Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > September 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

202 Phil. 488:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-32860. September 30, 1982.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENATO MARQUEZ, Defendants, FRANCISCO FORNESTE and SAMUEL JACOBO, Defendants-Appellants.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Asst. Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor Reynato S. Puno, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rogerio S. T. Cadag, for Defendants-Appellants.

SYNOPSIS


Renato Marquez, Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo were charged before the Court of First Instance of the crime of robbery with multiple rape, but Marquez died in the course of the trial thus leaving only the two other accused to answer the charges. Witnesses Francisca Marquez and her daughter, Leticia Tan, testified that on the evening of November 16, 1966, the three accused, disguised as PC soldiers and armed with guns, forcibly entered their house and robbed them of cash and several valuables. Francisca Marquez declared that Samuel Jacobo raped her in the course of the robbery. Leticia Tan told the court that Renato Marquez likewise raped her and narrated that, immediately after the culprits had left, their housemaid, Rufina Martinez, told her that she was also raped by Francisco Forneste. The allegations of rape was corroborated by the physician who examined the three victims. After trial, the lower court, finding no evidence of conspiracy in the commission of the rapes, convicted the accused of robbery with rape and sentenced each of them to "life imprisonment." On appeal, appellants assail the trial court’s findings that they were positively identified by the complaining witnesses and pointed to the reluctance of said witnesses to identify them during the investigations and in the police line-up of suspects.

On review, the Supreme Court held that: (a) the initial reluctance of the complaining witnesses to divulge the identity of their assailants was justified by the ordeal they suffered in the hands of appellants and their fear of revenge, besides, said witnesses gave descriptions instead which jibed with those of appellants whom they positively identified in open court as the culprits; (b) the term life imprisonment should be changed to reclusion perpetua considering that this is the technical term of the penalty which carries with it the imposition of accessory penalties; and (c) appellants Forneste and Jacobo should indemnify victims Rufina Martinez and Francisca Marquez, respectively, in the amount of P12,000.00 each.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; RELUCTANCE OF WITNESSES TO DIVULGE IDENTITY OF THE CULPRITS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, JUSTIFIED IN CASE AT BAR. — The silence of the complaining witnesses on the identity of the accused immediately after the incident was explained by the ordeal they had just suffered at the hands of the accused. The accused were armed during the incident and the complaining witnesses were threatened with death. We pointed out in People v. Rendora, G.R. No. L-14356, September 30, 1959; People v. Elizaga, 73 SCRA 524, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-13335, November 29, 1960 that: "Experience, . . . has shown that witnesses are reluctant to divulge the identity of their assailants except to the proper authorities or until they feel safe enough from any probable harm." Moreover, the complaining witnesses who are totally silent on the identity of the accused, gave descriptions instead. These descriptions given by the complaining witnesses were never questioned as not applicable to the accused, hence it may be safely concluded that the same jibe with the descriptions of the accused.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTY; TECHNICAL TERM FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT; RECLUSION PERPETUA. — The sentence of life imprisonment should be denominated reclusion perpetua considering that this is the technical term of the penalty which carries with it the imposition of accessory penalties. (People v. Mobe, 51 Phil. 88; People v. Pilones, 84 SCRA 167; People v. De Jesus, 85 SCRA 686; People v. De la Cruz, 85 SCRA 285.).

3. ID.; RAPE; CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR EACH VICTIM FIXED AT P12,000.00 IN CASE AT BAR. — Pursuant to Articles 21, 2216, 2219, 2229 and 2230 of the Civil Code, We hereby award indemnity (People v. Amiscua 37 SCRA 813) and fix the same in the sum of P12,000.00 (People v. Amit, 32 SCRA 95; People v. Otto, 49 SCRA 306; People v. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 265; and People v. Abay, 70 SCRA 521) for each of the rape victims.

4. ID.; ROBBERY WITH RAPE; CASE AT BAR. — The evidence adduced is not sufficient to show any. conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the crime of rape against the persons of Francisca Marquez, Leticia Tan and Rufina Martinez. Therefore, the lower court was correct in concluding that the crime committed by the accused-appellants was robbery with rape not robbery with multiple rape as alleged in the information.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


Renato Marquez, Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo were charged with the crime of robbery with multiple rape before the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Ninth Judicial District, Branch III in an amended information filed on June 3, 1964.

In the course of the proceedings in the lower court, Renato Marquez died. Pursuant to the lower court’s order dated October 1, 1968, Renato Marquez was dropped as defendant, and the case as against him, dismissed.

