Case Digest (G.R. No. 134802)
Facts:
In People of the Philippines v. Renato Z. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802, October 26, 2001, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The appellee is People of the Philippines; the appellant is Renato Z. Dizon; the private complainant is Arlie Rosalin.On the evening of July 7, 1997, Arlie Rosalin, then 21, alighted from a bus along EDSA near Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City. Seconds later a man (later identified as appellant) accosted her, pointed a fan knife at her neck, announced a holdup and took her wallet, rings, necklace and a backpack. He ordered her to walk with him, with the knife pressed to her, and they proceeded to a dark, isolated basketball court. There the assailant undressed Rosalin, kissed and fondled her, bit her nipples and back, forced her into several acts of sexual intercourse and oral sex, repeatedly slammed her head on a taxi hood and a wall, and threatened to kill her. Rosalin eventually escaped, ran to a store and later reported the incident to barangay and police officers who recovered some of her belongings and the assailant’s cap.
About three days later the barangay located a suspect matching the description; Rosalin identified appellant in the crowd near the Munoz market. Appellant was disarmed, arrested and brought to the police station. An Information was filed on July 14, 1997 charging robbery with rape under Article 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on August 7, 1997.
Trial proceeded before the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 219. The prosecution presented the victim, police witnesses and the medico-legal officer; the defense offered denial and alibi from appellant, uncorroborated by other witnesses. On July 13, 1998 the trial court found appellant guilty of robbery with rape, held that two aggravating circumstances (cruelty and uninhabited place) attended the crime, sentenced him to death, and awarded P9,500 actual damages and P200,000 moral damages; the court forwarded the records to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
Appellant raised three principal assignments of error challenging (1) positive identification by the victim, (2) the appreciation of cruelty and u...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was appellant’s conviction sustainable despite his contention that the private complainant did not positively identify him and that her testimony was unreliable?
- Did the trial court err in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place?
- Was the penalty of death properly imposed under Article 294, par. 1 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, and were the awards of moral, actual, civil ind...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)