[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 courts 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 courts
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 courts 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 vi rtualawlibrary 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; Leticias necklace worth
P15.00; and Rufinas 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 Leticias 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 vi rtual 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 vi rtual 1aw library

Abrasion with hematoma at the postero lateral side wrist right.

Internal Examination:chanrob1es vi rtual 1aw library

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

(Exhibit C)

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

"DIAGNOSIS:chanrob1es vi rtual 1aw library

Abrasion antero medial side wrist left.

Abrasion postero medial area wrist right.

Internal Examination:chanrob1es vi rtual 1aw library

Semicircular contusion at 3, 4, and 5 oclock

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 courts summary of Leticia Tans 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 courts 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 l ibrary

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 li brary

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 lawl ibrary : 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 li brary

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.

G.R. No. 95756 May 14, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CRISOLOGO EMPACIS, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Antonio A. Almirante, Jr. for accused-appellant.

NARVASA, C.J .:
In the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City,
1
five men, namely: Crisologo Empacis, Romualdo
Langomez, Zacarias Solis, Carlito Antiga, and Bebe Antiga, were indicated for the crime of robbery with
homicide under Article 294 (1), in relation to Article 296, of the Revised Penal Code.
2
The indictment
reads as follows:
That on the 16th day of September, 1986 at 9:00 o'clock in the evening, more or
less, in Barangay Kanguha, Municipality of dumanjug, Province of Debu . . .
(said) accused, all armed with carbines and bladed weapons, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with evident premeditation and
intent to kill, treacherously attack, assault and use personal violence upon FIDEL
SAROMINES by stabbing him on different parts of his body and as a result of
which FIDEL SAROMINES died; that on the occassion of the said killing, in
pursuance of their conspiracy, . . . (the) accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of violence, with intent to gain and
against the will of FIDEL SAROMINES, TAKE, STEAL AND CARRY AWAY the
sum of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency,
belonging to the latter.
That the crime was committed by a band, all the accused being armed with
carbines and bladed weapons (Article 296, RPC).
IN VIOLATION of and contrary to ARTICLE 294 paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code.
All the accused, except Romualdo Langomez, were thereafter taken into custody. Langomez
disappeared, and was never apprehended and brought to trial.
3
In due course, the other accused
were arrainged and tried.
Sometime in December, 1987, during the trial, Carlito Antiga died from a gunshot wound.
4

The trial eventuated in a verdict of conviction against Crisologo Empacis, and of acquittal as
regards Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga. The Trial Court's judgment, dated October 24, 1989,
made the following final disposition:
5

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Crisologo Empacis guilty of robbery
with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code, and considering the attendance of the four generic aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, craft or fraud and superior strength, not
offset by any mitigating or extenuating circumstance, hereby sentences the said
accused Crisologo Empacis to the supreme penalty of death. In view of the fact,
however, that the death penalty has been abolished by Section 19(1), Article III
of the 1987 Constitution,
6
the accused Crisologo Empacis is hereby sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the
heirs of Fidel Saromines the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) by
way of death indemnity, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in view of
the principal penalty. He shall also pay the costs of these proceedings.
The accused Crisologo Empacis is hereby immediately ordered arrested and
held in the custody of the law pending appeal or review of this decision, should
the accused wish to appeal from or take up on review this decision.
The other two accused Zacarias or Caring Solis and Bebe Antiga are hereby
acquitted of the charges against them, their guilt not having been proved beyond
a reasonable doubt.
Let a bench warrant issue against the fifth accused in this case, Romualdo a.k.a.
Maldo Langomez so that he can be brought to court to be dealt with accordingly.
The Trial Court accorded superior credit to the evidence of the prosecution in so far as it
established Empacis' direct participation in the felony charged, to wit: the testimony of the
widow of victim, Camila Saromines; of their son, Peter Saromines; and of a neighbor, Balbino
Bulak, which the Court found to be corroborated inter alia by the Post Mortem Report dated
September 17, 1986 of the Rural Health Physician at Dumanjug, Cebu (Dr. Octavio Ortiz), and
even by the testimony of accused Crisologo Empacis himself.
7

Following is the story narrated to the Trail Court by the Government witnesses.
At about 9 o'clock on the night of September 16, 1986, as Fidel Saromines and his wife, Camila,
were about to close to their small store, located in their house at Kanguha, Dumanjug, Cebu,
two men came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. They were Romualdo (or Maldo)
Langomez and Crisologo Empacis. Camila served them and they proceeded to make a meal of
the rice and sardines.
After they finished eating, Romualdo told Fidel to sell him cigarettes. As Fidel was handing over
the cigarettes, Romualdo announced a "hold-up" and commanded Fidel to give up his money.
As it happened, Fidel then had P12,000.00 in his house, wrapped in cellophane. This he started
to give to Romualdo but as the latter was taking hold of the packet, Fidel suddenly decided to
fight to keep his money. A struggle followed in the course of which Romualdo stabbed Fidel
about three times. Crisologo joined in and with his own knife also stabbed Fidel. At this time,
gunshots were heard outside of the house; and a neighbor of the Saromineses, Balbino Bulak,
recognized one of those doing the shooting as certain Carlito Antiga.
8
A voice was heard from
below saying, "Stab him!"
9
to which Langomez replied, "I already stabbed (him)."
10

