FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
148424-27
December 11, 2003
-versus-
DANILO
CARAANG,
VIRGILIO
CANLAS, JR.,
MANNY BELAGOT (AT
LARGE), ROLANDO
REBOTA (AT LARGE)
AND FOUR JOHN DOES
(AT LARGE),
Accused,
DANILO
CARAANG,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
Even if appellant
is guilty of two counts of forcible abduction with rape, he cannot be
sentenced
to death because the crimes happened in 1990, prior to the effectivity
of the Death
Penalty Law. Nonetheless, the civil liabilities to be awarded
should
be equal to those prescribed for crimes committed under circumstances
that
would have justified the imposition of death, had they been committed
after
the effectivity of RA
7659. Indeed, the Civil
Code, which governs civil liabilities, has been in effect since
1950
and is thus applicable to the herein factual environment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case
Danilo Caraang appeals
the November 24, 2000 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija,
(Branch
39), in Criminal Case Nos. C-14(91), C-15(91), C-16(91) and C-17(91).
The
RTC convicted him, together with Virgilio Canlas, Jr., of the complex
crime
of abduction with rape, two counts of rape and one count of acts of
lasciviousness.
They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each of the first three
crimes;
and imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months, one (1) day to six
(6) years of prision correccional for the last.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The decretal portion
of the RTC Decision reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
Danilo
Caraang and Virgilio Canlas, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"(1) In
Criminal
Case No. C-14(91), of the complex crime of Abduction with Rape, and are
hereby
(a)
sentenced
to suffer Reclusion Perpetua;
(b) ordered to
pay jointly
and severally Vanelyn Flores, P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
P50,000.00
as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"(2) In Criminal
Case No.
C-15(91), of the crime of Rape, and are hereby
(a)
sentenced
to suffer Reclusion Perpetua;
(b) ordered to
pay jointly
and severally Lorna Salazar, P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
P50,000.00
as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"(3) In Criminal
Case No.
C-16(91), of the crime of Rape, and are hereby
(a)
sentenced
to suffer Reclusion Perpetua;
(b) ordered to
pay jointly
and severally Vanelyn Flores, P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
P50,000.00
as moral damages; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"(4) In Criminal
Case No.
C-17(91), of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, and are hereby
(a)
sentenced
to suffer imprisonment of Four (4) years, Two (2) months, One (1) day
to
Six (6) years of prision correccional;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) ordered to
pay jointly
and severally Lorna Salazar, P20,000.00 as compensatory damages and
P10,000.00
as moral damages."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Second Assistant
Provincial
Prosecutor Ubaldino A. Lacurom charged appellant and his co-accused in
the following criminal Informations:
In
Criminal
Case No. C-14(91)
"That on or about
the
10th day of November, 1990, in the Municipality of Carranglan, Province
of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping
one
another did then and there abduct, take and carry away with lewd design
and by means of force and intimidation, Vanelyn Flores to an
uninhabited
grassy upland five hundred (500) meters away and there and then,
conspiring
and confederating together, and by means of force and intimidation,
said
accused have sexual intercourse with her against her will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That as a
consequence
of the commission of the crime, Vanelyn Flores sustained actual, moral
and consequential damages in the amount of P100,000.00."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal
Case
No. C-15(91)
"That on or about
the
10th day of November, 1990, in the Municipality of Carranglan, Province
of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping
one another did then and there abduct, take and carry away with lewd
design
and by means of force and intimidation, LORNA SALAZAR to an uninhabited
grassy upland five hundred (500) meters away and there and then,
conspiring
and confederating together, and by means of force and intimidation,
said
accused have sexual intercourse with her against her will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That as a
consequence
of the commission of the crime, Lorna Salazar sustained actual, moral
and
consequential damages in the amount of P100,000.00."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal
Case
No. C-16(91)
"That on or about
the
10th day of November, 1990, in the Municipality of Carranglan, Province
of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping
one another did then and there abduct, take and carry away with lewd
design
and by means of force and intimidation, Vanelyn Flores to an
uninhabited
grassy upland five hundred (500) meters away and there and then,
conspiring
and confederating together, and by means of force and intimidation,
said
accused have sexual intercourse with her against her will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That as a
consequence
of the commission of the crime, Vanelyn Flores sustained actual, moral
and consequential damages in the amount of P100,000.00."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal
Case
No. C-17(91)
"That on or about
the
10th day of November, 1990, in the Municipality of Carranglan, Province
of Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping
one another did then and there abduct, take and carry away with lewd
design
and by means of force and intimidation, LORNA SALAZAR to an uninhabited
grassy upland five hundred (500) meters away and there and then,
conspiring
and confederating together, and by means of force and intimidation,
said
accused have sexual intercourse with her against her will.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"That as a
consequence
of the commission of the crime, Lorna Salazar sustained actual, moral
and
consequential damages in the amount of P100,000.00."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 1, 1991, the
trial
court issued a Warrant of Arrest[7]
against all the accused. Appellant and Canlas Jr. were arrested and
detained
at the Nueva Ecija Philippine National Police (PNP) Company
Headquarters,[8]
but all the others remained at large. When arraigned on June 18, 1991,
the two, assisted by their counsel de parte,[9]
pleaded not guilty after the Informations had been read and explained
to
them in a language that they fully understood.[10]
Trial on the merits ensued. Since there were common witnesses and the
acts
complained of arose from the same incident, the cases were consolidated
and tried jointly.[11]
Thereafter, the lower court promulgated its assailed Decision. Counsel
for appellant then filed the Notice of Appeal[12]
on January 22, 2001. The Facts
Version of the
Prosecution
In its Brief,[13]
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) narrates the factual
antecedents
of the case as follows:
"About 11
o'clock
on the night of November 10, 1990, the group of Vanelyn Flores, Lorna
Salazar,
Angeline Flores, Jona Ampil, Gina Canzon, Froilan Galamay, Jimmy
Pascual
and Tirso Ganzon were on their way home to Sitio Abibeg, Gen. Luna,
Carranglan,
Nueva Ecija. The group had just attended a 'bangsal-bangsal' or a
pre-nuptial
dance at Barangay Dipaan, Car[r]anglan, Nueva Ecija.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The moon had just
begun
to rise, and the road they were traversing was quite dark. Reaching the
boundary of Abibeg and Dipaan, the group was accosted by two (2) armed
men. Brandishing their guns, the men ordered the group to follow them.
The two (2) armed men wore bonnets. However, Vanelyn Flores recognized
one of them as appellant Danilo Caraang, having known him for a long
time
since they were neighbors in the same barangay and because of the
peculiar
way he walked and stood. Jimmy Pascual likewise recognized the two
armed
men as appellant Danilo Caraang and Virgilio Canlas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The group was
forced
to walk through rice paddies till they reached an uninhabited and
grassy
place near a creek or 'parang,' approximately 500 meters away from the
place where they were waylaid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Upon reaching the
'parang,'
the armed men ordered the female members of the group to sit down while
the male members were ordered to lie on the ground face down.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Vanelyn Flores
was
the first female removed from the group by appellant. She knew that it
was appellant who grabbed her hand and who pulled her to a nearby creek
about 50 meters away. There, Vanelyn saw another man waiting.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"All of a sudden,
appellant
poked his gun on Vanelyn's temple and ordered her to remove her pants.
Vanelyn became terrified and cried. Appellant forced her to lie down on
the ground. He repeated his order that she remove her pants. Vanelyn,
however,
refused. This prompted appellant's companion to grab both of Vanelyn's
hands. As Vanelyn was immobilized, appellant succeeded in removing her
pants and underwear. Thereafter, appellant removed his pants, mounted
Vanelyn
and had sexual intercourse with her. Vanelyn felt excruciating pain.
"By then, the
place
was well-illuminated by moonlight. The moment appellant removed his
bonnet,
Vanelyn saw that her rapist was indeed appellant Danilo Caraang.
Vanelyn
was sexually abused by appellant for more than 15 minutes, after which
she was returned to their group.
