FIRST DIVISION.
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
143004
April 9, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
DANTE CLIDORO AND
JOSEPH BARRA Y MADERA,
Accused.
DANTE CLIDORO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This is an appeal from
the decision[1]
dated November 17, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose,
Camarines
Sur, Branch 30, in Criminal Case No. T-1837, finding appellant Dante
Clidoro
guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape and finding accused Joseph
Barra
guilty of Robbery.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In an Information dated
September 8, 1997, Dante Clidoro and Joseph Barra were charged with the
special complex crime of Robbery with Rape as defined in Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, allegedly
committed as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That on or about 12:00
o’clock midnight of June 4, 1997, at Sitio Barubaruti, Barangay
Caraycayan,
Municipality of Tigaon, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines and
within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
confederating
together and mutually aiding each other, with intent to gain and lewd
design,
and by means of force or intimidation, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with Rachel Mabana, taking
advantage
of nighttime to better accomplish their purpose and thereafter forcibly
enter the house of Salvacion Avila and once inside take and carry away
the following personal properties, viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
One (1) pc. gold necklace - P2,000.00 belonging to one Lorna Barrion
2)
One (1) maong pants - P400.00, belonging to Lorna Barrion
3)
Three (3) pcs. San Miguel gin - P50.00 belonging to Salvacion Avila
4)
Three (3) packs of More cigarettes - P34.00 belonging to Salvacion Avila
with a total value of
P2,484.00, Philippine currency, against the will of the owner thereof,
and to the damage and prejudice of the private offended parties hereof.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Upon arraignment on
May 25, 1998, the two accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of
not
guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits proceeded.cralaw:red
The evidence for the
prosecution established the following facts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At midnight of June
4, 1997, Salvacion Avila was in her house at Sition Barubaruti,
Caraycayon,
Tigaon, Camarines, Sur. She and her granddaughters, Rachel Mabana
and Lorna Barrion, were awakened by men shouting outside their
house.
They were calling their names and ordering them to get out of the house
or else they will throw a grenade at them. Salvacion got up and
lit
a kerosene lamp. Immediately thereafter, appellant Dante Clidoro
broke into the house and ordered them to get out. He took three
bottles
of gin and three packs of More cigarettes from the store of Salvacion
and
placed them in his bag. Then he struck Salvacion’s left hand
which
caused the kerosene lamp she was holding to fall.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dante grabbed Rachel’s
wrist and brought her to the nearby banana plantation. He
threatened
to shoot Rachel if she shouted. He ordered her to undress and,
when
she refused, he slapped her twice on the face and hit her on the chest,
causing her to faint. When she regained consciousness, she was
half-naked.
She felt pain and found whitish sticky substance on her vagina.
She
put on her dress and ran towards their house.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Joseph also grabbed
Lorna and dragged her towards the banana plantation. However,
Lorna
vigorously struggled and was able to free herself. She ran back
to
the house but Joseph snatched away her necklace. He also took
Lorna’s
pair of jeans which was hanging on the clothesline outside.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Salvacion brought Rachel
to the Municipal Health Officer of Tigaon, Dr. Peñafrancia N.
Villanueva,
for physical examination. Dr. Villanueva prepared a medical
report
containing the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. External genitalia
- Normal
2. Internal genitalia
- (+) hymenal lacerations old, healed at the 12, 6, 9 o’clock positions.cralaw:red
3. Hyperemia at
the posterior fourchette.cralaw:red
4. Vagina admits
index finger with ease.[5]
In his defense, appellant
Dante Clidoro denies the charge against him and claims that from 4:00
p.m.
until 8:00 p.m. of June 4, 1997, he was at Solomon Bosadre’s house at
Vinagre,
Tigaon, Camarines Sur, where he helped prepare food for the barangay
fiesta.