From his little sister's room, Fidel's thirteen-year odl son, Peter, saw his father fighting for his life
with Romualdo and Crisologo Empacis. Heeding his father's cry, "Peter, help me!" (Suportahe
ko, Peter!), Peter took hold of a "pinuti" (a long bolo), and rushed to his father's defense. He
struck out at Crisologo and inflicted two wounds on him, one at the right shoulder, and the other,
in the neck. Romualdo and Crisologo jumped out of the house and fled, with the sound of
Peter's defiant shout trailing them, "Come back, if you are brave!"
Peter then turned to his wounded father, but found him already dead from his injuries. The post-
mortem examination conducted by Dr. Octavio Ortiz, Rural Health Physician, disclosed four (4)
stab wounds on the deceased, all in the upper back. Two of these, which penetraded the lungs
and heart, were
fatal.
11

Crisologo Empacis repaired to the clinic of Dr. Eustaquio Deiparine at the poblacion of Sibonga,
Cebu, for treatment of the wounds inflicted on him by Peter, arriving there between 10 and 11
o'clock that same night. The doctor found Crisologo's wounds described by him as a
"(hacking) wound on the right side of the neck and the right shoulder" "so serious" as to
require further treatment, even after they had been sutured. Dr. Deiparine asked Crisologo how
he had come by these wounds. Crisologo said that at around 6 to 7 o'clock that evening, near
the Papan Market, he was assaulted without warning by a young man, who injured him with a
bolo.
Police officers came to Dr. Deiparine's clinic the following morning, looking for a man might have
been treated for wounds from a bladed weapon. They were directed to the public market where
they came upon Crisologo, taking breakfast. They arrested him and brought him to the
Dumanjug INP Station. There, Crisologo was interrogated by the Station Commander, P/Pfc.
Rogelio Abrea, and gave a sworn statement.
Crisologo was later brought to Municipal Judge Gerardo Gestopa, before whom he took oath on
his affidavit. Before admnistering the oath, the Judge had a law graduate, one Victor Esguerra,
called to assist Crisologo and verify if he had voluntarily executed his sworn statement.
The three (3) accused all took the witness stand in their defense,
12
and gave stories different from
that of the prosecution witnesses.
Empacis confirmed the facts established by the prosecution witnesses, up to a point. He
admitted that he and Romualdo Langomez had indeed gone to the store of Fidel Saromines on
the night in question, and had there partaken of a meal of sardines and rice. He also
acknowledged that after taking their supper, Romualdo Langomez had gone upstairs to buy
some cigarettes from Fidel, and it was there the moments later, he saw Romualdo and Fidel
grappling with each other. He denies having joined Romualdo in attacking Fidel. He claims that
when he saw Romualdo pull out a knife, he tried to stop Romualdo from using the knife on his
adversary; that nonetheless, Romualdo succeeded in stabbing Fidel twice; that a teen-age boy
came with a bolo and lashed out at Romualdo but the latter was not hit because he pulled him
to one side, and instead it was he (Empacis) who was struck at the right side of the neck; that
he then ran away towards his barrio and from there he was brought by his neighbors to the
clinic of Dr. Deiparine; that he was arrested by the police the following morning; that while being
investigated at the municipal hall of Dumanjug, he told the investigator he wished to avail of the
assistance of counsel but his request went unheeded; and that while being interrogated, some
policemen were inflicting pain on him by squeezing his injured back in order to force him to
admit his participation in the robbery-homicide at Kanguha, Dumanjug.
13

The other two accused, Zacarias Solis and Bebe Antiga, denied any participation whatever in
the crime. They were both absolved by the Trial Court, which agreed with them that the
prosecution had indeed failed to clearly and positively and their complicity in the offense.
14

The Court a quo rejected (quite correctly, it may be said) the sworn statement purpotedly
execute by Empacis on September 17, 1986, offered by the prosecution, condemning it was
"null and void, . . . offensive to Art. III, Section 20, of the New Constitution and the teachings of
the Supreme Court
. . . ."
15
It ruled however that the other proofs of the prosecution overwhelmingly demonstrated Crisologo
Empacis' guilt of the crime charged, and accordingly entered a judgment of conviction against him. It
ruled that Empacis had committed the offense in conspiracy with Romualdo Langomez (who was then
and to this day remains at large); that both of them knew Fidel to be in possession of a sizable amount of
money at the time, and their concerted acts proved their agreement to rob Fidel and if necessary, kill him.
It also ruled that the crime was attended by several aggravating circumstances, i. e., having been
perpetrated (a) "in the dwelling of the offended party . . . (the latter not having) given provocation,"
16
(b)
"in the nighttime;"
17
(c) with employment of "craft of fraud;"
18
and (d) with advantage being taken of
superior strength.
19