"After an hour,
Vanelyn
was again forcibly brought by appellant to the nearby creek. Vanelyn
was
made to lie down by appellant who poked his gun at her. Petrified with
fear, Vanelyn could not resist as appellant's companion removed her
underwear
and her pants. Then appellant's companion mounted her and sexually
abused
her. Vanelyn again cried because of terrible pain. After appellant's
companion
had satisfied his lust, appellant returned Vanelyn to the group. He
approached
Lorna Salazar and forced her to go with him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Lorna Salazar was
first
blindfolded and then brought to a place away from the group. She was
turned
over to a man who removed the cover from her eyes. Lorna saw that the
man
was wearing a bonnet.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The man ordered
Lorna
to remove her pants but she fought back. Thus, he kicked Lorna hard in
the abdomen which caused her to lose consciousness. When she regained
consciousness,
Lorna felt weak and dizzy. She also saw that she was naked. The man who
raped her ordered her to put on her pants. Thereafter, she was returned
back to the group.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Subsequently, two
other
companions of appellant, who were also armed, took Lorna Salazar away
from
the group. They also wanted to rape her. However, as the men were
starting
to remove her clothes, Lorna cried and pleaded for mercy. The two men
relented.
One of them asked Lorna to give him a kiss mark instead. As he prepared
to be kissed, the man removed his bonnet. Lorna was able to identify
him
as Manny Belagot. Then she was returned to the group.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Around 4 o'clock
in
the morning, the group was released at the place where they were
abducted.
Before departing, the armed men threatened the group thus 'pag
nagsumbong
kayo, papatayin naming kayo lahat.'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Vanelyn Flores
and
her sister Angeline, together with Lorna Salazar, arrived at their
house
crying. They narrated to Vanelyn's parents all about the incident.
Immediately,
Vanelyn was brought by her parents to San Jose City, where she was
examined
by Dr. Rolando Valencia. Dr. Valencia reported the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'First,
Erymetamous
vulva meaning the vulva was reddish. Vulva is the external part of the
female organ. Then, there was slight abrasion on the vaginal
fourchette.
Meaning, there was an abrasion in the fourchette. If you will spread
the
vagina of a woman, the portion that you will see is the fourchette and
in the lower portion thereof was the abrasion. My third findings is:
Hymenal
laceration with sharp edges at 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock. Meaning There
was
laceration in the hymen particularly at 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock
position.
The hymen is the rigid membrane. x x x The
vagina
admitted two fingers with difficulty and the patient felt pain. Vaginal
cervical smear, meaning the taking of the fluid from the vagina for
examination
and it proved of the presence of sperm cell (tamod).
"Meanwhile, on
November
16, 1990, Lorna Salazar was medically examined by Dr. Restituto Duran
who
reported the following findings:
'Breast-no
contusion, no abrasion, well formed and firm, nipple small, areola
brownish
in color. Abdomen-no contusion, abrasion, hematoma, rest of the body
show
no sign of contusion, abrasion and hematoma. Vagina-no signs of
contusion,
abrasion and hematoma. Pubic hair moderate. Hymen-lacerated at 12:00
o'clock,
seven o'clock and six o'clock much lacerated. Vagina canal-admits 1
finger
with resistance, admits 2 fingers with much resistance. Cervix is
somewhat
soft and tender upon touching.
'The laceration
suggests
that there was a forceful entrance at the vaginal canal by a hard
object.'"[14]
(Citations
omitted.) Version of the
Defense
On the other hand, appellant,
in his Brief,[15]
summarizes the facts of the case as follows:
"This is a
case of 4 counts of rape with forcible abduction filed against CARAANG
and others. CARAANG was convicted based on the testimonies of the
complainants
whereby they alleged that they were waylaid and raped by a group of men
belonging to the CAFGU. CARAANG denies the accusations against him. He
maintains that he is innocent and that he was not at the place of the
incident
and that he was sick at that time. This defense was not believed by the
trial court which x x x dismissed it as a mere
alibi. Hence this appeal."[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Ruling of
the
Trial Court
The RTC was convinced
beyond reasonable doubt that appellant and his cohorts had conspired in
abducting the victims and eventually raping them. It gave full faith
and
credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially
those
of the two victims — Vanelyn Flores and Lorna Salazar. Upholding the
positive
identification they had made, it rejected appellant's alibi.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The court a quo found
that only one act of abduction had been committed by all the accused.
It
added that the crafty way in which they made the victims go with them
revealed
the lewd intention of the abduction. That the former had intended to
have
carnal knowledge of the latter from the very beginning was further held
by the lower court. The rapes were thus complexed with the crime of
abduction.
However, the RTC held that the subsequent instances of rape committed
were
separate and distinct counts thereof. As to the fourth criminal
Complaint,
it found appellant guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, since no
carnal
knowledge had occurred.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, this
appeal.chanrobles virtual law library[17]
The Issues
In his appeal, appellant
assigns the following alleged errors for our consideration:
"A. The
trial
court erred in finding that there was positive identification of
Caraang
as the rapist."[18]
"B. The trial
court
erred in not appreciating the existence of other facts and
circumstances
which are of weight and substance in favor of the accused-appellant
which
shows that there is reasonable doubt."[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"C. The evidence
against
the accused did not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient
for conviction."[20]
"D. The trial
court
erred in finding that there was conspiracy."[21]
Simply put, the issue
to
be resolved is whether the prosecution was able to prove the charges
beyond
reasonable doubt. In the main, appellant contests the positive
identification
made by the victims and the trial court's finding of conspiracy. He
also
cites questionable circumstances that allegedly create reasonable doubt
in his favor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
The appeal of the rape
charges is unmeritorious; however, the alleged acts of lasciviousness
have
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
Main Issue:
Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In support of his appeal,
appellant assails the testimonies of the victims, claiming that these
do
not pass the test of credibility. He avers that several allegations
therein
— especially those made by Flores — create reasonable doubt. He also
enumerates
several circumstances that allegedly make the prosecution's case
insufficient
to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
First, he alleges
that Flores could not have positively identified him as one of the
perpetrators
of the crimes, because it was nighttime when the incident occurred. He
further argues that she did not directly testify to having seen him;
instead,
she merely identified him by the way he spoke, stood and moved.cralaw:red
Second, he points
to alleged inconsistencies between her court testimony and her sworn
affidavit
before the police.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, he cites
questionable circumstances that allegedly create reasonable doubt. He
specifically
points to the fact that Flores, instead of immediately filing a
complaint
with the police, went first to the CAFGU detachment with her group —
supposedly
a sign that she was unsure of the identities of the culprits.cralaw:red
Fourth, he faults
the prosecution for failing to present any bloodied panty, pants or
dress
belonging to the victim. Such failure was supposedly fatal for its
part,
because it did not present any other physical evidence to prove the
rape.
Finally, he claims that the RTC erred in finding conspiracy, since the
prosecution had likewise failed to prove that there was prior agreement
among the accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We will address the
sub-issues raised by appellant seriatim.cralaw:red
Positive Identification
In discrediting the
positive identification made by Flores, appellant argues that she could
not have seen the faces of the perpetrators, since the incident
happened
at nighttime. Moreover, he avers that she did not directly testify that
she had seen him; rather, she based the identification purely on the
way
he spoke, stood and moved.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We disagree. The testimony
of Flores was categorical, convincing and unequivocal. It was replete
with
details that were consistent with the testimonies of all the other
prosecution
witnesses. Positively pointing to appellant and his co-accused as the
culprits,
her straightforward testimony proceeded thus:
"Q Will
you
please tell the Honorable Court what was that untoward incident that
happened
to you?
A We were
waylaid/intercepted
by Danilo Caraang, sir.
Q How many were
they?
A There were two
of
them, sir.
Q Did you
recognize
the companion of Danilo Caraang?
A No, sir.
Q Now, please
look around
and tell the Honorable Court if you can identify Danilo Caraang if he
is
inside the court room?
A That one, sir.
(The
witness pointed to a person inside the courtroom who gave his name as
Danilo
Caraang).
Q Is he the same
person
whom you saw that evening of November 10, 1990 when you were
intercepted
on your way to Abibeg from Dipaan?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what did
this
Danilo Caraang tell you if ever he told you anything at all?