After trial, the lower court found Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo guilty of the crime of robbery with rape as defined under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced them as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE the Court finds the accused FRANCISCO FORNESTE and SAMUEL JACOBO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape as defined and punished under Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences each of the accused to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT, to indemnify Francisca Marquez, jointly and severally, in the amount of P1,760.00 and to pay the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

In their statement of facts on appeal, the appellants do not dispute the factual findings of the lower court on the commission of the crime and the circumstances of its commission. They, however, take exception to the lower court’s finding that the accused were positively identified as the perpetrators of the crime by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, their lone assignment of error is:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED WERE IDENTIFIED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY WERE THE PERPETRATORS OF THE ROBBERY."cralaw virtua1aw library

To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution presented the testimonies of: 1) Francisca Marquez; 2) Leticia Tan; 3) Dr. Lina C. Habito and 4) Emilio Luna with accompanying documentary evidence.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Francisca Marquez related the incident as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . on November 16, ‘1966’ between seven and seven-thirty in the evening while she was in their house in barrio Dahican, Catanauan, Quezon together with her seven children and maid Rufina Martinez, somebody called in front of their window who identified themselves as PC soldiers looking for contraband. She replied that they did not have any contraband and that her husband, Angel Tan, was in the poblacion at that time. The men ordered her to open up otherwise they will shoot up their house. Afraid, she opened window shutter when, suddenly, a man whom he (sic) later on recognized as Renato Marquez jumped inside. She was able to recognize Renato Marquez as the light was bright. Renato held her by the nape and pushed her towards the door and at gunpoint ordered her to open the same. She was not able to shout as she was caught by surprise and besides, she was afraid. When she opened the door, Accused Samuel Jacobo and Francisco Forneste, both armed with guns, entered and ordered her to put out their contraband and when she told them that they did not have any, the intruders demanded for money. She pointed at the table which Renato Marquez pried open and took P300 therefrom. Samuel Jacobo also pried open their aparador where he got P200. Jacobo also dispossesed her of her ring worth P15.00 and a pair of earrings worth also that much. At that instant, the other accused Francisco Forneste was upstairs guarding her children and helper. Samuel Jacobo asked her why they have only a small amount of money when they are copra-buyers and she replied that they were just starting on their business. Whereupon, Jacobo demanded: ‘kuarta o buhay’ so that she put out her pillow which Jacobo grabbed and ripped open and took therefrom P820.00. Afterwards, Samuel Jacobo raped her at gunpoint while Renato Marquez ransacked their store and took merchandise therefrom. After five minutes, Jacobo took her upstairs and tied both her arms and made her he face down on the floor together with her children. Subsequently, her daughter Leticia and helper Rufina Martinez were taken downstairs by Francisco Forneste. Shortly thereafter, she heard Leticia shout: ‘Nanay’ while Rufina Martinez screamed ‘Nanang Kikay, Nanang Kikay.’ Afterwards, both Leticia and Rufina were taken upstairs by Francisco Forneste, tied and a also made to lie face down on the floor. After the men had left and they did not hear any noise anymore, Leticia was able to untie Rufina by biting the rope. Rufina, in turn, untied her and the others. After they had freed themselves, both Leticia and Rufina cried. She asked them what happened and both of them confessed that they were abused respectively by Renato Marquez and Francisco Forneste. Aside from cash, they lost also the following: radio worth P125.00; radio-phono worth P135.00; a ten-battery flashlight valued at P10.00; an P85.00 wrist watch; Leticia’s necklace worth P15.00; and Rufina’s earrings worth P40.00 as well as her ring." (Decision, pp. 18-20, rollo)

Leticia Tan corroborated the foregoing testimony of her mother. She further testified that both she and Rufina Martinez, their housemaid, were raped by Renato Marquez and Francisco Forneste respectively. The rapes, according to her were committed in the following manner: when her mother, Francisca Marquez was taken upstairs, Renato Marquez brought her downstairs, to their store. Inside the store Renato Marquez told her "to give something and if I refused I would he killed" (T.S.N., December 12, 1968, p. 19). Simultaneously Renato Marquez "poked a gun and also a balisong" at her causing her to be afraid. (T.S.N., December 12, 1968, supra, p. 20) She called for her mother but then she was told not told not to shout because "I am going to be killed," (T.S.N., December 12, supra, p. 20) Thereafter, she was forcibly made to lie down and Renato Marquez committed the act on her. (T.S.N., December 12, 1968, supra, p. 22) Leticia related that during the time that she was with Renato Marquez, Rufina was with Francisco Forneste and that immediately after the departure of Renato Marquez, Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo, Rufina Martinez told her that she was also raped by Francisco Forneste. (T.S.N., December 12, 1968, supra, pp. 22-23).