From this judgment Empacis has appealed to this Court. His basic thesis is that the evidence of
the prosecution does not actually prove his guilt of the felony of which he is accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
A painstaking review of the record fails to reveal to this Court any error on the part of the Trial
Court of sufficient gravity to justify reversal or modification of its verdict. This Court is unable to
perceive any reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of the victim's widow and son
respecting the identity of Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis as the persons who
attacked and killed Fidel Saromines in their effort to make off with the latter's money amounting
to P12,000.00, and the acts individually done by Romualdo and Crisologo in pursuance of their
common nefarious objective. Indeed, the narrative of the widow and son is, as already pointed
out, confirmed for the most part by the testimony of Crisologo Empacis himself. The latter's
attempt to exculpate himself, by portraying himself as a frustrated protector of Fidel Saromines,
cannot be taken at face value, as against the more credible declarations of the victims widow
and son, specially considering that Crisologo's credit as a witness has been gravely enfeebled
by his having obviously lied to the physician treating him, as regards the cause of his
injuries.
20

The Court has been cited to no plausible cause for Fidel's widow and son to testify falsely
against Crisologo if it be true, as the latter insinuates, that either they had not seen the actual
killing or, having witnessed it, had seen Crisologo actually try to stop Romualdo from stabbing
Fidel. No reason exists, therefore, to disbelieve them.
21
The fact that the victim's son, Peter, had to
correct his statement on direct examination that Romualdo Langomez stabbed his father five (5) times,
declaring, on cross-examination, that in truth Romualdo stabbed his father only about three times while
Crisologo Empacis stabbed the victim once which the appellant seeks to make capital is not
sufficient warrant to reject and discard Peter's evidence. The discrepacy is at best a minor one, not all
destructive of Peter's credibility as an unrehearsed witness. This Court agrees that the Trial Court has
correctly assessed the credit that should be accorded to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
This Court also agrees that conspiracy is adequately proven by the evidence. Langomez and
Crisologo Empacis came to Fidel's store late at night, acting as bona fide customers.
Immediately after finishing their supper, they demanded the delivery to them of Fidel's money,
of which they evidently had prior knowledge, Crisologo lending silent support to his companion's
order for Fidel to turn over the money to them; they helped each other wrest the money away
from Fidel and subdue him by deadly knife thrusts; Romualdo stabbing Fidel thrice, Crisologo,
once; they had obviously arranged for shots to be fired from outside Fidel's store as a means of
frightening Fidel to submit to their command; and they fled from the scene, together. They acted
in concert, helping and cooperating with one another (and others) by simultaneous acts,
evidently in pursuit of a common objective.
22

The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud
23
was properly appreciated against Empacis. He and
Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim's store and on his pretext gained entry into
the latter's store and later, into another part of his dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and ruses of
this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g: where the accused
a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the
residence of their prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed;
24

b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the
house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed;
25

c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into
a house, in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;
26

d) pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine;
27

e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle;
28

f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thristy, asking for drink of
water.
29

The Court also agrees that nighttime was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
against the accused. To be sure, nighttime is not per se aggravating.
30
It must be shown that
nocturnity was deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate, or that it actually facilitated, the commission
of the crime.
31
In the case at bar, the lateness of the hour no doubt precluded the presence of other
customers who could have deterred the felons, or come to the aid of the victim. All things considered,
there is adequate showing that nocturnity was deliberately sought by the robbers and did in reality
facilitate the perpetration of the felony.
For the aggravating circumstance of superior strength to be deemed present in a case, it does
not suffice to prove superiority in number on the part of the malefactors;
32
it must appear that they
purposely employed excessive force, force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked.
33
In this case, the evidence shows that Empacis helped his co-accused by also stabbing
the victim; he and his companion took advantage of their combined strength and their bladed weapons to
overcome their unarmed victim and assure the success of their felonious design to make off with his
money.
That the crime was "committed in the dwelling of the offended party, . . . the latter . . . not
(having) given provacation," was also correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
34

This Court thus sees no cause to deviate from the established axiom that the factual findings of
the Trial Court are accorded the highest respect on appeal, if not indeed regarded as
conclusive, absent any persuasive showing that material facts have been overlooked or ignored
which might otherwise dictate a different verdict.
35

The Court a quo sentenced a Crisologo Empacis to pay the heirs of Fidel Saromines in the
amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) "by way of death indemnity." Pursuant to
prevailing case law,
36
this indemnity must be increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). On the
other hand, despite the evidence given by Fidel Saromines' widow establishing the forcible taking from
her husband of the amount of P12,000.00 by Crisologo and Romualdo,
37
the Trial Court somehow
omitted to require the return of said stolen money, as required by law.
38

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the indemnity for death payable to the heirs of
Saromines is increased to P50.000.00 and restitution of the amount of P12,000.00 shall be
made by the accused, jointly and severally, the Decision of the Trial Court subject of this appeal
is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.