A He told us:
'for a
while, our leader wants to talk to you,' sir.
Q After that?
A He told us to
go with
them, sir.
Q Where?
A There at
Parang, sir.
Q And how far
was that
from the road where you were intercepted to the place where you were
brought,
to that Parang?
A About 500
meters,
more or less, sir.
Q When you
reached that
place where you were brought by the two, what happened?
A We were
ordered to
sit down, sir.
Q By whom?
A Danilo
Caraang, sir.
Q Did you notice
his
superior, if there was any superior at all or the leader of the group?
A There was, sir.
Q Did you notice
him
there?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many were
they
or their companions awaiting in that place?
A Only one, sir.
Q Now, when you
reached
that place which is more or less 500 meters away from the place where
you
were intercepted and you were told to sit down, did you ever sit down?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the
rest
of your companions?
A Our three male
companions
were ordered to lay flat [on] their bellies, sir.
Q And you are
referring
to Froilan Galamay, Jimmy Pascual and Tirso Ganzon, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q When your
three male
companions were ordered to lay face down what happened next?
A I was taken by
Danilo
Caraang, sir.
Q By the same
person
you have just identified a while ago?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said
Danilo Caraang
held you, in what particular part of your body did he ever hold you?
Atty. Cruz:
We will be
constrained
to object, there was no proper basis, they were merely taken.
Court:
Reform.
Atty. Borja:
Q What did this
Danilo
Caraang do to you when you were sitting down?
A He held me,
sir.
Q On what part
of your
body?
A My right hand,
sir.
Q When he held
you by
your right arm what did you do next?
A He brought me
to the
creek, sir.
Q And how far is
that
creek from where you were seated and your group?
A About 50
meters, sir.
Q When you were
brought
by Danilo Caraang in that particular place near the creek, what did you
see there?
A There was a
person
there, sir.
Q And what was
that
person doing there if you know?
A None, sir.
Q Were you able
to recognize
that person awaiting x x x you there?
A No, sir.
Q When Danilo
Caraang
was able to bring you to that place near the creek what did he do if he
ever did anything?
A His gun was
pointed
at me and ordered me to remove my pants, sir.
Q A hand gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q On what
particular
part of your body did Danilo Caraang point that gun to you?
A Here at my
temple,
sir.
Q And when he
pointed
his gun to you what did you feel then?
A I was crying,
sir.
Q At that
particular
moment when you were already crying what did he do if he did anything
to
you?
A He lay me down
and
he x x x forcibly removed my pants, sir.
Q How did he do
it?
A His companion
held
my x x x hands above my head and Danilo Caraang removed my
pants, sir.
Q At that
juncture,
when the other man was holding your x x x arms and Danilo
Caraang
was removing your pants, was he able to remove the same?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A He was able to
remove
it, sir.
Q Besides your
pants
did you have any underwear also?
A There was, sir.
Your Honor,
considering
that this is a case involving decency and public morals, we will move
and
pray that the public be excluded from the courtroom.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court:
As the witness
is about
to testify on a case involving morality, the public is hereby directed
to leave the courtroom, except the parents of the witness and the
accused.
Proceed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Borja:
Q At the time
your pants
and panty were being removed by the accused Danilo Caraang, did he ever
tell you anything or utter words to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A There was, sir.
Q Please tell
the Court
what was the utterance or expression made by Danilo Caraang?
A That if I will
not
allow them I will be killed, sir.
Q On that
circumstance
what did you do if any?
A I cried, sir.
Q Was he able to
push
you down to the ground?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you
were
pushed to the ground what about your pants or trousers and panty[, were
you still wearing them]?
A Yes, sir.
Q How was he
able to
remove it?
A He removed it
because
my arms were being held by the other person, sir.
Q When you were
lying
down on the ground what happened next?
A That was the
time
when he removed my panty, sir, then later on he kissed me and that was
it.
Q And how were
you able
to recognize Danilo Caraang positively on that particular occasion?
A Because of the
way
x x x he speaks, the way x x x he stands, and
the
way he moves, I know him, sir.
Q May we know
whether
his face was covered at that time?
A He already
removed
his bonnet, sir.
Q And will you
please
tell the Honorable Court, during that time of the night, was it dark or
was it dim or with moon?
A It was very
bright,
sir.
Q Why did you
say that
it was bright then?
A The moon was
big,
sir.
Q And what was
already
the position of the moon then on the night of November 10, 1990?
A It was on this
direction,
sir. (The witness pointed 1:00 o'clock during day time.)
Q You said
Danilo Caraang
removed his bonnet covering his face at the time he was kissing you and
started to take or to deflower you, please tell the Honorable Court
what
happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Cruz:
We will object
to the
question, your Honor, it has no basis.
Court:
Sustained.
Reform the
question.
Atty. Borja:
Q When your
trousers
or panty was removed and you were laid down by Danilo Caraang, what
happened
next?
A He placed his
body
on top of me, sir.
Q When he placed
his
body on top of you was he in his full dress at the time?
A No more, sir.
Q What made you
tell
he was not in x x x normal clothes?
A Because being
on top
of me I felt it because I had no more pants, sir.
Q What did you
feel?
A There was
pain, sir.
Q What part of
your
body was in pain?
A My private
part, sir.
Q Why?
A Because I was
being
raped by Danilo Caraang, sir.
Q When you said
you
were being raped, are you telling the Court that he penetrated your
private
part by his penis?
A Yes, sir.
Q Since you said
you
were in terrible pain, will you please tell the Court whether
previously
there had been an experience, it at all, by you in this kind of
traumatic
incident?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Atty. Tomas:
May we move to
strike
out the word terrible as a conclusion of the counsel.
Court:
Strike that out.
Witness:
A Not yet, sir.
Atty. Borja:
Q You mean to
tell the
Court that at that time you were still a virgin?
A Yes, sir.
Q Because of
that circumstance
when Danilo Caraang was abusing you physically, how did you feel?
A I felt too
much pain
on my private part, sir.
Q Were you able
to recognize
whether there was blood?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long did
this
Danilo Caraang [a]bused you?
A More than 15
minutes,
sir.
Q After that
15-minute
period what transpired next?
A He ordered me
to wear
my pants, sir.
Q And did you
accede
to his order?
A Yes, sir.
Q After putting
on your
dress or your pants and your panty what did he do next to you if ever
he
did any?
A He took me and
brought
me back to my companions, sir.
Q And when you
were
taken back to the rest of your companions, what did you see there?
A My companions,
sir.
Q How about your
three
male companions?
A They were
still lying
face down on the ground, sir.
Q Since you were
brought
back to the place where you were held by Danilo Caraang and his
companion
how long did you stay there?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A More than an
hour,
sir.
Q After that
one-hour
period what transpired next?
A I was taken
again,
sir.
Q Who took you
again?
A Danilo
Caraang, sir.
Q How did he
take you?
A He took me
again and
brought me down, sir.
Q Where?
A The same place
where
he brought me, sir.
Q Did you reach
the
place where he abused you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Upon reaching
that
place where you were formerly abused, what happened next?
A Danilo Caraang
again
held me, sir.
Q Why?
A He laid me
down, sir.
Q When you were
lying
down, were you still with your trousers and panty?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you laid
down,
what happened next with your panty and trousers?
A He was
pointing me
his gun while the other man was removing my trousers and panty, sir.
Q Was that other
man
able to remove your trousers or pants?
A Yes, sir.
Q After removing
your
pants, what about your underwear?
A He also
removed my
panty, sir.
Q After both
were removed,
your pants and panty, by the other person and that Danilo Caraang
pointed
to you a gun, what happened next?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A That other
person
placed his body on top of me, sir.
Q Did he undress
or
remove his trousers before he placed his body on top of you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you
feel
when he placed his body on top of you while lying down?
A I cried also,
sir.
Q Besides crying
what
else?
A I felt too
much pain
on my private part, sir.
Q Why were you
in pain,
in terrible pain, according to you, in your private part?
A Because I was
being
sexually abused again, sir.
Q By that
person, companion
of Danilo Caraang?
A Yes, sir.
Q After having
been
abused by that other person-companion of Danilo Caraang, what happened
next?
