, considering the two (2) additional rapes were merely absorbed in the robbery with rape charge, thus, the proper manner in disposing the separate charges, instead of an acquittal, should have been to indicate that all other charges have been merged into the special complex crime. This manner of disposal was also employed in Tuppal, wherein the trial court did not acquit the. accused under any of the Informations. Instead, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the single offense of robbery with homicide, as all other charges have been merged in said offense.[15] Hence, the dispositive portion should be modified to indicate that all charges have been, merged into a single charge of robbery with rape.
With all three (3) charges merged, I see no impediment in applying the aggravating circumstance of ignominy sufficiently alleged in the second Information for rape. At any rate, accused-appellant has already been fully informed, in writing, of the acts and circumstances with which he was being charged.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DISMISS the appeal. However, accused-appellant Jonathan Juarizo Evardone should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
[1] Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties, A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 4 August 2015.
[2] The Informations for Criminal Case Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071 read:
Criminal Case No. 11-43070
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout[s] is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means offeree, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], while on a sitting position against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 11-43071
That on or about the 12th day of August 2011, in the City of Antipolo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating with a male person whose true name, identity and present whereabout[s] is still unknown, and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, with lewd design, and by means of force, threat and intimidation, with the use of a knife, did, then, and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], who was ordered to bend over against her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Emphases supplied)
[3] People v. Alfanta y Alo, G.R. No. 125633, 09 December 1999, 378 Phil. 95-122 (1999).
[4] Id.
[5] CA Decision pp. 8-11.
[6] Also known as the Safe Spaces Act:
Section 4. Gender-Based Streets and Public Spaces Sexual Harassment. — The crimes of gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment are committed through, any unwanted and uninvited sexual actions or remarks against any person regardless of the motive for committing such action or remarks.
Gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment includes catcalling, wolf-whistling, unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic and sexist slurs, persistent uninvited comments or gestures on a person's appearance, relentless requests for personal details, statement of sexual comments and suggestions, public masturbation or flashing of private parts, groping, or any advances, whether verbal or physical, that is unwanted and has threatened one's sense of personal space and physical safety, and committed in public spaces such as alleys, roads, sidewalks and parks. Acts constitutive of gender-based streets and public spaces sexual harassment are those performed in buildings, schools, churches, restaurants, malls, public washrooms, bars, internet shops, public markets, transportation terminals or public utility vehicles.
[7] SECTION 8. Designation of the Offense. — The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances, If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
[8] G.R. No. 225595, 06 August 2019.
[9] Id.
[10] People v. Seguis, G.R. No. 135034, 18 January 2001, 402 Phil. 584-607 (2001).
[11] People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, 13 January 2003, 443 Phil. 92-107 (2003).
[12] Id.
[13] Section 2. Contents of the judgment. — x x x
In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. x x x
[14] People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 234190, 01 October 2018.
[15] People v. Tuppal, G.R. Nos. 137982-85, 13 January 2003, 443 Phil. 92-107 (2003).
On March 12, 1999, the trial court found the appellant guilty. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of accused SATURNINO TUPPAL beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the proper offense of Robbery with Homicide, all the other charges having been merged in said offense, defined and penalized under par. 1 of Article 294, Revised Penal Code, with one aggravating circumstance, that of nocturnity, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law; to indemnify the heirs of Bartolo Atuan, Jr. the sum of PhP50,000.00 following prevailing jurisprudence and an additional sum of PhP20,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages plus moral damages in the sum of PhP200,000.00 and exemplary damage[s] in the sum of PhP50,000.00; to pay to Florfina Solito the sum of PhP2,500.00 which the accused forcibly took from her and PhP60,000.00 for actual and compensatory damage; and, to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. [Emphasis supplied.]