# Footnotes
1 Branch 14.
2 The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-9567.
3 Rollo, p. 22.
4 Original record, p. 262.
5 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
6 Emphasis supplied. The italicized clause is incorrect. The cited constitutional
provision did not "abolish" the death penalty. It simply declared that it shall NOT
be imposed "unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it."
7 Rollo, pp. 22-27.
8 Carlito died during the trial. SEE p. 2, supra, and footnote 8 infra.
9 TSN, Aug. 10, 1987, p. 18.
10 Id., p. 19.
11 Id., pp. 22-24; Original Record, p. 6.
12 As aforestated, the fourth, Carlito Antigue, died a violent death during the trial:
and the fifth suspect, Romualdo Langomez, has remained, and the this day
remains, at large.
13 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
14 Id., p. 26.
15 The Trial Court cited People v. Pascual, 109 SCRA 197; Morales v. Enrile,
121 SCRA 538; People v. Galit, 135 SCRA 465; People v. Duhan, 142 SCRA
100; People v. Opida, 142 SCRA 295.
16 Par. 3, Art. 14, Revised Penal Code.
17 Par. 6, id.
18 Par. 14, id.
19 Par. 15, id.
20 SEE footnote 9 and related text, supra.
21 SEE Peo. v. Dimaano, June 15, 1992, citing Peo v. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 393
(1990).
22 SEE Peo v. Benitez, 202 SCRA 478; Peo v. Penones, 200 SCRA 624; Peo. v.
Palino 183 SCRA 680; Peo. v. Alitao, 194 SCRA 120.
23 Par. 14, ART, 14, RPC.
24 Peo. v. Saquing, 30 SCRA 961 (SEE Aquino, the Revised Penal Code, 1988
ed., Vol. I, p. 374.
25 Peo. v. Casalme, 101 Phil. 1249.
26 Peo. v. Saulog, 74 Phil. 527.
27 Peo. v. Bundal, 3 Phil. 89.
28 Peo. v. Vallente, 144 SCRA 495.
29 Peo. v. Napili, 85 Phil. 521.
30 Peo. v. Serante, 152 SCRA 570.
31 Peo. v. Palon, 127 SCRA 529, 539 (1984), citing Peo. v. Garcia, 94 SCRA 14.
32 Peo. v. Maloloy-on, 189 SCRA 250 [1988].
33 Peo v. Carpio, 191 SCRA 108 [1990] citing Peo v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 101.
34 Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 ed., Vol. 1, p. 289. citing Valdez, 64
Phil. 860; Pinca, 114 Phil. 498.
35 SEE, e.g., Peo. v. Bravo, 180 SCRA 694, 699-700 (1989); Peo. v. Alitao, 194
SCRA 120, 126-127 (1991) Peo. v. Manantan, 196 SCRA 128, 131 (1991); Peo.
v. Tugbo, 196 SCRA 133, 137 (1991).
36 SEE, e.g., Peo. v. Soriano, 196 SCRA 123; Peo. v. Sison, 189 SCRA 643;
Peo. v. Sazon, 189 SCRA 700; Peo. v. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459.
37 TSN, May 29, 1987, pp. 9-12, 17.
38 Art. 104, Revised Penal Code; SEE Aquino, Revised Penal Code [Anno.].
1987 ed., p. 842.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 127849. August 9, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIVENCIO
LABUGUEN @ DENCIO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
For automatic review is the Decision
[1]
dated October 7, 1996, of the Regional
Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 20, finding appellant Vivencio Labuguen
@ Dencio guilty of the crime of Robbery With Homicide in Criminal Case No. 20-
738, and sentencing him thus:
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused VIVENCIO LABUGUEN @ DENCIO
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE as alleged in the information and considering the presence of
the aggravating circumstances of fraud and craft without any mitigating
circumstance, the Court, considering the provision of Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
7659, hereby sentences said accused VIVENCIO LABUGUEN the penalty
of DEATH. The accused Vivencio Labuguen is hereby ordered to pay the
heirs of Bonifacio Angeles P40, 000.00 for the money taken, P55,100.00
for the expenses incurred during the wake and burial of the deceased
Bonifacio Angeles and P50,000.00 indemnification. Cost against the
accused.
SO ORDERED."
[2]

Filed on February 3, 1995, the information indicting appellant alleges:
"That on or about the 27th day of October, 1994, in the municipality of
Angadanan, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of force violence and
intimidation against person and with intent to gain, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, steal and carry away cash money
in the amount of P40,000.00 and belonging to Bonifacio Angeles @
Asiong, against his will and consent, to the damage and prejudice of the
said Bonifacio Angeles @ Asiong, in the aforesaid amount of P40,000.00;
that on the occasion and by reason of said robbery, and for the purpose of
enabling him to take, steal and bring away the said money, the accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill
and without any just motive, assault, attack and shoot for several times
with a firearm and stab for several times with a pointed/bladed instrument
the said Bonifacio Angeles @ Asiong, inflicting upon him multiple gunshot
wounds and multiple stab wounds on the different parts of his body, which
directly caused his death.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
[3]