Dr. Lina C. Habito testified regarding Leticia’s allegation that she and Rufina Martinez were raped. Dr. Lina C. Habito, resident physician of the Bondoc Peninsula General Hospital at Catanauan, Quezon stated that she examined the injuries sustained by Francisca Marquez, Leticia Tan and Rufina Martinez on 20 November 1963 and issued the corresponding medical certificates (Exhibits "A", "B" and "C"). Thus: 1) The medical certificate issued to Francisco Marquez stated:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"‘DIAGNOSIS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

— Linear abrasion #4, diagonal along the wrist left posterior.

— Abrasion supraclavicular area right.

— Abrasion linear #2 — anterior diagonal along the wrist right.

Refused to further examination.

"‘DURATION: 1 to 9 days excluding complication!"

(Exhibit A)

2) The medical certificate issued to Leticia Tan stated.

"‘DIAGNOSIS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

— Abrasion with hematoma at the postero lateral side wrist right.

— Internal Examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Has slight bloody discharge. Contusion at 12 and 6 o’clock Vagina admits 2 fingers with difficulty.’

(Exhibit C)

3) and the medical certificate issued to Rufina Martinez stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘DIAGNOSIS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

— Abrasion antero medial side wrist left.

— Abrasion postero medial area wrist right.

— Internal Examination:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Semicircular contusion at 3, 4, and 5 o’clock

Vaginal canal admits two fingers freely." ‘

(Exhibit B)

Dr. Habito testified that the injuries sustained by Leticia Tan and Rufina Martinez on their sex organs could have been caused by the entry of a male organ.

Rufina Martinez was not placed on the witness stand. Atty. Uy, the private prosecutor informed the court that she could not be located because she was only a househelp. (T.S.N., March 12, 1969, p. 12) The crime was committed in 1963 and the manifestation on her absence was made in 1969. Nevertheless, the lower court through the evidence presented, ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As to the accused Francisco Forneste, the fact that Rufina Martinez had confessed to Francisca Marquez and Leticia Tan right after the commission of the crime about her being sexually violated by the accused could be considered as a part of the res gestae and, therefore, the same is removed from the operation of hearsay rule. Besides, the medical certificate is a telltale evidence of the commission of rape on the person of Rufina Martinez." (Decision, p. 31, rollo)

Furthermore, the appellants admit in their brief that Rufina Martinez was raped. Their defense consists of denials that they were the culprits who committed the crime.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The identity of Renato Marquez, Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo as the perpetrators of the crime was positively established by the victims themselves, Francisca Marquez and Leticia Tan.

Francisca Marquez testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Do you know were those persons responsible for rape and robbery committed in your house?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q If you could see those persons, will you be able to point them out?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Will you please look around this courtroom and see if those persons you alleged to be responsible are here?

"A The two are here, sir.

"Q Will you please point them out to the Court?

"A That man in white polo shirt (Who, when asked for his name, responded to the name Francisco Forneste and pointed to a man who, when asked for his name, responded to the name Samuel Jacobo).

"Q You said only two are here in court. Are there other persons responsible?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Who is that person or who are those persons?

"A Renato Marquez, sir.

"Q The Court noticed that the other person you just mentioned has the family name of Marquez. Do you have any relation with this Renato Marquez?

"A He is my distant relative, sir." (T.S.N., April 4, 1966, pp. 5-6)

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Is this Renato Marquez the same person who jumped into your house on the same date whom yon said is related to you?

"A Yes, sir.

"COURT:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q You recognized him right then and there?

"A Yes, Your Honor. I know him already because our light was bright, sir.

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q What happened after he get into the house?

"A He approached me and he held my nape and then pushed me towards the door with his gun being poked at me and he told to open the door, sir.

"Q Did you open the door?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q When you opened the door, what happened?

"A The two entered, sir.

"Q Who entered?

"A Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo, sir. (T.S.N.; April 4, 1966, supra, pp. 10-11)

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q After Samuel Jacobo had taken the eight hundred twenty pesos from your pillow, anything more happened?

A Because I could not do anything, ‘kinuha ang aking pagkababae’, sir.

