G.R. No. 90185 - People vs. Abarri y Batting

On October 14, 1988, at approximately 7:30 P.M., in Kalookan City, Metro Manila, the crime was committed against Gregoria Gan y Lim.
The accused—Ernesto Abarri y Batting, Clemente Cawaling y Cirinio, Conrado Estrada y Cawaling, Joselito Pajalago y Gonzales, and Ronnie Andales y Romirosa—were charged in connection with a complex offense involving robbery with rape.

The information on file alleged that the accused, by means of force, threats, and intimidation (including brandishing a knife), conspired to commit the offense.
Abarri and Andales initiated the assault by stopping the victim along 4th Avenue, with each poking a knife at Gan’s neck, and forcibly coercing her with the threat “Kung gusto mong mabuhay, huwag kang sisigaw.”
The accused then proceeded to drag Gan into a fenced, vacant lot, a location strewn with garbage and overgrown with tall grass.
Within the lot, the accused systematically stripped the victim: Abarri used his “balisong” to tear the upper portion of her blouse, and the other co-accused participated in removing her clothes and subduing her.

During the ordeal, Abarri opened Gan’s handbag and removed several valuables including:

After the robbery, while most of the accused departed the scene, Ronnie Andales remained behind and, after loosening the tie on her legs, proceeded to rape Gan twice.
The victim's attempts to alert others eventually resulted in neighbors coming to her aid after her bindings loosened.

The NBI Medico Legal Officer noted physical injuries on Gan that were consistent with the reported time of assault, including injuries around her genitals and other parts of her body.
Findings included old healed lacerations on the hymen and an opening sufficiently large to suggest penetration by an adult male without inflicting additional injury—details that played a key role in substantiating the crime.

All accused pleaded not guilty and advanced alibi defenses, claiming they were elsewhere when the crime occurred.
Testimonies varied:

Abarri and Estrada stated they were on their way home and later accosted by barangay tanods, leading to an admission of involvement only after police coercion.
Cawaling, Pajalago, and Andales claimed to have been in their respective homes, with Cawaling alleging coercion by the police during questioning.

Jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Gaguban and People v. Empleo) was cited to emphasize that an alibi must prove physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene at the time of the crime.

The coordinated actions—intimidating the victim, forcibly moving her to the vacant lot, subduing and stripping her, and the subsequent distributed roles during the commission of the robbery and sexual assault—suggested a conspiracy.
The prosecution inferred a common design among the accused even though direct evidence of an explicit agreement was not presented.
The defense’s contention that no direct evidence of conspiracy existed was countered by case law that allows inference of conspiratorial intent from the conduct of the accused.

Whether the accused’s alibi defense satisfactorily demonstrated that it was physically impossible for them to have been present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time.
Whether the defense met the strict requirements regarding the requisites of time and place as established in previous rulings (e.g., People v. Gaguban and People v. Empleo).

Whether the actions of the accused collectively established a conspiracy to commit the offense, thereby implicating them as co-principals.
Whether the inference of common criminal intent, as drawn from their coordinated conduct during the commission of the crime, is legally sufficient.

Distinction between Robbery with Rape and Robbery with Acts of Lasciviousness

Whether the involvement of the accused beyond the initial robbery can be uniformly charged under robbery with rape given that only Ronnie Andales was implicated in the act of rape.
Whether the acts committed by the remaining accused, which comprised intimidation, robbery, and acts of lasciviousness, should be charged separately from the rape committed by Andales.

Whether statements made by accused Cawaling (and any influence he may have exerted) are sufficient to hold him as a principal by inducement in the rape, or if such influence was merely ancillary.
Whether the decision of Andales to commit rape was independent of any coercion or influence from his co-accused.