With the appellant, assisted by Atty. Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., pleading not guilty upon
arraignment
[4]
on April 5, 1995, trial ensued with the prosecution presenting
Marilou Dabo, Tomas Pabigayan, Romeo (Romy) Bariza, Pantaleon Tagora,
Elpidio Rivera, SPO2 Joselito Apalisoc, SPO1 Elmo Bungag, Edgar Valle,
Geronimo Rivera, Dr. Inocencio R. Agpaoa and Federico Angeles, as its
witnesses.
The defense called on Victoriano Dy, Romeo Estacio, Precila Labuguen, Lt.
David Palaganas, Tranquilino Cagurangan, Jessie Cabbab and Orlando Ramos
and the appellant himself to testify.
The facts that matter are synthesized in the decision of the trial court as follows:
"xxx Bonifacio Angeles, 56, (Bonifacio) was engaged in the business of
buying cows which he sold at the public market. Although he was married
to Damasa Gante with whom he had nine (9) children, he lived with
another woman, Marilou Dabo, 28, at Coloma Village, San Fermin,
Cauayan, Isabela. They begot two (2) children during their ten (10) years
of coverture.
Early in the morning of October 27, 1994, Tomas Pagbigayan (sic)
(Tomas) went to the house of Bonifacio at San Fermin. Tomas offered two
cows to sell to Bonifacio. Bonifacio said that when he has time, he will go
and see the cows. After their talk Bonifacio gave Tomas a lift on his Honda
Sports XL100 motorcycle and accompanied him to the crossing where he
could take a ride home. Tomas sat on the backseat of the motorcycle.
Marilou Dabo declared that when Bonifacio returned home, the accused
Vivencio (Dencio) Labuguen was with him. The accused sat behind
Bonifacio who drove the motorcycle.
The accused stayed on the porch of the house. Marilou Dabo served him
coffee. The accused told Bonifacio that he knows of three big cows for
sale and that the place where they are is near. Bonifacio said that he will
go and see the cows, after breakfast.
Marilou Dabo declared in her testimony that the accused had a
handkerchief tied around his forehead as a headband. He was wearing
dark sunglasses, dark jacket and a faded maong pants. He wore rubber
slippers. Marilou Dabo recognized him as the accused Vivencio Labuguen
because before October 27, 1994, the accused had already come to their
house and offered to sell a lot to Bonifacio. After Bonifacio finished his
breakfast, he went to the porch and talked to the accused for about fifteen
(15) minutes. Marilou Dabo was in the kitchen three meters away from
them.
Bonifacio entered their room and took P40,000.00 from the cabinet.
Bonifacio got P40,000.00 because the accused told him the cows are big.
He counted the money and placed it inside his pocket. Marilou Dabo was
beside him. She saw Bonifacio count the P40,000.00 in P1,000.00,
P500.00 and P100.00 bills.
Then Bonifacio and the accused rode on the motorcycle. Bonifacio drove
the motorcycle. The accused was seated behind Bonifacio. This was
past 8:00 o'clock in the morning of October 27, 1994.
Bonifacio and accused Vivencio Labuguen passed by the house of Romeo
Bariza, 47, farmer, who resided in San Fermin, Cauayan. His house was
120 meters away from the house of Bonifacio. Bariza was the planting
'kahoy' when he saw at a distance of 20 meters Bonifacio and the accused
pass by riding on a motorcycle color (sic) red and black, running slowly
because the road was full of potholes. Bariza declared that Bonifacio and
the accused glanced at him. He recognized Bonifacio because he is his
compadre and the accused because he had known him months before
that date. Accused was wearing sunglasses and a cloth on his forehead.
In Court, Bariza identified the accused Vivencio Labuguen as the same
person he saw riding with Bonifacio that morning of October 27, 1994,
while he was planting 'kahoy.'
Tomas declared that he was not able to get immediately a ride going
home. While at the crossing waiting for a ride, he saw Bonifacio and the
accused Vivencio Labuguen. They rode on a motorcycle driven by
Bonifacio. The accused sat on the backseat of the motorcycle. They
glanced at Tomas. Tomas saw the face of the accused who was wearing
sunglasses with a handkerchief tied around his forehead. Tomas
recognized the accused Vivencio Labuguen because on October 22,
1994, he saw him talking to Romy Bariza on the road in front of the latter's
house in San Fermin. When the accused left, he (Tomas) asked Romy
Bariza who was the person he talked with and he answered, 'Dencio.'
Dencio is the nickname of the accused Vivencio Labuguen. Accused then
left driving a tricycle.
At about 10:00 o'clock that morning of October 27, 1994, Pantaleon
Tagora, 55, farmer and a resident of Ramona, Angadanan, was on his
way home. He had just come from his cornfield. He was walking on top of
the irrigation canal near the service drop when he met two (2) male
persons. One was younger than the other. The young one wore a jacket
which was quite yellow. His face was quite round. He was not wearing
sunglasses or headband. In Court, Tagora identified the younger person
as Vivencio Labuguen. (TSN p. 10, Tagora, July 5, 1995). The older one
wore a faded maong pants. His face was quite elongated. They were
seated four (4) meters apart. Tagora first met the older male person. This
place where Tagora met them was one and a half kilometers from his
house.
Tagora passed by the two persons without talking to them. After walking
200 meters away from them, he saw a motorcycle parked on the way.
The top of the irrigation canal was used as an exit road to the National
Highway between Alicia on the South and Cauayan on the North. (TSN -
Dr Agpaoa, p. 13, October 31, 1995)
Elpidio Rivera, 31, farmer and a resident of Barangay Viga, Angadanan,
one (1) kilometer West of Ramona, was sundrying (sic) his corn on the