At around 8:30 p.m., he and his sister, Marites Clidoro, went to the
dance
hall at Vinagre and stayed there until 11:30 p.m. They returned
to
the house of Solomon Bosadre and spent the night there. He woke
up
at 5:00 a.m. the following day and helped in the household chores until
3:00 p.m., at which time he went home to Barangay Tinawagan.[6]
Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by Marites.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, Joseph
Barra alleged that from 8:00 p.m. of June 4, 1997, until the following
morning, he was at the dance hall in Vinagre with his friends, Marilou
Maranan, Laarni Billo and Ester Patitico. Marilou corroborated
Joseph’s
alibi.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, the court
a quo rendered the appealed decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the accused
Dante Clidoro is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of reclusion perpetua, with the inherent accessories provided by law,
to
indemnify the offended party Rachel Mabana the sum of Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00)
Pesos, Philippine Currency. As regards the accused Joseph Barra
he
is hereby sentenced to suffer indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from
two (2) years, eight (8) months and ten (10) days of prision
correccional,
as minimum, to eight (8) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
prision
mayor, as maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As regards the two (2)
accused Dante Clidoro and Joseph Barra, the two (2) of them are hereby
ordered to return the items robbed consisting of a necklace, a maong
pant,
3 pieces of San Miguel Gin and three (3) packs More cigarettes, if not
feasible, to indemnify the said offended parties, the sum of Two
Thousand
Four Hundred Eighty Four (P2,484.00) Pesos, both of all Philippine
Currency
and for them to pay the costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accused Dante Clidoro
and Joseph Barra shall be entitled to full credit of their preventive
imprisonment
during the pendency of this case if they agreed to abide with the rules
imposed upon convicted persons, otherwise, they shall be entitled to
four-fifth
(4/5) credit thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[7]
Only Dante Clidoro appealed
from the decision of the trial court, raising the following error:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF ROBBERY WITH RAPE
DESPITE THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A
CONVICTION
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant claims that
Salvacion, Rachel and Lorna could not have identified the perpetrators
of the crime because the light went out when Salvacion dropped the
kerosene
lamp she was holding.[8]
Moreover, Lorna and Rachel narrated that there was a flashlight beam
focused
on their faces, which rendered them unable to see their attackers.[9]
Appellant also argues that his identification by the complainants was
based
on the suggestion of the policemen.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The issue of whether
or not appellant was identified by the prosecution eyewitnesses as the
perpetrator of the crime is a question of credibility. It is
well-entrenched
in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect
and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing
that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances
of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the
case.
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
behavior
and manner of testifying, the trial judge was in a better position to
determine
their credibility.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a thorough scrutiny
of the records of the case at bar, we are convinced that the trial
court
did not err in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of the
prosecution
witnesses, which it described as categorical, straightforward and
spontaneous.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The evidence shows that
Salvacion was still holding the lit kerosene lamp when she saw
appellant
take away three bottles of gin and three packs of cigarettes from her
store.
Rachel and Lorna were also able to note appellant’s physical features
because
of light from the kerosene lamp held by Salvacion, who was standing
only
two meters away from the intruders. In a number of cases,[13]
we have held that wicklamps, flashlight, even moonlight and starlight
may,
in proper situations, be sufficient illumination; and an attack on the
credibility of witnesses solely on this ground is without merit.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, it is the
most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to
ascertain
the appearance of their attackers and observe the manner in which the
crime
was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the
assailants
create a lasting impression on the victim’s minds which cannot be
easily
erased from their memory.[15]
Likewise, appellant failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were
prompted by any ill motive to falsely testify or wrongfully accuse him
of so grave a crime. In the absence of any evidence to show that
the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of
the appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and
credit.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant’s contention
that his identification was merely suggested by the police is without
basis.