A I was ordered
to wear
my pants, sir.
Q And after
having worn
your underwear and pants, what did this other person do to you if any?
A I was taken by
Danilo
Caraang and [I was] brought x x x back to my companions,
sir."[22]
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
"Court:
Q Where did you
say
you, together with your companions, were intercepted by accused Caraang
x x x?
A It was at the
boundary
of Sitio Abibeg and Sitio Dipaan, sir.
Q Prior to
November
10, 1990, tell the Court if you know Caraang already?
A Yes, sir, I
have known
him for a long time.
Q At that point
and
time when you were allegedly intercepted by Danilo Caraang, tell the
Court
what was his physical appearance?
A He was using
x
x x camouflage pants with a uniform and he was wearing x
x
x rubber shoes, and he was wearing a white T-shirt, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q He was with a
mask?
A He was wearing
a bonnet
but his face was exposed, sir.
Q And when you
were
allegedly intercepted, is it the impression of the court from you that
you [had] a clear eyeview of Caraang's face?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.
Q And you made
mention
to the court likewise that you were brought beside the creek, that is
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you asked
to
lie down or you were forced to lie down?
A I was forced
to lie
down, sir.
Q When you said
you
were forced, what do you mean by that?
A My shoulder
was pushed
back, sir, and that caused me to lie down.
Q How many
persons were
there when you were asked to lie down.
A Two (2), sir.
Q But you could
not
recognize the other person?
A Yes, sir.
Q And per your
testimony,
Caraang succeeded in having sexual intercourse with you, that is true?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did he do
it to
you?
A That was it,
sir,
he laid me down and he pointed his gun to my temple.
Q Caraang
himself did
that to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q With what hand
was
he holding the gun?
A Right hand,
sir.
Q What about his
left
hand?
A That was it,
sir,
he used it in removing my pants.
Q After he
allegedly
was able to remove your pants did he also remove your panty?
A Yes, sir.
Q And by that,
you mean
the pants and the panty were totally removed from you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And by that,
you also
mean that half of your body was exposed naked?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after he
was able
to remove the pants and the panty, tell the court what he did next?
A That [was] it,
sir,
he placed his body on top of me.
Q And what were
you
doing then when he placed his body on top of you?
A I cried, sir.
Q You did not
even give
a sign of struggle?
A I was
struggling,
sir, but I could not do anything because his companion was holding my
hands.
Q But your legs
were
free?
A I was trying
to keep
my two legs intact but I could not do it, sir.
Q Why?
A I was afraid,
sir."[23]
According to Flores, on
the night the incident occurred, the place where they were brought was
brightly illuminated by the moon. Thus, she was able to take a good
look
at and remember the face of appellant. These details make her testimony
and positive identification of him even more credible and reliable.
Visibility is indeed
a vital factor in determining whether an eyewitness could have
identified
the perpetrator of a crime.[24]
It is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and
when
the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the
identity
of the malefactor should normally be accepted.[25]In
proper situations, illumination produced by a kerosene or wick lamp, a
flashlight, even moonlight or starlight may be considered sufficient to
allow identification of persons.[26]
Under such circumstance, any attack on the credibility of witnesses,
based
solely on the ground of insufficiency or absence of illumination,
becomes
unmeritorious.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To be sure, Flores had
an unobstructed view of appellant because of their proximity with each
other. Given her familiarity with him, as well as the illumination
provided
by the moonlight on that fateful evening - reasonably sufficient for
the
identification of persons - we doubt if she could have erred in
identifying
him.cralaw:red
Experience suggests
that it is precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed
right before their eyes that witnesses can remember the identities of
criminals
with a high degree of reliability at any given time.[28]
Indeed, although Flores was subjected to rigorous cross-examination,
she
neither faltered in her positive identification of appellant nor gave
any
statements materially inconsistent with her entire testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Equally important is
the fact that there was no showing of any improper motive on her part
that
would make her testify falsely against him. Hence, the logical
conclusion
is that no such motive exists, and that her testimony is worthy of full
faith and credence.[29]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the contention
of appellant that Flores did not directly testify that she had seen him
is completely belied by her above-quoted testimony. Although she did
mention
that she recognized him by the way he spoke, stood and moved, those
qualities
were not her only bases for identifying him; she was also able to see
his
face during the incident. She positively testified thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q At the
point
and time when you were allegedly intercepted by Danilo Caraang, tell
the
Court what was his physical appearance?
A He was using
x
x x camouflage pants with a uniform and he was wearing x
x
x rubber shoes, and he was wearing a white T-shirt, sir.
Q He was with a
mask?
A He was wearing a
bonnet
but his face was exposed, sir.
Q And when you
were
allegedly intercepted, is it the impression of the court from you that
you [had] a clear eyeview of Caraang's face?
A Yes, sir."[30]
During the rape,
she
was likewise able to see appellant's face as evidenced by the following
excerpt from her testimony:
"Q And how were
you
able to recognize Danilo Caraang positively on that particular occasion?
A Because of the
way
x x x he speaks, the way x x x he stands, and
the
way he moves, I know him, sir.
Q May we know
whether
his face was covered at that time?
A He already
removed
his bonnet, sir.
Q And will you
please
tell the Honorable Court, during that time of the night, was it dark or
was it [dim] or with moon?
A It was very
bright,
sir.
Q Why did you say
that
it was bright then?
A The moon was
big,
sir.
Q And what was
already
the position of the moon then on the night of November 10, 1990?
A It was on this
direction,
sir. (The witness pointed 1:00 o'clock during day time.)"[31]
Given such direct and
categorical
statements, we cannot sustain appellant's arguments. Moreover, we do
not
doubt the veracity of the testimony of Salazar, the other victim. She
testified
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q In your
case, as you said you were taken next after Vanelyn Flores was returned
from the place where she was brought, how were you taken?
A That person who
returned
back Vanelyn Flores where she was ordered to sit in a different place
was
the same person who took me, sir.
Q Why do you know
that
she was the same person when according to you you were not able to
identify
him?
A I only remember
his
face, sir.
Q Was he not in
mask?
A There was, sir.
Q Up to what
portion
of the face was the mask?
A The face was
covered
except the eyes, the nose, and the mouth, sir.
Q If you would see
that
person again, would you be able to identify that person again?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you please
look
around and tell the Court if that person is inside the courtroom?
A He is here, sir.
Q Point to him.
A He was the one
recognized
by my companions, sir. (The witness pointed to a person inside the
courtroom
who, when asked of his name, responded to the name of Danilo Caraang.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q You were taken
according
to you next after Angelina Flores, tell the Court where you were
brought?
A I was brought to
another
direction, sir, my eyes were covered and I was turned-over to a person
who was wearing a bonnet.
Q Are you telling
the
Court that the person who took you from the group was the same person
who
brought you somewhere within the vicinity?
A Yes, sir,
because
after taking me away from the group that person handed me to another
person.
Q And what did
that
person do to you?
A After that
person
who took me away from the group had already entrusted me to another man
and that person who took me had already left, that man told me to
remove
my pants, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Did you remove
your
pants as told?
A Not yet, sir.
Q What did that
man
do to you?
A I told him, 'I
thought
that you will not do me something wrong,' and that man answered that I
talked too much, sir.
Q And then what
happened
to you next?
A I was fighting
back
but he kicked me and the kick landed on my abdomen, sir.
Q What did you
feel
when you were kicked?
A The kick was so
hard
that I lost consciousness, sir.
Q Did you regain
consciousness?
A When I regained
consciousness
I was ordered to put on my pants, sir.
Q Are you telling
the
Court that when you were kicked and lost consciousness something
happened
to you?
A There was, sir.
Q Tell the Court
what
happened to you?
A That person took
advantage
of my womanhood, sir."[32]
"Q Were you able
to
recognize any of your captors who released you?
A There was, sir.
Q And who is that
person
which you came to know?
A Manny Belagot
and
Rolando Rebota, sir.
Q Are they the
only
persons you recognized?
A Yes, sir.
Q How were you
able
to know them?
A The second time
that
they took me and brought me to another direction he took off his mask
and
he asked me to give him a kiss mark and that was the time I recognized
him, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q And who was he?
