Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 185006 (People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Be�as y Abian, et al.). - We resolve the appeal filed by accused Jimmy A. Be�as, Angelito B. Be�as and Edgardo E. Alingasa (appellants) from the October 17, 2007 decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00346.

The RTC Ruling 

In an October 16, 1998 decision, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Gingoog City, found the appellants guilty of robbery with rape committed on February 19, 1995. The RTC gave credence to the positive and categorical testimonies of the offended parties and their witnesses. It rejected the appellants' defenses of alibi and denial for being weak, unconvincing and corroborated only by their self-serving testimonies and those of their close relatives and friends.

The RTC sentenced the appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered them to solidarily pay AAA,^[2] the rape victim, the amount of P60,000.00 as civil indemnity. They were also ordered (together with two [2] co-accused who no longer appealed their convictions) to solidarily pay BBB, the owner of the robbed grocery store and AAA's aunt, the amounts of P2,500.00 for actual damages and P20,000.00 for moral damages, and to pay the costs of suit.^[3]

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the appellants' guilt. The CA, however, deleted the award of moral damages to BBB for failure of the prosecution to substantiate it with evidence.

Also, the CA reduced the award of civil indemnity to AAA from P60,000.00 to P50,000.00, but doubled such award to P100,000.00, i.e., P50,000.00 each for the two (2) instances of rape she suffered from the appellants. Consequently, the CA awarded AAA the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages, i.e., P50,000.00 each for the said rapes.

Our Ruling 

We deny the appeal, but modify the awarded indemnities.

We see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. To secure a conviction for robbery with rape, the following elements must be proved: (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.^[4] In this case, the prosecution successfully established these elements through the positive testimonies of AAA and BBB, which deserve greater credence than the self-serving testimonies of the appellants and their witnesses.

The imposable penalty in robbery with rape is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.^[5] Thus, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, in the absence of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances attendant to this case.^[6]

On the civil liabilities, AAA is entitled only to a single award of P50,000.00 for civil indemnity^[7]  and P50,000.00 for moral damages.^[8]  In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, multiple rapes committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery are treated as a single act of rape.^[9] To award damages for every incident of rape would be, in effect, acknowledging the existence of multiple rapes in the crime of robbery with rape, which is contrary to the intent of the law.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 17, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00346 finding the appellants guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages to AAA are reduced to P50,000.00 and P50,000.00, respectively. Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1053.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Yba�ez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Mario V. Lopez; rollo, pp. 5-38.

^[2] Pursuant to Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; RA 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefore, and for Other Purposes�; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the �Ru!e on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 15, 2004; and People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, the real name of the rape victim is withheld and, instead, fictitious initials are used to represent her. Also, the personal circumstances of the victim or any oilier information tending to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, is not disclosed. 

^[3] CA rollo, pp. 137-178. 

^[4] People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 177, 202-203; and People v. Mamalayan, 420 Phil. 880, 891 (2001). 

^[5] 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:

I. The penalty of from 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, (underscoring ours)

^[6] People v. Carpio, 473 Phil. 747, 756 (2004).

^[7] People v. Napiot, 370 Phil. 811 (1999); and People v. Victor, 354 Phil. 195 (1998).

^[8] People v. Alba, 365 Phil. 365 (1999); and People v. Prades, 355 Phil. 150 (1998).

^[9] See People v. Regala, 386 Phil. 148 (2000).