concrete edge of the road near his house at about 10:30 o'clock that
morning of October 27, 1994. This road goes to Angadanan and then to
Cauayan (TSN p. 7, Elpidio Rivera, August 16, 1995). His attention was
attracted by a loud roar of a motorcycle coming towards his place. Elpidio
stopped working. At a distance he saw a person riding on a red
motorcycle (sports type). He came from the West from Ramona and going
towards the East. When it was near the place where Elpidio was drying
corn, the motorcycle slowed down because it was a curve. Elpidio
declared in court that he saw the face of the motorcycle rider: quite round,
wearing a light yellow jacket with a handkerchief around his forehead. The
handkerchief was black with red dots. He was 6 to 7 meters from Elpidio
when he passed by. In Court, Elpidio readily identified the accused
Vivencio Labuguen as the person he saw riding on the motorcycle. (TSN -
Rivera, p. 8, August 16, 1995)
Between 11:00 to 12:00 o'clock noon on October 27, 1994, Geronimo
Rivera, 45, was driving a Challenger, a passenger mini-bus (sic), at
Barangay Nappaccu Grande (Nappaccu), Reina Mercedes, Isabela. His
conductor was Eduardo Valle, 20. They came from Santiago, Isabela,
bound for Tuguegarao, Cagayan. There were passengers in the bus.
At Nappaccu, Geromino Rivera (Rivera) saw at a distance of 200 meters,
a person behind some talahibs near the National Highway. When the mini-
bus (sic) came near to a distance of 50 meters from the person, Rivera
noticed that he was wiping something on his right hand and right face.
When the mini-bus (sic) was near, the person flagged it down. The bus
stopped. Rivera saw a Honda XL100 motorcycle three (3) meters from the
person near the edge of the highway.
Conductor Eduardo Valle, went down the minibus (sic) to allow the person
to get inside the bus. He observed that his clothes, particularly the right
side of his jacket and the right side of his pants, was soaked with blood.
He was wearing a cream jacket, maong pants, sunglasses and a
handkerchief tied around his forehead. Eduardo Valle thought he met an
accident but when he looked at the Honda XL100 motorcycle parked
behind the person, it was not damaged and that he had no injuries.
The person sat on the 5th row seat, a 3-seater, on the left. He was alone
there. The 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st row of seats were vacant. He placed the
palm of his hands behind his head. He acted as if he was looking for
something which he could not find. Rivera could see him clearly on the big
rear view mirror (1 foot by 1/2) above him.
Conductor Eduardo Valle went to him and asked him where he was going
but the person did not answer, instead, without saying anything, he gave a
P10.00 bill to Eduardo Valle. He asked the person where he was going to
alight so he could give him his change, but the person did not answer.
Eduardo Valle declared in Court that he saw the breast pocket of the
jacket of the person full of money, two inches thick P100.00 bills. One bill
was falling, so Eduardo Valle told the person, 'Brod, your money is falling.'
In Court, Geronimo Rivera and Eduardo Valle positively identified the
person who rode on the mini-bus (sic) with blood-soaked clothes and
plenty of money on the breast pocket of his jacket as the accused
Vivencio Labuguen. They also positively identified the Honda XL100
(Exhibit 'G') as the same motorcycle behind the accused which was left
when he boarded the mini-bus (sic) at Nappaccu.
When some passengers alighted at the junction of the road in Naguillan
going to San Mariano, Isabela, the accused suddenly stoop up and
alighted from the mini-bus (sic). He did not even get his change.
Going back to Pantaleon Tagora at Ramona, Angadanan. Between 1:00
to 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of October 27, 1994 while he was in his
house at Ramona, he heard that a dead person was found near the
irrigation canal. He and his neighbors went to see the dead person. He
was surprised to see that the dead person was the same older person
who was the companion of the younger one he met that morning. He
identified the younger person as the accused. The body of the deceased
was on the middle of a ricefield (sic), 50 meters from the service drop of
the irrigation canal.
At about 5:00 o'clock that afternoon of October 27, 1994, Dr. Agpaoa in
the presence of Mayor Ong and Chief of Police Redentor Garcia of
Angadanan, Isabela, conducted an examination of the body of the
deceased person at the middle of a ricefield (sic) in Barangay Ramona,
Angadanan. The dead person was identified as Bonifacio Angeles by his
brother Federico Angeles. Dr. Agpaoa wrote his findings while on the
ricefield (sic). Later, after examining again the body at the Funeraria, he
put his findings into final form in his Autopsy Report marked Exhibit 'K'. In
his Autopsy Report, Dr. Agpaoa found the following wounds on the body
of the deceased Bonifacio Angeles, thus:
'Postmortem Findings
1. Gunshot wound, entrance left, inferior margin of left clavicle, slightly
outside the left midclavicular line, directed slightly downward, backward
and medially.
2. Gunshot wound, entrance, right side of the thoracic cage, along slight
anterior axillary line, between 6th & 5th costal interspace, directed
medially.
3. Stab wound, left temporal area, above the left ear.
4. Stab wound, supra sternal notch (deep) penetrating chest cavity.
5. Stab wound, supra clavicular area, downwards, penetrating chest
cavity.
6. Multiple superficial stab wound over anterior chest wall and abdominal
wall.
7. Stab wound on both thighs, anterior surface. Cause of death - Internal
Hemorrhage.'
xxx....xxx ....xxx
xxx....xxx ....xxx
The heirs of Bonifacio Angeles spent P55,000.00 for his burial (Exhibit
'L')."
[5]