A Manny Balagot,
sir.
x x x
Q Now, after the
said
incident, Madam Witness, was there a point in time that you were able
to
identify other persons who captured you during that fateful time?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A There was, sir.
Q When was it?
A When we were
then
about to go to school I saw them again, sir.
Q And who are
these
persons you are referring to?
A Manny Belagot,
sir.
Q Only Manny
Belagot?
A Danilo Caraang,
a
certain Canlas and Rolando Rebota, sir.
Q How many days
after
the incident did you see them?
A When we went to
school,
that was Wednesday, sir."[33]
That the testimonies of
the two victims were nothing less than positive and materially
consistent
with each other foreclosed the probability of any false testimony on
their
part and served to bolster their credibility. Throughout the time they
were on the witness stand, they remained unwavering in their
declarations
and thus evoked reliability and sincerity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and time again,
this Court has reiterated the principle that where the culpability or
the
innocence of the accused hinges on the credibility of the witnesses and
the veracity of their testimonies, the task of assigning values thereto
is best left to the trial court.[34]
Indeed, it has the excellent opportunity of obtaining firsthand
impressions
of their demeanor and conduct, an opportunity that is not equally
available
to appellate courts.[35]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Needless to say, the
straightforward, clear and positive testimony of the victims — coupled
with the absence of any motive to fabricate evidence or to falsely
implicate
appellant — may be enough to convict him.[36]
Neither can his denial and alibi be sustained in the light of their
positive
identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.[37]
When categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part
of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, it prevails over such
defenses[38]
which — unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof — are deemed
negative, self-serving and undeserving of any weight in law.[39]
Alibi is the weakest
of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to
disprove.[40]
For it to prosper, proof that the appellant was somewhere else when the
crime was committed is insufficient; it must likewise be demonstrated
that
it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the
crime
at the time.[41]
In the case before us, appellant himself testified that he had been at
the very same place where the victims had come from.[42]
Thus, it would not have been physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime on the date and time they testified to.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, even the witnesses
presented by appellant could not exculpate him from criminal liability.
He testified that on the night of November 11, 1990 until the next
morning,
he stayed inside the house of Barangay Chair Reynalda Baltazar.[43]
When asked who his companions were, he pointed to the barangay chair's
daughter and grandchild.[44]
Interestingly, he did not even mention Conchita Baltazar — his sister,
who happened to be Reynalda's daughter-in-law. She testified that she
had
been with him the whole night of November 11, 1990 until the morning of
the next day, November 12, when they left the house of her
mother-in-law.[45]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If indeed he had witnesses
to prove that he did not leave the house, he should have presented
them,
so that they could positively testify that he never left their sight.
Instead,
he presented the barangay chair, who admitted that she had been too
busy
during the dance party to have kept an eye on him throughout the night;
and his sister, whom he did not even mention, who testified that she
had
been with him at the time.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Discrepancy Between
the Sworn Statement and the Court Testimony
In trying to discredit
Flores, appellant claims that her sworn statement before the police is
materially inconsistent with her testimony. Again, we cannot sustain
this
contention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's reliance
on the affidavit of Flores in order to cast doubt on her testimony is
futile.
The Court has consistently ruled that discrepancies between the
statements
in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily
downgrade the latter.[46]
Ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, frequently prepared by
administering
officers, and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants
have said.[47]
Almost always, the latter would simply sign such documents after being
read to them.[48]
Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered
incomplete
and often inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial
suggestions
and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries, without the
aid
of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances
necessary for accurate recollection.[49]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Affidavits are generally
subordinate in importance to open-court declarations, because the
former
are often executed when the mental faculties of affiants are not in
such
state as to afford them a fair opportunity to narrate more extensively
the incidents that have transpired.[5]
Normally, witnesses are able to explain inconsistencies when they are
examined
thoroughly in court, where they are given the chance to state as fully
as they can the events that transpired during the commission of the
crime.
Obviously, this kind of opportunity is not available to them when their
affidavits are taken.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By its very nature and
the manner it is taken, an affidavit can hardly compare with the weight
of a testimony given in open court. Likewise, the supposed failure of
eyewitnesses
to include some material facts in their affidavits does not in any way
diminish the veracity of their court testimonies. In other words,
whenever
there is inconsistency between the two, the latter commands greater
weight.[51]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have also repeatedly
held that minor disparities do not detract from the essential
credibility
of testimonies that are coherent and intrinsically believable on the
whole.
This principle holds true particularly when, as in this case, there is
consistency in the narration of the principal occurrence and in the
positive
identification of the accused.[52]
What is clear is that the responsibility of appellant for the crime
charged
was indubitably established by both the sworn statement and the
testimonies.
If, indeed, there is any inconsistency between the two, these are minor
and incidental. Mere inconsistencies on non-material points are not
enough
to deny weight to the entire testimony; often, in fact, such
discrepancies
reassure against the likelihood of a rehearsed testimony.[53]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Failure to Immediately
File a Complaint with the Police
Appellant questions
why Flores and her group went to the CAFGU detachment first, instead of
immediately filing a complaint with the police, if indeed they already
knew that he was one of the culprits. This behavior allegedly shows
that
the victims were unsure of the identities of the offenders.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the contrary, we
have extensively examined the testimonies of both Flores and Salazar,
but
found no uncertainty in their positive identification of appellant and
his companions. Never was it shown that the victims had to go to the
CAFGU
detachment to ascertain the identities of the culprits. It is clear
that
the former already saw, recognized and identified appellant on the
night
of the crime itself.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It was the father of
Flores who testified that she and her group had first gone to the CAFGU
detachment before filing a complaint with the police. However, such
statement
has absolutely no effect on the credibility of the victims. It should
be
clear that after the crime had been committed against them, they went
home
and reported the incident to their parents, then sought medical doctors
for physical examination. Going to the CAFGU detachment was but a
logical
response of Flores and her group to the incident that happened. They
wanted
the culprits to be arrested; because the latter were members of the
local
CAFGU, naturally, the former proceeded to that office. Certainly, there
was no delay in the filing of a complaint with the police. Flores'
father
testified as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q Having
known
that and positively known that your daughters were abused, what action
did you do if any?
A I went to the
Detachment
Commander of the CAFGU, Gen. Luna, sir.
Q And what did the
Detachment
Commander of the CAFGU do?
A The Detachment
Commander,
sir, ordered the members of the CAFGU to assemble and in that instance,
my daughter was able to identify Caraang.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Who among your
daughters
identified Danilo Caraang?
A Vanelyn Flores,
sir.
Q Were you present
in
that confrontation?
A Yes, sir, I was
there.
Q And when you
said
you reported the incident to the Detachment Commander of the Philippine
Army, to whom were you referring to, what were the names of those
persons?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Danilo Caraang,
sir,
and Amado Alcantara.
Q Who else?
A Sgt. Espadero,
sir,
and those others named, sir, are all Sgts.
Q Having been
pointed
to you by your daughter Vanelyn that it was Danilo Caraang and Virgilio
Canlas, Jr. who violated their chastity, what else did the Detachment
Commander
do if they did anything on that occasion?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A They were
arrested,
sir, and were brought to the Municipality of Carranglan, N.E. and later
on, the authorities of Carranglan endorsed them to the 182nd PC.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What about the
local
police of the PNP of Carranglan, what did they do if any?