"Q Who?

"A Samuel Jacobo, sir.

"Q Where did that particular incident happen?

"A In the place where I sleep near the aparador, sir.

"Q And while this incident was being perpetrated, where is this Renato Marquez?

"A He was there in our store ransacking the place and ever our goods for sale were taken, sir. (T.S.N., April 4, 1966, supra, pp. 17-18)

"Q And it was on the bed from where your pillow containing eight hundred twenty pesos was taken by Samuel Jacobo?

"A Yes, sir.

Q And afterwards you were made to be on that same bed near the window?

"A Yes, Your Honor.

"Q And the pillow was still there?

"A It was already destroyed, sir.

"Q And Renato Marquez was not there?

"A He was ransacking the other part of the house, sir.

"Q So nobody was there except you and Samuel Jacobo?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q And you willingly consented to the act committed Samuel Jacobo?

"A What could I do, sir, when a gun was being poked at me?.

"Q Why? Were they armed?

"A Yes, sir, and they were armed and they had fan knife also. .

"Q What was Samuel Jacobo carrying with him when he was committing all these acts to you?

"A He was holding a gun as short as this (Witness indicating the length of about one (1) foot).

"Q What was Samuel Jacobo carrying at that time?

"A A gun, sir.

"Q No balisong?

"A He had a balisong on his left waist, sir (Witness pointing to her left waist).

"Q When he entered the house after ordering you to open up, was he already carrying a gun and a knife?

"A Yes, sir. They were already holding gun." (T.S.N., April 4, 1966, supra, pp. 19-20.

The records sustain the following findings of the lower court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As her husband failed to return home that evening, she went to the poblacion the following day to look for him. She found her husband and, together, they reported the matter to the Chief of Police. Aside from the police, the PC also investigated the incident. They were made to identify the accused Francisco Forneste and Renato Marquez at the municipal building on November 20th. During the second time that they went to the municipal building, they were asked to identify the accused Samuel Jacobo. On that occasion, all the three accused were present. On November 20, 1963, the PC took down her affidavit. There were many persons in the office where they confronted the accused. She pointed the accused secretly to the PC as she was afraid that if she will do it openly, the accused might take revenge against them. In that confrontation, she pointed to accused Francisco Forneste as one with the ‘bigote’. Before the occurrence of the crime, she already knew Renato Marquez and Francisco Forneste. She can recognize them anywhere, anytime and any place that she will meet them. Renato is her distant relative while Francisco Forneste is known to her as he is also from Catanauan. She knows his parents and she used to see him in the poblacion. She recalls that Francisco Forneste was at their house on election day, November 14. Before the incident, she saw Forneste for about five times and she knows him for a long time already. She knows Samuel Jacobo by face only but she frequently sees him as the jeep they used to take in going to the poblacion passes by the house of Samuel which is near a bakery where people buy bread. The usual hangout of Samuel Jacobo is the store where ‘Liwayway’ is sold. Before she was called to the confrontation meeting, she already revealed the names of the culprits to the PC officers except one whom she does not know the name. During the commission of the crime in question, their house was brightly lighted. She did not mention the fact that she was raped in her affidavit because at that time, she was still worried as they were threatened that if they will report the matter to the authorities, they will be killed, She did not submit to a medical examination because anyway she was a married woman already." (Decision, lower court, pp. 20-21, Records)

On the other hand, Leticia Tan who was only thirteen years old when she was raped positively identified the three accused as the persons who robbed and abused them. During the November 12, 1968 hearing, Tan was suffering from emotional strain and the hearing had to be postponed. In fact, during the December 12, 1968 hearing, her testimony was as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Will you please tell the Court or rather relate to the Court how you were abused?

"A Yes, sir. When my mother was brought up the house, we were told to go down.

"Q Who brought you down?

"A Renato Marquez.

"Q Do you know where you were brought, to where you were brought?

"DEPUTY CLERK:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q "Witness at this stage is crying.

"WITNESS:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A To our store.

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q And while you were in your store what happened if anything happened?

"COURT:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Answer

"WITNESS:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A I was told to give something and if I refused I would killed.

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Did yon understand what was that something he was asking?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Will you please tell the Court what was it?

"ATTY. CADAG:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Witness refused to answer.

"COURT:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q You cannot answer?

"A (No answer).

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q In short did you give that something that he was asking from you?

"ATTY. CADAG:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We will object., Your Honor, because that ‘something’ is vague. What is that something?