Appellant placed reliance on his defense of denial and alibi. Vehemently denying
the charge against him, he asseverated that he could not have committed the
crime on October 27, 1994 because he left for Maconacon, Isabela on October
17, 1994, to manage the logging operation of a certain Orlando Ramos and
stayed there until December 20, 1994.
[6]

On October 7, 1996, the trial court handed down its decision under review. The
defense theorized that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED ON THE BASIS
OF SURMISES, SPECULATIONS, INSUFFICIENT AND INCREDIBLE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE; and
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE
OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
[7]

Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. The fact-
finder must draw an inference from such evidence. It is at times essential to
resort to circumstantial evidence since to insist on direct testimony would, in
many cases, result in setting felons free and deny proper protection to society.
An accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where the
circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair reasonable
conclusion and pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the
guilty person.
[8]
Under Section 4, Rule 134 of the Rules on Evidence,
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case under consideration, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
spawn and generate the following facts which constitute an unbroken chain of
events leading to the inevitable conclusion of guilt on the part of the appellant, to
wit:
1. In the early morning of October 27, 1994, appellant went to the house of
the victim to convince him to purchase the cows offered for sale.
2. The victim agreed to see the cows, bringing along with him -
P40,000.00. Thus, at around 8:00 in the morning of the same day, the
victim and the appellant rode on the motorcycle of the victim with the latter
as the driver.
3. At past 8:00 in the morning of October 27, 1994, prosecution witness
Romeo Bariza saw the victim and appellant riding on a motorcycle.
4. At about 10:00 of the same day, the victim and the appellant were seen
sitting on top of an irrigation canal at Barangay Ramona, Angadanan,
Isabela.
5. Around 10:30 in the morning of October 27, 1994, appellant was seen
alone on the motorcycle of the victim, speeding away from Barangay
Ramona.
6. Between 11:00 to 12:00 noon of October 27, 1994, appellant rode a
minibus leaving the motorcycle of the victim on the shoulder of the road.
7. The bus conductor noticed that the right side of appellant's jacket and
pants were soaked with blood, and there were two inches-thick of one
hundred peso bills tucked in the breast pocket of appellant's jacket.
8. Between 1:00 to 2:00 in the afternoon of the same day, the dead body
of the victim with gunshot and stab wounds was found by the residents of
Barangay Ramona, 150 meters from the irrigation canal.
9. Around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon also of the same day, the
municipal health officer, the chief of police, the mayor, and some peace
officers of Angadanan, Isabela, proceeded to the place where the body of
the unidentified victim was found (Exhibit "J", O.R., p. 156; and TSN, p. 4,
October 31, 1995, direct exam. of Dr. Agpaoa).
10. Federico Angeles identified the deceased as his brother Bonifacio
Angeles (Exhibit "K", O.R., p. 157.).
After a careful study, the Court is of the ineluctable finding and conclusion that
the aforementioned circumstantial evidence has established the guilt of appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. The time element of the circumstances thus proven
link each chain of circumstances to another pointing to a reasonable conclusion
and no other but the guilt of appellant. From the early morning of October 27,
1994 to 10:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, the prosecution has
sufficiently shown that the appellant was the last person seen with the victim
before the latter was killed. About thirty minutes later, appellant was seen
speeding away from Barangay Ramona where he and the victim were previously
spotted by one of the prosecution witnesses. And, escaping from the
consequences of his felonious act, appellant, boarded a minibus, leaving the
motorcycle of the victim on the side of the road. All the foregoing circumstances,
coupled with the fact that appellant had two inches thick of one hundred peso
bills in his possession when he rode on the minibus with his jacket and pants
splattered with blood, suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
appellant of the crime of robo con homicido perpetrated in the morning of
October 27, 1994.
In People vs. Asis,
[9]
the Court affirmed the conviction of the accused of the crime
of homicide on the basis of circumstantial evidence, holding thus:
"xxx We find that all these requisites have been successfully met by the
prosecution. The evidence showed that appellant was one of two persons
last seen in the company of the victim before he was killed. On the
morning that the victim's body was found, the appellant was observed with
his clothes smeared with blood. Witness dela Cruz saw his left shoulder
with bite marks and his right hand swollen. When asked about the injuries,
he admitted engaging in a fight in Bgy. Pinakpinakan. On the same
morning, some CAFGU soldiers spotted the appellant with co-accused
Mendoza while walking by the road in Bgy. Caingin. They had blood-
stained clothes. The two ran away, when pursued. Their flight evinces
guilt. These circumstances taken together lead to no other conclusion but
that the appellant is guilty as charged."
[10]

