ChanRobles Virtual law Library




SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS





www.chanrobles.com

FIRST DIVISION

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

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.chanrobles virtual law library

Rogerio S.T. Cadag for defendants-appellants.

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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: chanrobles virtual law library

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 LIFE IMPRISONMENT, to indemnify Francisca Marquez, jointly and severally, in the amount of P1,760.00 and to pay the costs,

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: chanrobles virtual law library

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

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

... 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 Marquez, somebody called in front of their window who identified themselves as PC soldier 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 the window shutter when, suddenly, a man whom he (sic) later on recognized as Renato Marquez jumped inside. She was able to recognized 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 earings 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 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 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 happened and both of them confessed that they were abused respectively by Renato Marquez and Francisco Forneste. Aside from 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 earings, 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 Marquez, 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, Francisco Marquez was taken upstairs, Renato Marquez brought her downstairs, to their store. Inside the store Renato Marquez to her " to give something and if I refused I would be 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 to shout because "I am going to be killed." (T.S.N. December 12, 1968, supra, p. 20) Thereafter, she was focibly 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 Martinez was with Francisco Forneste and that immediate 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).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

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 law library

DIAGNOSIS: chanrobles virtual law library

- Linear abrasion #4, diagonal along the wrist left posterior.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

- Abrasion supraclavicular area right.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

- Abrasion linear #2 - anterior diagonal along the wrist right.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Refused to further examination.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

DURATION: 1 to 9 days excluding complication! chanrobles virtual law library

(Exhibit A) chanrobles virtual law library

2) The medical certificate issued to Leticia Tan stated: chanrobles virtual law library

DIAGNOSIS: chanrobles virtual law library

- Abrasion with hematoma at the posters lateral side wrist right.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

- Internal Examination: chanrobles virtual law library

Has slight bloody discharge. Contusion at 12 and 6 o'clock Vagina admits 2 fingers with difficulty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(Exhibit C) chanrobles virtual law library

3) and the medical certificate issued to Rufina Martinez stated: chanrobles virtual law library

DIAGNOSIS: chanrobles virtual law library

- Abrasion antero medial side wrist left.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

- Abrasion postero medial area wrist right.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

- Internal Examination: chanrobles virtual law library

Semicircular contusion at 3, 4, and 5 o'clock chanrobles virtual law library

Vaginal canal admits two fingers freely.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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: chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Francisca Marquez testified:

Q Do you know were those persons responsible for the rape and robbery committed in your house? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q If you could see those persons, will you be able to point them out? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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

A The two are here, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please point them out to the Court? chanrobles virtual law library

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).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q You said only two are here in court. Are there other persons responsible? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who is that person or who are those persons? chanrobles virtual law library

A Renato Marquez, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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? chanrobles virtual law library

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

ATTY. UYchanrobles virtual law library

Q Is this Renato Marquez the same person who jumped into your house on the same date whom you said is related to you?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Q You recognized him right then and there? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor. I know him already because our light was bright, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q What happened after he get into the house? chanrobles virtual law library

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

Q Did you open the door? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q When you opened the door, what happened? chanrobles virtual law library

A The two entered, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who entered chanrobles virtual law library

A Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo, sir. (T.S.N., April 4,1966, supra, pp. 10-11) chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UYchanrobles virtual law library

Q After Samuel Jacobo had taken the eight hundred twenty pesos from your pillow, anything more happened? chanrobles virtual law library

A Because I could not do anything, 'kinuha ang aking pagkababae', sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who? chanrobles virtual law library

A Samuel Jacobo, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Where did that particular incident happen? chanrobles virtual law library

A In the place where I sleep near the aparador, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And while this incident was being perpetrated, where is this Renato Marquez? chanrobles virtual law library

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

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

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A And afterwards you were made to lie on that same bed near the window? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And the pillow was still there? chanrobles virtual law library

A It was already destroyed, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And Renato Marquez was not there? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was ransacking the other part of the house, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q So nobody was there except you and Samuel Jacobo? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And you willingly consented to the act committed by Samuel Jacobo? chanrobles virtual law library

A What could I do, sir, when a gun was being poked at me? chanrobles virtual law library

Q Why? Were they armed? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir, and they were armed and they had fan knife also.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What was Samuel Jacobo carrying with him when he was committing all these acts to you? chanrobles virtual law library

A He was holding a gun as short as this (Witness indicating the length of about one (1) foot).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What was Samuel Jacobo carrying at that time? chanrobles virtual law library

A gun, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q No balisong? chanrobles virtual law library

A He had a balisong on his left waist, sir (Witness pointing to her left waist).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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

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: chanrobles virtual law library

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, an 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 ever 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:

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please tell the Court or rather relate to the Court how you were abused? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. When my mother was brought up the house, we were told to go down.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Who brought you down? chanrobles virtual law library

A Renato Marquez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Do you know where you were brought, to where you were brought? chanrobles virtual law library

DEPUTY CLERK: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Witness at this stage is crying, chanrobles virtual law library

WITNESS: chanrobles virtual law library

A To our store, chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q And while you were in your store what happened if anything happened? chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WITNESS: chanrobles virtual law library

A I was told to give something and if I refused I would be killed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you understand what was that something he was asking? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please tell the Court what was it? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CADAG: chanrobles virtual law library

Witness refused to answer, chanrobles virtual law library

COURT: chanrobles virtual law library

Q You cannot answer chanrobles virtual law library

A (No answer)..chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY:chanrobles virtual law library

Q In short did you give that something that he was asking from you'? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CADAG: chanrobles virtual law library

We will object., Your Honor, because that 'something' is vague. What is that something? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Will you please answer what was that something that he was asking? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CADAG: chanrobles virtual law library

Witness, Your Honor, refused to answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did anything happen after he asked you to give him that something? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir. A gun was poked at me and also a 'balisong' and so I became afraid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q And what happened? chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. CADAG: chanrobles virtual law library

Witness, your Honor, refused to answer.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WITNESS: chanrobles virtual law library

A I was calling for my mother but I was told not to shout because I am going to be killed, chanrobles virtual law library

ATTY. UY: chanrobles virtual law library

Q And what happened? chanrobles virtual law library

A I was told to lie down.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

COURTchanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you lie down? chanrobles virtual law library

A I was forcibly made to lie down, chanrobles virtual law library

Q And after you were forcibly made to lie down what did the accused do? chanrobles virtual law library

A (no answer).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q You answered that and was pointed to you and a 'balisong', who, pointed to you a gun and 'balisong'. "A What did Renato Marquez point to you? chanrobles virtual law library

A A gun.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q How about the 'balisong', who pointed to you? chanrobles virtual law library

A He also. He was carrying two weapons.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Now, there were only the two of you inside the store at that time? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q All right, you were forcibly laid down by Marquez? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q After that, when you were already lying down what did he do to you? Are you ashamed to answer? Do not be ashamed, because the persons in front of you are all married.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q Did he do something to your person? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q What particular act did he do to you? Nakuha ba ang iyong pagkababae? chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, Your Honor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Q After that what happened? chanrobles virtual law library

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: chanrobles virtual law library

... 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 had a moustache, the other was short and had 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

These circumstances do not affect the credibility of the 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. Elizago, 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 the enough from any probable harm."chanrobles virtual law 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Finally, as the lower court correctly said: chanrobles virtual law library

... 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.) chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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 is rape victim Francisca Marquez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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

1) The term life imprisonment should be changed to reclusion perpetua; chanrobles virtual law library

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 chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In all other respects, the judgment appealed from. is hereby affirmed with costs against the appellants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

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




























chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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