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Will you please answer what was that something that he was asking?

"ATTY. CADAG:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Witness, Your Honor, refused to answer.

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Did anything happen after he asked you to give him that something?

"A Yes, sir. A gun was poked at me and also a ‘balisong’ and so I became afraid.

"Q And what happened?

"ATTY. CADAG:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Witness, your Honor, refused to answer.

"WITNESS:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A I was calling for my mother but I was told not to shout because I am going to be killed.

"ATTY. UY:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q And what happened?

"A I was told to lie down.

"COURT:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Did you lie down?

"A I was forcibly made to lie down.

"Q And after you were forcibly made to lie down what did the accused do?

"A (no answer).

"Q You answered that a gun was pointed to you and ‘balisong’, who pointed to you a gun and ‘balisong’.

"A Renato Marquez?

"Q What did Renato Marquez point to you?

"A A gun.

"Q How about the ‘balisong’, who pointed to you?

"A He also. He was carrying two weapons.

"Q Now, there were only the two of you inside the store at that time?

"A Yes, Your Honor.

"Q All right, you were forcibly laid down by Marquez?

"A Yes, Your Honor.

"Q After that, when you were already lying down what did I do to you? Are you ashamed to answer? Do not be ashamed, because the persons in front of you are all married.

"Q Did he do something to your person?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q What particular act did he do to you? Nakuha ba ang iyong pagkababae?

"A Yes, Your Honor.

"Q After that what happened?

"A I was brought upstairs and we were tied." (T.S.N. December 12, 1968, pp. 18-22)

Again, the records sustain the lower court’s summary of Leticia Tan’s testimony:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . They reported the incident to the police authorities who investigated her, her mother and Rufina Martinez. They were taken by the police to the hospital where she was examined. She pointed Francisco Forneste to the PC after the PC had asked them who committed the robbery. Her mother, Rufina and herself were together in going to the office of the Chief of Police in the company of PC soldiers. She was thirteen years old when the incident happened. After Renato Marquez and Samuel Jacobo had taken the money from her mother, the two accused entered her room. At that time, there was a gasera lamp in the ground floor as well as in the upper floor. Although afraid, she looked at the robbers. One of them bad a moustache, the other was short and bad a slender body and the third was tall and big-bodied. It was Francisco Forneste who had a moustache. She signed her affidavit (Exhibit D) in the municipal building. She made the identification of the accused at the municipal building on November 20, 1963. Before they went to the municipal building, she did not know yet the names of the accused." (Decision, pp. 22-23, rollo)

The accused, in refuting the lower court’s finding that they were positively identified by the complaining witnesses, stress that these witnesses stated on three occasions that they did not know the identity of the persons who perpetrated the crime. These occasions were: (1) During the investigation conducted by the Chief of Police of Catanauan immediately after the incident at about 9:00 in the evening of November 16, 1963, the complaining witnesses, when asked by the former if they recognized the robbers answered in the negative; (2) On November 17, 1963 or the day after the incident, Leticia Tan, when asked about the identity of the robbers at the house of Goding Tan by Sgt. Lastimoso, a member of the Catanauan Police Force, answered that she did not know them; (3) When the complaining witnesses were brought to the office of the Chief of Police of Catanauan on November 17, 1963, to identify the suspects, among them Renato Marquez and the appellants herein, the complaining witnesses were not able to identify the robbers, much less the accused who were directly pointed to them by Patrolman Mariano Yuson, a member of the police force of Catanauan who took over the investigation of the incident.chanrobles law library

These circumstances do not affect the credibility of complaining witnesses as regards their identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. The silence of the complaining witnesses on the identity of the accused immediately after the incident was explained by the ordeal they had just suffered at the hands of the accused. The accused were armed during the incident and the complaining witnesses were threatened with death. Francisca Marquez expressed fear that the accused might take revenge in case she would divulge their identity. Thus, during the first investigation conducted by the PC authorities where there was a confrontation between Renato Marquez and Francisco Forneste on one hand and the complaining witnesses on the other, Francisca Marquez pointed out secretly to the PC that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime." . . because I am afraid they might revenge against me, sir. I cannot do that openly." (T.S.N., April 4, 1966, p. 42) We pointed out in People v. Rendora, G.R. No. L-14356, September 30, 1959; People v. Elizaga, 73 SCRA 524, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-13335 November 29, 1960 that: "Experience, . . . has shown that witnesses are reluctant to divulge the identity of their assailants except to the proper authorities or until they feel safe enough from any probable harm."cralaw virtua1aw library

Moreover the complaining witnesses who were initially silent on the identity of the accused, gave descriptions instead. According to defense witness German Averia, then Chief of Police of Catanauan who initially investigated the incident: I asked them if they knew the identity of the suspects. They did not name names. They only . . . I remember they gave the description and I remember one of the suspects has been described as very similar to my hair and weight." (T.S.N., May 5, 1970, p. 22) These descriptions given by the complaining witnesses were never questioned as not applicable to the accused, hence it may be safely concluded that the same jibe with the descriptions of the accused.