A We went to the
PNP
of Carranglan, sir, for several times but they failed to take the
statement
of my daughters, so what we did was to come here to the 182nd PC in
order
to execute our respective affidavits and in our place, picture taking
were
made at the scene of the incident."[54]
The above-quoted
testimony
definitely strengthens the case against appellant. When Flores went to
the CAFGU detachment, she was able to identify him positively. To be
sure,
his assertion that the victims had to go to the CAFGU detachment
because
they were unsure of the identities of the culprits was not only
unfounded,
but also speculative.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Physical Evidence
Appellant then faults
the prosecution for failing to present any bloodied panty, pants or
dress
belonging to Flores. He argues that the trial court erred in accepting
the fact that no other physical evidence had been presented by the
prosecution
to support and corroborate the testimonies of the victims. Though he
concedes
that these objects are not essential in proving rape, he invokes our
ruling
in People v. Godoy,[55]
which is supposedly applicable to the present controversy. In that
case,
the deliberate non-presentation of the bloodstained skirt was ruled to
have weakened the cause of the prosecution.cralaw:red
Again, this argument
fails to convince us. In Godoy, the testimony of the complainant was
inherently
weak, and no other physical evidence was presented by the prosecution
to
bolster the charge of rape, except for the medical report which had
even
negated one of the essential elements of the crime.[56]
Hence, the deliberate non-presentation of the complainant's
bloodstained
skirt was held to "vigorously militate against the prosecution's cause."[57]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case before us,
the convincing and unwavering testimonies of not only one victim, but
two
victims — taken together with the similarly credible corroborative
testimonies
of other witnesses — leave no room to doubt appellant's guilt.
Moreover,
unlike in Godoy, the medical findings presented in the present case are
sufficient to sustain the charge of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The testimony of Dr.
Valencia, coupled with the corresponding Medical Reports,[58]
clearly establishes the rape. Thus, the non-presentation of Flores'
bloodied
underwear, skirt and pants is not indispensable to proving the rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither was it important
for the prosecution to prove that appellant was afflicted with a
sexually
transmissible disease that he had passed on to Flores. In the crime of
rape, all that has to be proven is carnal knowledge of a woman under
any
of the following circumstances:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1) when
force,
threat or intimidation is used;
2) when the
offended
party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
3) when fraudulent
machination
or grave abuse of authority is employed; or
4) when the
offended
party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of
the circumstances mentioned above be present.[59]
At most, in rape, the transmission of a sexually transmissible disease
to the victim is not an element of the crime, but an
aggravating/qualifying
circumstance[60]
that has to be proven to sustain conviction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Not to be overlooked
are
the medical findings on the other victim, Salazar. Although she
testified
that she had been knocked unconscious at the time she claimed to have
been
raped, the overwhelming evidence proves that she was indeed a victim of
rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the victim cannot
testify on the actual commission of the rape because she had been
rendered
unconscious before the act was committed, the conviction may be based
on
circumstantial evidence. Such evidence is admissible, provided that
more
than one circumstance is duly proven, and that the totality or the
unbroken
chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical conclusion
than
that of the guilt of the accused.[61]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
According to the positive
testimony of Flores, appellant took her from the group, raped her, then
returned her to where the others were. On the part of Salazar, she also
testified that the person who returned her to the group was the same
person
who had taken her away.[62]
She positively pointed to appellant as the person who had done so.[63]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, Salazar
was handed over to another person, who ordered her to remove her pants.[64]
Although she resisted, she was kicked so hard on the abdomen that she
passed
out.[65]
After regaining consciousness, she was already naked and feeling
excruciating
pain in her private part.[66]
She was then ordered to put on her pants.[67]
The medical findings on her, as testified to by her doctor, are as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q As
regards
to the third finding and you said no sign of contusion, abrasion and
hematoma
and also as regards the hymen. Will you please explain this in laymen's
term?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A In laymen's
term,
sir, that shows that the vagina of the victim Lorna B. Salazar, the
vaginal
canal was subjected to forceful entrance of somewhat hard object.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Your findings as
regards
the hymen, will you please again elaborate on this?
A The laceration
that
showed in the medical examination suggest that there was a forceful
entrance
at the vaginal canal by a hard object.
Q When you said
there
was this forceful laceration, was the wound you found still fresh or an
old wound?
A Still fresh, sir.
Q And what would
have
caused the forceful entrance to this?
A As I have said,
sir,
it could be due to forceful penetration of hard object.
Q Could it be a
penetration
of a man's penis?
A Yes, sir.
Q Your last
finding
is as regards entrance to the vaginal canal shows redness and tender to
touch, what do you mean by this?
A In laymen's
terms,
sir, the cervix is somewhat infected so it is tender in touching the
cervix.
Q And at the
entrance
of the hymen, it is infected by what?
A It could be
infected
by bacterial infection, sir.
Q You are
referring
to the wounds sustained by the vagina?
A I am referring
to
the tenderness and redness in the entrance of the vagina, sir.
Q But this
tenderness
and redness on the private part of the patient could have been due to
infected
wound sustained by the victim, as a result of the forceful entrance on
her private part?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A That could be,
sir."[68]
The totality of the
circumstances
in this case warrants a finding that Salazar, while unconscious, was
also
a victim of rape committed by the group to which appellant belonged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the charge of
acts of lasciviousness, however, we cannot sustain the trial court's
conviction
of appellant. Unlike the testimony of Salazar concerning the rape —
which
we find convincing, positive and categorical — we cannot say the same
of
her charge of acts of lasciviousness. All that she mentions in her
testimony
is as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q How were
you able to identify these persons who waylaid you on the night of
November
10, 1990?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Because when I
was
taken for the second time he asked me to kiss him, and that he removed
his mask and I raised my blindfold, that is why I was able to recognize
him, sir."[69]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Other than this bare,
passing
statement, absolutely no other evidence was presented to prove the
charge
of acts of lasciviousness. Salazar did not even testify on the
surrounding
circumstances of this incident. Given the utter lack of evidence, we
have
no other option but to dismiss that charge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Proof of Conspiracy
In a final attempt to
absolve himself of criminal liability, appellant questions the trial
court's
finding of conspiracy. According to him, the prosecution failed to
present
concrete evidence showing prior agreement among him and his co-accused
to commit the crime charged.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We disagree. There is
no doubt that appellant and his co-accused acted in conspiracy, as seen
through their concerted actions in abducting the victims with lewd
design
and later on raping them. Direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy;
which may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during
and
after the commission of the crime.[70]
In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators
actually committed all the elements of the crime charged; what is
important
is that all of them performed specific acts with such closeness and
coordination
as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the
crime.[71]
Thus, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of them will
thereby
be deemed equally guilty of all the crimes committed.[72]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be shown that
each co-accused cooperated in the commission of the offense — either
morally
through advice, encouragement or agreement; or materially through
external
acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the efficacious
perpetration
of the crime.[73]
In this case, the testimonies of the victims and their witnesses, as
well
as all other pieces of evidence presented indubitably established the
concerted
design of all the accused to abduct the group forcibly and to rape its
female members.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The common purpose of
the accused was manifestly shown by the deliberate and methodical
manner
in which the crimes were committed. The victims were first tricked into
going with appellant. When they arrived at a secluded place, the women
were ordered to line up, while their male companions were told to lie
on
their stomachs.[74]
According to the victims, more men were already waiting at the place
where
the former were brought,[75]
a fact that only shows that all the accused indeed knew what was going
to happen.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter the women
were brought, one at a time, to the place where the rapes were to
occur.