Appellant's intention to rob the victim can be gleaned unerringly from the
attendant circumstances. Obviously, robbery was the motive that impelled
appellant to convince the victim to go with him. Under the pretext of selling cows
to him, appellant cajoled the victim to bring a large sum of money and thereafter,
lured him to a route where appellant could divest him of his money with the least
danger of being caught. As aptly surmised by the trial court, the two inches thick
of one hundred peso bills in appellant's pocket and the blood smeared on his
clothes are two vital chains of circumstances that undoubtedly bespeak of the
robbery with homicide appellant committed.
The lower court erred not in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses particularly identifying appellant as the person last
seen in the company of the victim before the latter was found dead. The
testimonies on record are clear and straightforward. And, finding the witnesses
for the People not ill-motivated to testify against the appellant, the Court discerns
no basis for doubting their credibility.
[11]
Moreover, it is a jurisprudentially-
embedded rule that on the issue of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts
generally do not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering its singular
opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of testifying of the
witnesses.
[12]

Disowning liability for the commission of the crime complained of, appellant
theorized that he was in Maconacon, Isabela, from October 17, 1994 up to
December 20, 1994. The Court, however, finds no credibility in the alibi theorized
upon by appellant. It bears stressing that for alibi to prosper, appellant must
prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.
[13]
In the
present case of appellant, he failed to establish the requisite physical
impossibility of his presence at the locus criminis at the approximate time of its
commission. Granting arguendo that the appellant really went to Maconacon,
Isabela on October 17, 1994, it was easy for him to go back by plane or by boat
to Cauayan, Isabela, on or before October 27, 1994.
Furthermore, and more importantly, the defense of alibi of appellant cannot
prevail over his positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
[14]

Though not alleged in the Information, the generic aggravating circumstances of
fraud and craft were properly appreciated by the trial court.
[15]
Craft involves
intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender. When there is a
direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present.
[16]
By
saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter
intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the victim to go with him.
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Robbery with
Homicide is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the same Code,
the impossable penalty under the premises is death in view of the presence of
the aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud and the absence of any
mitigating circumstance.
Four members of the Court are steadfast in their adherence to the separate
opinion expressed in People vs. Echegaray that Republic Act No. 7659 is
unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. However, they bow to
the majority opinion that the aforesaid law is constitutional and therefore, the
penalty prescribed thereunder has to be imposed.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 7, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela, in Criminal Case No. 20-738, finding appellant
VIVENCIO LABUGUEN @ DENCIO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of robbery with homicide, and imposing upon him the penalty of DEATH, is
AFFIRMED.
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of
the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of the case
be forwarded to the Office of the President for the possible exercise of the
pardoning power. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-
Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., abroad on official business.



[1]
Penned by Judge Henedino P. Eduarte.
[2]
Rollo, p. 246.
[3]
Original Records (O.R.) p. 50.
[4]
O.R. pp. 69 and 73.
[5]
Decision, Rollo, pp. 235-239.
[6]
Id., p. 239.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 74-75.
[8]
People vs. Andal, 279 SCRA 475, 486 citing: People vs. Ramos, 240 SCRA 191 and People vs. Lorenzo, 240
SCRA 624.
[9]
286 SCRA 64, 71.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
People vs. Pija, 245 SCRA 80, 84-85 citing: People vs. Rostata, Jr. 218 SCRA 657.
[12]
People vs. Laurente, 255 SCRA 543, 563 citing People vs. Enciso, 223 SCRA 675; and People vs. Lagrosa, Jr.,
230 SCRA 298.
[13]
People vs. Taneo, 284 SCRA 251, 271 citing: People vs. Barte, 230 SCRA 401; and People vs. Aninon, 158
SCRA 701.
[14]
People vs. Taneo, supra, citing: People vs. Fernandez, 239 SCRA 174; People vs. Abapo, 239 SCRA 469;
People vs. Repollo, 237 SCRA 476; People vs. Saballe, 236 SCRA 365; People vs. Jimenez, 235 SCRA 322; and
People vs. Apa-ap, Jr., 235 SCRA 468.
[15]
People vs. Ang 139 SCRA 115, 121 citing: People vs. Martinez y Godinez, 106 Phil. 597; People vs. Butler, 120
SCRA 281; and People vs. Roquinio, 17 SCRA 914.
[16]
People vs. Manuzon, 277 SCRA 550, 562.