Finally, as the lower court correctly said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . it was not shown why the complaining witnesses would testify in the manner that they did against the accused. The accused failed to ascribe any improper motive on the part of said complaining witnesses. Neither was it shown that said witnesses were obsessed with bias or prejudice against the accused." (Decision, p. 30, rollo)

Since, in the commission of the crime, the following aggravating circumstances alleged in the information were proved by the prosecution: (1) nighttime; (2) unlawful entry; (3) dwelling of the offended parties; (4) by disguise, that is by pretending to be PC officers: and (5) by utter disregard due to victims’ age and sex with no mitigating circumstances to offset the same, the lower court was correct in imposing the maximum penalty pursuant to Article 294 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the sentence of life imprisonment should be denominated reclusion perpetua considering that this is the technical term of the penalty which carries with it the imposition of accessory penalties. (People v. Mobe, 51 Phil. 88; People v. Pilones, 84 SCRA 167; People v. De Jesus, 85 SCRA 686; People v. De la Cruz, 85 SCRA 285.)

We notice that the lower court did not award indemnity for the rape victims. Hence, pursuant to Articles 21, 2216, 2219, 2229 and 2230 of the Civil Code We hereby award indemnity (People v. Amiscua, 37 SCRA 813) and fix the same in the sum of P12,000.00 (People v. Amit, 32 SCRA 95; People v. Otto, 49 SCRA 306; People v. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 265; and People v. Abay, 70 SCRA 512) for each of the rape victims.

The evidence adduced is not sufficient to show any conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the crime of rape against the persons of Francisca Marquez, Leticia Tan and Rufina Martinez. Therefore, the lower court was correct in concluding that the crime committed by the accused-appellants was robbery with rape not robbery with multiple rape as alleged in the information. Accordingly, the award for indemnity should be as follows: Francisco Forneste to indemnify his rape victim Rufina Martinez and Samuel Jacobo to indemnify his rape victim Francisca Marquez.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

WHEREFORE, We find the accused-appellants FRANCISCO FORNESTE and SAMUEL JACOBO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape pursuant Article 294 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The judgment appealed from is modified as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) The term life imprisonment should be changed to reclusion perpetua;

2) Accused-appellant FRANCISCO FORNESTE shall indemnify RUFINA MARTINEZ in the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency by reason of the penalty imposed; and

3) Accused-appellant SAMUEL JACOBO shall indemnify FRANCISCA MARQUEZ in the sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of Insolvency by reason of the penalty imposed.

In all other respects, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-31276 September 9, 1982 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-31854 September 9, 1982 - NICANOR T. SANTOS v. ROSA GANAYO

    202 Phil. 16

  • G.R. No. L-32260 September 9, 1982 - RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL. v. SIXTO TAN

    202 Phil. 31

  • G.R. No. L-38579 September 9, 1982 - JULIET T. DIOQUINO v. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 35

  • G.R. No. L-39154 September 9, 1982 - LITEX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40641 September 9, 1982 - FILOMENO ABROT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 53

  • G.R. No. L-42335 September 9, 1982 - PEDRO AMIGABLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 64

  • G.R. No. L-52410 September 9, 1982 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 66

  • G.R. No. L-40791 September 11, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MALATE

    202 Phil. 74

  • G.R. No. L-41115 September 11, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48756 September 11, 1982 - K.O. GLASS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. MANUEL VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-49524 September 11, 1982 - LEONARDO GONZALES, ET AL. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 151

  • G.R. No. L-59825 September 11, 1982 - ERNESTO MEDINA, ET AL. v. FLORELIANA CASTRO-BARTOLOME

    202 Phil. 163

  • G.R. No. L-60368 September 11, 1982 - BEATRIZ DE ZUZUARREGUI VDA. DE REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 172

  • A.C. No. 2784-M September 21, 1982 - CECILIO P. IYOG v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO

    202 Phil. 175

  • G.R. No. L-23106 September 21, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO EMANENCE

    202 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-28774 September 21, 1982 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 200

  • G.R. No. L-27886 September 21, 1982 - CELSO VALERA v. DOMINGO BAÑEZ

    202 Phil. 193

  • G.R. No. L-29255 September 21, 1982 - LEONARDO MIÑANO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO MIÑANO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 213

  • G.R. No. L-48547 September 21, 1982 - ALFONSO ANGLIONGTO, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 215

  • G.R. No. L-55315 September 21, 1982 - WILLIAM COLE, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA CASUGA VDA. DE GREGORIO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 226

  • G.R. No. L-56014 September 21, 1982 - SANTIAGO SYJUCO, INC. v. JOSE TECSON

    202 Phil. 240

  • G.R. No. L-56902 September 21, 1982 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 249

  • G.R. No. L-57892 September 21, 1982 - ANASTACIO AREVALO v. VALENTIN QUILATAN

    202 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-59962 September 21, 1982 - RICARTE B. VILLEGAS v. RAMON MONTAÑO

    202 Phil. 265

  • G.R. No. L-22414 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 270

  • G.R. No. L-36850 September 23, 1982 - ROSARIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. PILAR ONG CHUA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 287

  • G.R. No. L-50905 September 23, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO JUMAWAN

    202 Phil. 294

  • G.R. No. L-52178 September 28, 1982 - DEMETRIO ERNESTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 310

  • A.C. No. 439 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: QUINCIANO D. VAILOCES

    202 Phil. 322

  • A.C. No. 681 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO GUEVARA v. MAXIMO CALALANG

    202 Phil. 328

  • A.M. No. 1879-MJ September 30, 1982 - ROSALITO FAJARDO v. GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 332

  • A.M. No. 1888-CFI September 30, 1982 - FRANCISCO I. PULIDO v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    202 Phil. 336

  • A.M. No. 2415-CFI September 30, 1982 - TOMAS SHAN, JR. v. CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO

    202 Phil. 354

  • A.M. No. P-2710 September 30, 1982 - BARBARA PIOQUINTO v. LUCRECIA A. HERNANDEZ

    202 Phil. 360

  • G.R. No. L-25778 September 30, 1982 - JOESTEEL CONTAINER CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCING CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 364

  • G.R. No. L-26243 September 30, 1982 - CLARA REGALARIO v. NORTHWEST FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-26289 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: JUAN N. PECKSON v. GABRIEL F. ANADASE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 374

  • G.R. No. L-27695 September 30, 1982 - ANTONIO CALLANTA v. MANUEL LOPEZ ENAGE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 377

  • G.R. No. L-27819 September 30, 1982 - HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-28501 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ARCE v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

    202 Phil. 386

  • G.R. No. L-28996 September 30, 1982 - MAXIMO SANTOS, ET AL. v. GENERAL WOODCRAFT AND DESIGN CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 390

  • G.R. No. L-29086 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO GOMEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 395

  • G.R. No. L-29590 September 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 402

  • G.R. No. L-29636 September 30, 1982 - FILOIL MARKETING CORPORATION v. MARINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL.

    202 Phil. 410

  • G.R. No. L-30353 September 30, 1982 - PATRICIO BELLO v. EUGENIA UBO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 415

  • G.R. No. L-30452 September 30, 1982 - MERCURY DRUG CO., INC. v. NARDO DAYAO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 424

  • G.R. No. L-30455 September 30, 1982 - MARIA LANDAYAN, ET AL. v. ANGEL BACANI, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-30675 September 30, 1982 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 445

  • G.R. No. L-30994 September 30, 1982 - OLIMPIA BASA, ET AL. v. ANDRES C. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 452

  • G.R. No. L-31226 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BELLO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 456

  • G.R. No. L-32383 September 30, 1982 - BAZA MARKETING CORPORATION v. BOLINAO SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION SERVICE, INC.