The manner in which the crimes were committed points to no other
conclusion
than that all the accused had knowledge of the criminal design. In
fact,
appellant himself committed the first act of rape on Flores. Moreover,
he was an indispensable participant in the second act thereof. He was
the
one who brought her to his companions who took turns in raping her,[76]
while he pointed a gun at her.[77]
Holding the victim and threatening her with a gun while another was
raping
her was more than sufficient to show indubitably a common criminal
design.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After appellant had
satisfied his own lust and later aided his companion in raping Flores,
the evidence indicates that he and his co-accused intended to commit
rape
again — which they actually accomplished — this time on Salazar. He was
also involved in her forcible abduction with rape, as it was again he
who
took her away from her group and handed her over to one of his
co-accused.[78]
The pattern of the rapes committed and the indispensable role of
appellant
therein is clear. Any intimation that he had nothing to do with them
would
be nothing less than unbelievable. In view of the presence of
conspiracy,
all the co-accused bear equal responsibility.[79]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The finding of conspiracy
is significant, because it changes the criminal liability of all the
accused
and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of
their participation in the crime.[80]
Their liability becomes collective, with each participant deemed
equally
responsible for the acts of the others.cralaw:red
To reiterate, conspiracy
arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission
of a felony and decide to commit it.[81]
It comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly,
to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it actually.[82]
As in this case, conspiracy is proved by concerted acts or other forms
of evidence indicative of actual cooperation — a common purpose or
design,
as well as a concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and to
pursue
it actually.[83]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The two elements of
forcible abduction, as defined in Article 342 of the Revised
Penal Code, are as follows:
(1) taking
a woman against her will; and
(2) doing so with
lewd
designs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This complex crime
occurs
when there is carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under any of the
circumstances
mentioned earlier when force or intimidation is used; when the woman is
deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; and when the woman is
under
twelve years of age or is demented.[84]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, the
prosecution
sufficiently proved the elements of forcible abduction — the taking of
the victims against their will with lewd design. As to the first
element,
although they voluntarily went with appellant, it was indubitably shown
that they did so upon being deceived. According to their testimonies,
he
told them that his leader wanted to talk to them, and that no harm
would
be done to them.[85]
Upon this representation, they went with him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The employment of deception
suffices to constitute forcible abduction.[86]
This Court has previously ruled that if the victim's consent was
obtained
through deceit and there was therefore no valid consent, the crime is
forcible
abduction, as the deceit may be considered as constructive force.[87]
The second element, lewd design, was established by the actual rapes.[88]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Proceeding to the charges,
aside from alleging the necessary elements of the crimes, the
prosecution
convincingly established that appellant and his co-accused had
conspired,
confederated and mutually aided one another in having carnal knowledge
of the victims against the latter's will by means of force and
intimidation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Proper
Penalties
Preliminary Consideration:
No Double Jeopardy
Hence, appellant is
guilty of two complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape — one
against
Flores and the other against Salazar. Since there were two victims, the
trial court erred in convicting him of only one count of the complex
crime
of forcible abduction with rape. There can be no violation of the
constitutional
right of appellant against double jeopardy, because the decisive issue
here is whether he was convicted of a crime charged in the Information.
A reading of the four separate Informations shows that in each one, he
was indeed charged with forcible abduction with rape. Having been
sufficiently
informed of the accusations against him, he can thus be convicted of
two
counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, as we have
done here based on the evidence presented.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, it is settled
that when the accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court,
they
waive their right to the constitutional safeguard against double
jeopardy
and throw the whole case open to review by the appellate court. The
latter
court is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice
dictate
— whether favorable or unfavorable to them, and whether the issues it
resolves
have been assigned as errors or not.[89]
Such an appeal confers upon it full jurisdiction over the case and
renders
it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from,
increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[90]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Conspiracy
In the present case,
appellant should also be held liable for the other count of rape he and
his co-accused committed — one after the other — against Flores.
Clearly,
there was conspiracy as shown by their obvious, concerted efforts to
perpetrate
the crimes. It should be clear that appellant is responsible not only
for
the rape he personally committed, but for the rape committed by the
others
as well.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
One Complex Crime
Against Each Victim
However, there can be
only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed
against
each victim. The crime of forcible abduction was necessary only for the
first rape.[91]
After the complex crime had already been consummated, the subsequent
rape
can no longer be considered as a separate instance thereof.[92]
That is, it should be detached from, and considered independently of,
the
forcible abduction.[93]
Hence, any subsequent rape of the same victim is simply rape and can no
longer be considered as a separate complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape.[94]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code governs complex crimes as follows:
"Article
48.
Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period." Penalty for the
More
Serious Crime
As earlier adverted
to, the forcible abduction was necessary for the succeeding rape of
each
victim. Consequently, for the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape, the penalty for the rape — which is the more serious crime —
shall
be imposed in its maximum period. At the time of the commission of the
crime, the applicable penalty for rape committed by two or more persons
was reclusion perpetua to death.[95]
Since the rape was committed by two or more persons — a fact duly
alleged
in the Information and proven in court — it should have warranted the
imposition
of the death penalty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, appellant committed
the crime of forcible abduction with rape on November 10, 1990 - before
the passage of Republic
Act 7659 or the
Death Penalty Law, which took effect on December 31, 1993. Thus,
the
trial court correctly ruled that the penalty that could be imposed was
reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
As regards the act of
rape committed against Flores, appellant is likewise sentenced to
reclusion
perpetua. This separate act of rape, directly and successively
committed
against her by his co-accused, was the only one remaining for which he
may be further held liable. All told, three terms of reclusion perpetua
should be imposed upon him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Damages
Regarding appellant's
pecuniary liabilities, we award P75,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto
for
each of the two (2) counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction
with
rape instead of the P50,000 compensatory damages awarded by the trial
court.
First, considering that the rape was committed by two or more persons,
as alleged in the Information and proven in court, an increase in civil
indemnity is proper. Second, this Court has previously ordered the
accused
to pay civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000, so long as the crime
was
committed under circumstances that would justify the imposition of the
death penalty — even if that penalty had not yet been imposed — because
the crime was committed before the effectivity of the Death Penalty Law.[96]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, we affirm
the award of P50,000[97]
as moral damages for each of the two counts of forcible abduction with
rape. Moral damages are given without need of further proof other than
the fact of rape. The law recognizes the victim's injury, which is
concomitant
with and necessarily results from the odiousness of the crime, thus
warranting
per se the award of moral damages.[98]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to exemplary damages,
Article 2230 of the Civil
Code provides:
"Article
2230.
In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil
liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating
circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and
shall
be paid to the offended party."
Thus, we award the
victims
P25,000 each for exemplary damages in view of the alleged and proven
qualifying
circumstance of the rape committed by two or more persons. Relative to
the civil aspect of a case, an aggravating circumstance - whether
ordinary
or qualifying - should entitle the offended party to an award of
exemplary
damages within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil
Code.[99]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For the single count
of rape committed on Flores, for which the proper penalty is reclusion
perpetua, we affirm the P50,000 civil indemnity ex delicto and the
P50,000
moral damages.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appeal
is DENIED, insofar as the rape with abduction and the rape are
concerned.
Appellant Danilo Caraang is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two
counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape — one
against
Vanelyn Flores in Criminal Case No. C.-14(91) and the other against
Lorna
Salazar in Criminal Case No. C-15(91). He is hereby sentenced to
reclusion
perpetua for each count. He is further found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
of the separate crime of rape committed against Vanelyn Flores in
Criminal
Case No. C-16(91), for which he is sentenced to another term of
reclusion
perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To summarize, the pecuniary
awards are as follows:
(1) the
amount
of P75,000 each for Criminal Case Nos. C-14(91) and C-15(91) as
indemnity
ex delicto;
(2) P50,000 each
as
moral damages; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) P25,000 each
as
exemplary damages. For the separate crime of rape committed against
Vanelyn
Flores in Criminal Case No. C-16(91), the victim is entitled to another
P50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto, P50,000 as moral damages, and
P25,000
as exemplary damages, in addition to his conviction for rape and his
sentence
to one more term of reclusion perpetua. Costs against appellant.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, the conviction
of Appellant Caraang for acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No.
C-17(91)
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for insufficiency of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 32–43. Penned by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Assailed Decision, pp. 11–12; rollo, pp. 42–43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Dated March 5, 1991; rollo, p. 5; records, Vol. I, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Dated March 5, 1991; id., p. 7; id., Vol. III, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Dated March 4, 1991; id., p. 9; id., Vol. IV, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Dated March 4, 1991; id., p. 11; id., Vol. V, p. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Records, Vol. I, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
See the May 15, 1991 Letter of SPO1 Diosdado P. Leal addressed to the
trial
court; records, Vol. I, p. 5.
[9]
Atty. Arsenio S. Tomas.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
See the RTC's Order dated June 18, 1991; records, Vol. I, p. 12.
[11]
See TSN, July 3, 1991, p. 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Rollo, p. 44; records, Vol. II, p. 499; signed by Atty. Gerardo V.
Hermogenes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Signed by Assistant Solicitors General Carlos N. Ortega and Antonio L.
Villamor and Associate Solicitor Fenicar A. Tabao.