Complainants positively identified appellant although they did not know
his name when they reported the incident. In People v. Dinamling,[17]
we held that witnesses need not know the names of the accused as long
as
they recognized their faces. What is important is that the
witnesses
are positive as to the perpetrators’ physical identification from their
own personal knowledge.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime of Robbery
with Rape is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the
taking
of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
done
with animo lucrandi; and, (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.[18]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
the following circumstantial evidence provided the bases in convicting
appellant, viz:
(1) Rachel
Mabana positively and categorically declared that appellant broke into
the house by destroying the door, took away merchandise from the store,
dragged her outside and took her to a dark portion of the banana
plantation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) When Rachel
refused
to undress as told, appellant slapped her twice on the face and hit her
on the chest, rendering her unconscious;
(3) When she
regained
consciousness, she found herself half-naked and there was whitish
substance
on her vagina; and
(4) The medical
examination
found that her hymen was lacerated.[19]
The fact that Rachel
was
unconscious during the actual rape does not mean that appellant did not
commit the crime. In People v. Tabarangao,[20]
we affirmed the conviction of appellant who raped the victim while she
was unconscious. Indeed, the totality of the established
circumstances
constitutes an unbroken chain of events which leads to a fair and
reasonable
conclusion that the victim was raped and that appellant was guilty of
the
crime, to the exclusion of all others.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant’s alibi fails
to convince us. Basic is the rule that alibi is easily concocted
and cannot prevail over the victim’s positive identification of her
offender.
Weak as it is, alibi becomes more ineffectual when appellant failed to
demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the
crime
scene when it was committed.[21]
In this case, Solomon Bosadre’s house, where appellant claims to have
been,
and the locus criminis are both situated within the same municipality
of
Tigaon, Camarines Sur. Appellant failed to show that it was
physically
impossible for him to have been at or near the crime scene.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The crime of Robbery
with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659, to wit:
Art. 294. Robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons -
Penalties.
- Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against
or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on
occasion
of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, or
when
the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation
or arson.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Inasmuch as the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, and
considering
that there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied, pursuant
to
Article 63, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the
trial
court was correct in imposing on appellant the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the matter of damages,
we note that the trial court only awarded P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity.
In rape cases, a separate award of moral damages in the amount of
P50,000.00
should be given without need of proof other than the fact of rape.[22]
The same is awarded to indemnify the young victim for the appalling and
outrageous sexual violence which will most certainly haunt her for the
rest of her life.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose,
Camarines
Sur, Branch 30, in Criminal Case No. T-1837, finding appellant Dante
Clidoro
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape,
sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to
pay
the victim, Rachel Mabana, civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00,
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is ordered to pay the
victim the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Alfredo A. Cabral.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, September 8, 1998, pp. 7-14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, August 31, 1998, pp. 10-19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Records, Exhibit A, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, April 14, 1999, pp. 2-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, p. 39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, Appellant’s Brief, p. 68.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., p. 72.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., p. 78.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
People v. Edem, G.R. No. 130970, 27 February 2002.
[12]
Rollo, Decision, p. 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
In People v. Gamboa, 229 Phil. 298 (1986) and in People v. Pueblas, 212
Phil. 688 (1984), we ruled that the light of the moon is sufficient for
a person to identify another. In People v. Gapasin, 229 Phil. 203
(1986), kerosene lamps were considered enough illumination; and in
People
v. Nopia, 199 Phil. 75 (1982), People v. Porcare, 205 Phil. 469 (1983),
and People v. Boado, 191 Phil. 190 (1981), it was held that a
flashlight
is adequate to provide illumination for purposes of recognition and
identification.
[14]
People v. Villaruel, 330 Phil. 79, 88-89 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 116918, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 259, 269.
[16]
People v. Baniega, G.R. No. 139578, 15 February 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
G.R. No. 134605, 12 March 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
People v. Mamalayan, G.R. No. 137255, 15 November 2001.
[19]
Rollo, Decision, pp. 36-37.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
G.R. Nos. 116535-36, 25 February 1999, 303 SCRA 623, 631.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People v. Belen, G.R. Nos. 137991-92, 10 June 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
People v. Cana, G.R. No. 139229, 22 April 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
People v. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February 15, 2002. |