    202 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-32860 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MARQUEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 488

  • G.R. No. L-33995 September 30, 1982 - ELISEO C. DE GUZMAN v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 503

  • G.R. No. L-34200 September 30, 1982 - REGINA L. EDILLON, ET AL. v. MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-34947 September 30, 1982 - ESTEBAN MEDINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-37431 September 30, 1982 - PEDRO ENTERA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 521

  • G.R. No. L-37733 September 30, 1982 - ALMARIO T. SALTA v. JESUS DE VEYRA

    202 Phil. 527

  • G.R. No. L-38603 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIANO CHAVEZ, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 535

  • G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982 - CONRADO V. MACATANGAY v. CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT

    202 Phil. 545

  • G.R. No. L-39026 September 30, 1982 - SOTERO RECTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39401 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO SIMBRA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 558

  • G.R. No. L-39644 September 30, 1982 - EDUARDO BIEN, ET AL. v. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 565

  • G.R. No. L-39716 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. GABIANA

    202 Phil. 577

  • G.R. No. L-40842 September 30, 1982 - BENJAMIN A. G. VEGA, ET AL. v. DOMINGO D. PANIS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 587

  • G.R. No. L-41052 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY GASENDO

    202 Phil. 600

  • G.R. No. L-43783 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM BOKINGKITO TERANO

    202 Phil. 610

  • G.R. No. 44033 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO B. BESO, JR.

    202 Phil. 618

  • G.R. No. L-44408 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SAMBILI

    202 Phil. 629

  • G.R. No. L-45430 September 30, 1982 - DESA ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 639

  • G.R. No. L-45436 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PON-AN

    202 Phil. 653

  • G.R. No. L-45679 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO MENDOZA

    202 Phil. 660

  • G.R. Nos. L-46068-69 September 30, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46125 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON ALVIS, JR.

    202 Phil. 682

  • G.R. No. L-48478 September 30, 1982 - AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48727 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH D. LEONES

    202 Phil. 703

  • G.R. No. L-48747 September 30, 1982 - ANGEL JEREOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 715

  • G.R. No. L-49307 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR MALATE

    202 Phil. 721

  • G.R. No. L-49990 September 30, 1982 - UNITED STATES LINES, INC. v. AMADO INCIONG, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 729

  • G.R. No. L-50378 September 30, 1982 - FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

    202 Phil. 741

  • G.R. No. L-51042 September 30, 1982 - DIONISIO MALACORA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 756

  • G.R. No. L-52059 September 30, 1982 - BONIFACIA CALVERO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 774

  • G.R. No. L-52061 September 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALUSTIANO LOOD

    202 Phil. 792

  • G.R. No. L-53627 September 30, 1982 - CAPITAL GARMENT CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 797

  • G.R. No. L-53983 September 30, 1982 - LUCIANA DALIDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54204 September 30, 1982 - NORSE MANAGEMENT CO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-54272-73 September 30, 1982 - JUAN C. CALUBAQUIB v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 817

  • G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 850

  • G.R. No. L-55225 September 30, 1982 - HEIRS OF CATALINO JARDIN, ET AL v. HEIRS OF SIXTO HALLASGO, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 858

  • G.R. No. L-56624 September 30, 1982 - DARNOC REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AYALA CORPORATION

    202 Phil. 865

  • G.R. Nos. L-56950-51 September 30, 1982 - M. F. VIOLAGO OILER TANK TRUCKS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 872

  • G.R. No. L-57387 September 30, 1982 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST v. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST FACULTY ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 881

  • G.R. No. L-58187 September 30, 1982 - REMEDIOS VELASCO VDA. DE CALDITO v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO, ETC., ET AL.

    202 Phil. 900

  • G.R. No. L-58452 September 30, 1982 - RAZA APPLIANCE CENTER v. ROLANDO R. VILLARAZA

    202 Phil. 903

  • G.R. No. L-58610 September 30, 1982 - BABELO BERIÑA, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 908

  • G.R. No. L-58623 September 30, 1982 - NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION v. DOMINGO CORONEL REYES

    202 Phil. 912

  • G.R. No. L-58820 September 30, 1982 - BENITO E. DOMINGUEZ, JR. v. FILIPINAS INTEGRATED SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 916

  • G.R. No. L-59234 September 30, 1982 - TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 925

  • G.R. No. L-59935 September 30, 1982 - FLORA DE GRACIA REGNER VDA. DE DAYRIT v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

    202 Phil. 937

  • G.R. No. L-60367 September 30, 1982 - VENUSTIANO T. TAVORA v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO

    202 Phil. 943

  • G.R. No. L-60602 September 30, 1982 - IN RE: MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 949

  • G.R. No. L-60637 September 30, 1982 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    202 Phil. 959

  • G.R. No. L-60842 September 30, 1982 - ROLANDO DIMACUHA v. ALFREDO B. CONCEPCION

    202 Phil. 961