[14]
Appellee's Brief, pp. 8–15; rollo, pp. 106–113.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Signed by Atty. Gerardo V. Hermogenes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Appellant's Brief, pp. 2–3; rollo, pp. 58–59.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on August 22, 2002, upon
this Court's receipt of Appellee's Brief. Appellant's Brief was filed
on
March 22, 2002. The filing of a Reply Brief was deemed waived, as none
had been submitted within the reglementary period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Appellant's Brief, p. 3; rollo, p. 59. Original in upper case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Id., pp. 12 & 68. Original in upper case and underscored.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id., pp. 16 & 72. Original in upper case and underscored.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Id., pp. 17 & 73. Original in upper case and underscored.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, July 3, 1991, pp. 5–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id., pp. 22–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
People v. Ramirez, 357 SCRA 222, April 20, 2001; People v. Mansueto,
336
SCRA 715, July 31, 2000; People v. Adoviso, 368 Phil. 297, June 23,
1999.
[25]
People v. Ramirez, supra; People v. Cogonon, 331 Phil. 208, October 4,
1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People v. Licayan, 378 SCRA 281, February 28, 2002; People v. Ramirez,
supra; People v. Ronas, 350 SCRA 663, January 31, 2001; People v.
Mansueto,
supra.
[27]
People v. Ronas, supra; People v. Biñas, 377 Phil. 862, December
8, 1999; People v. Adoviso, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. De Leon, 378 SCRA 495, March 6, 2002; People v. Porras, 413
Phil.
563, July 17, 2001; People v. Sumallo, 367 Phil. 14, May 24, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
People v. Barnuevo, 418 Phil. 521, September 28, 2001; People v. Galam,
382 Phil. 376, February 15, 2000; People v. Platilla, 363 Phil. 684,
March
9, 1999; People v. Banela, 361 Phil. 61, January 18, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
TSN, July 3, 1991, p. 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
TSN, July 6, 1993, pp. 10–12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
TSN, February 23, 1995, pp. 3–4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
People v. Abejuela, 375 SCRA 236, January 30, 2002; People v. Basquez,
418 Phil. 426, September 27, 2001; People v. Gailo, 375 Phil. 202,
October
13, 1999; People v. Oliva, 368 SCRA 210, October 25, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
People v. Basquez, supra; People v. Deleverio, 352 Phil. 382, April 24,
1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
People v. Fortich, 346 Phil. 596, November 13, 1997; People v.
Malabago,
338 Phil. 177, April 18, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[37]
People v. Balmoria, 351 Phil. 188, March 20, 1998; People v. Baydo, 273
SCRA 526, June 17, 1997; People v. Datun, 338 Phil. 884, May 7, 1997;
People
v. Apongan, 337 Phil. 393, April 4, 1997; People v. Caritativo, 326
Phil.
1, April 1, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
People v. Lovedorial, 349 SCRA 402, January 17, 2001; People v.
Enriquez,
354 Phil. 659, July 20, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[39]
People v. Sansaet, 376 SCRA 426, February 6, 2002; People v. Jose, 381
Phil. 207, January 31, 2000; People v. Orbita, 379 Phil. 334, January
19,
2000.
[40]
People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162, May 9, 2002; People v. Sansaet, supra;
People v. Cuenca, 375 SCRA 119, January 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[41]
People v. Hofileña, 389 Phil. 553, June 22, 2000; People v.
Legaspi,
387 Phil. 108, April 27, 2000; People v. Llanes, 381 Phil. 733,
February
4, 2000; People v. Rendoque, 379 Phil. 671, January 20, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
TSN, May 15, 1997, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Id., pp. 7–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Id., pp. 9–10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[45]
TSN, September 1, 1999, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[46]
People v. Matugas, 377 SCRA 434, February 20, 2002; People v. Munta,
371
SCRA 208, November 29, 2001; People v. Honra Jr., 341 SCRA 110,
September
26, 2000.
[47]
People v. Munta, supra; People v. Honra Jr., supra; People v.
Quiñanola,
366 Phil. 390, May 5, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
People v. Banguis, 353 Phil. 480, June 26, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
People v. Bumidang, 346 SCRA 807, December 4, 2000; People v. Gabris,
328
Phil. 184, July 11, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[50]
People v. De Leon, supra; People v. Mendoza, 369 SCRA 268, November 16,
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[51]
People v. Jalosjos, 369 SCRA 179, November 16, 2001; People v. De la
Cruz,
313 SCRA 189, August 26, 1999; People v. Ibalang, 350 Phil. 22,
February
24, 1998.
[52]
People v. De Leon, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[53]
People v. Garcia, 381 SCRA 722, May 7, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[54]
TSN, May 4, 1993, pp. 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[55]
321 Phil. 279, December 6, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[56]
Id., p. 320.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[57]
Ibid., per Regalado, Jchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
Exhibits "A" and "B" for the prosecution; records, Vol. VII, pp. 1–2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[59]
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[60]
Article 266-B (6) of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
People v. Mercado, 419 Phil. 534, October 12, 2001; People v.
Tolentino,
352 SCRA 228, February 19, 2001; People v. Perez, 366 Phil. 741, May
19,
1999.
[62]
TSN, July 6, 1993, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[63]
Id., p. 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[64]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[66]
TSN, November 24, 1994, p. 21.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[67]
TSN, July 6, 1993, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[68]
TSN, November 15, 1995, pp. 6–7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[69]
TSN, July 6, 1993, p. 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[70]
People v. De Leon, supra; People v. Bejo, 376 SCRA 651, February 13,
2002;
People v. Templa, 415 Phil. 523, August 16, 2001.
[71]
People v. Gutierrez, 379 SCRA 395, March 18, 2002; People v. Cantuba,
379
SCRA 41, March 12, 2002; People v. Campomanes, 376 SCRA 307, February
6,
2002; People v. Dy, 375 SCRA 15, January 29, 2002; People v. Carbonell,
418 Phil. 533, September 28, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
People v. Dumalahay, 380 SCRA 37, April 2, 2002; People v. Drew, 371
SCRA
279, December 3, 2001; People v. Medios, 371 SCRA 120, November 29,
2001.
[73]
People v. Visaya, 352 SCRA 713, February 26, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[74]
TSN, July 3, 1991, pp. 5–6; TSN, October 10, 1991, pp. 4–5; TSN, July
6,
1993, pp. 5–8.
[75]
TSN, July 3, 1991, pp. 6–8; TSN, July 6, 1993, p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[76]
TSN, July 3, 1991, pp. 11–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[77]
Id., p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[78]
TSN, July 6, 1993, pp. 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[79]
People v. Sabadao, 344 SCRA 432, October 30, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[80]
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 377 SCRA 538, February 26, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[81]
Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[82]
People v. Appegu, 379 SCRA 703, April 1, 2002; People v. Quitlong, 354
Phil. 372, July 10, 1998.
[83]
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[84]
People v. Garcia, 378 SCRA 266, February 28, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[85]
TSN, July 3, 1991, pp. 5–6; TSN, October 10, 1999, p. 4; TSN, July 6,
1993,
pp. 6–7.
[86]
People v. Ablaneda, 357 SCRA 479, April 30, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[87]
Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus (2000 ed.), p. 620; citing U .Sv.
De Vivar, 29 Phil. 451, February 11, 1915.
[88]
People v. Garcia, supra at note 88; People v. Ablaneda, supra; People
v.
De Lara, 389 Phil. 756, June 27, 2000.
[89]
People v. Las Piñas Jr., 377 SCRA 377, February 20, 2002; People
v. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123, December 9, 1999.
[90]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[91]
People v. Garcia, supra at note 88.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[92]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[93]
People v. Fortich, supra; People v. Julian, 337 Phil. 411, April 4,
1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[94]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[95]
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[96]
People v. Lacanieta, supra; People v. Bañago, 368 Phil. 728,
June
29, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[97]
People v. Garcia, supra at note 88; People v. Velasquez, 345 SCRA 728,
November 23, 2000; People v. Lacanieta, supra.
[98]
People v. Amaquin, 377 SCRA 362, February 20, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[99]
People v. Villanueva, GR Nos. 146464-67, November 12, 2002; People v.
Barcelon
Jr., 389 SCRA 556, September 24, 2002; People v. Catubig, 416 Phil.
102,
August 23, 2001. |