G.R. No. 101793 - People vs. Olarte

On the early morning of August 18, 1990, at around 1:00 a.m., the Norbe household and adjoining small store in Barangay Alangilan, Bacolod City, became the scene of a violent crime.
The victims, Pedro and Arlene Norbe, along with their two young children, were abruptly awakened by a knock at the door.
The intruder, ostensibly seeking to buy whisky and, later, water, arrived during a time when the premises were illuminated only by kerosene lamps.

Despite initial hesitation from Arlene, Pedro opened the door to provide water when the visitor was accompanied by two other men.
Claiming to be members of the New People’s Army, the trio forcibly entered the house, with one man brandishing a gun to intimidate the occupants.
Once inside, the men quickly subdued Pedro by tying his arms and legs and pushing him to the ground, thereby incapacitating him from intervening as events unfolded.

The assailants proceeded to assault Arlene, who pleaded for mercy and informed them of her pregnancy; her pleas were disregarded.
As her two young children watched in terror, the perpetrators sequentially raped her—first by one intruder, followed by a switch in positions that allowed a second and then a third to commit the assault.
Amid the assault, Pedro, despite being physically restrained and unable to protect his wife, endured the unbearable experience of hearing her distressing cries.

After perpetrating the rape, the assailants ransacked the house and small store, seizing various articles including some clothes, a lady’s wristwatch, and P200.00 in cash, with the total value amounting to P2,755.00.
Prior to their departure, the trio issued a death threat aimed at preventing Pedro and Arlene from reporting the incident to the authorities, ensuring their silence under duress.

The investigation took a turn when Melchor Olarte was apprehended three days later for an unrelated charge of illegal possession of firearms, during which the rumored robbery with rape emerged.
Under police questioning, Olarte identified his companions as Roger Vinearta and Felino Bagsik, although Bagsik had later disappeared from the record.
The primary identification of the accused was made by the victims, Pedro and Arlene Norbe, who provided detailed physical descriptions and recognized Olarte as a regular customer and townmate and Vinearta by distinctive features observed in the lamplight.

Both accused—Melchor Olarte (alias “Tolisok”) and Roger “Nano” Vinearta—pleaded alibi and denial. Olarte contended that he was drinking tuba at his mother’s house, located approximately four kilometers from the crime scene, while Vinearta claimed to have been sleeping in Talisay, about eight and a half kilometers away.
The uncorroborated and unconvincing nature of these alibis weighed against their defenses, particularly in light of the victims’ clear and consistent identification.
The Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, after assessing the evidence—including the affidavits and direct eyewitness accounts—convicted both accused and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, in addition to ordering them to pay the amount equivalent to the stolen property (P2,755.00).

In reviewing the case, the court addressed claims that Vinearta’s implication stemmed from statements made after his alleged illegal arrest and torture; it was found there was insufficient evidence to support such allegations.
While the appellants argued that the identification evidence was inconclusive and inconsistent, the court upheld that the testimonies of Pedro and Arlene were reliable and sufficient to convict.
The judgment was later modified to include the award of civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to Arlene Norbe for the rapes committed against her—a reparation the trial court had previously omitted.

Whether the positive and detailed identifications made by the Norbe spouses are credible and sufficient to convict the accused despite their claims of inconsistent or inconclusive testimonies.
The weight of eyewitness testimony vis-à-vis the uncorroborated alibi defenses offered by the accused.

Whether the claims regarding Olarte’s alleged illegal arrest and torture, allegedly affecting the identification of Vinearta, bear any evidentiary merit sufficient to exonerate Vinearta.

Whether the application of Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code is correct, especially given the aggravating circumstances such as the use of deadly weapons and the participation of multiple perpetrators.
Whether the constitutional limitation on the death penalty mandates the imposition of reclusion perpetua as the maximum penalty, even in the face of additional aggravating factors.

Whether the trial court’s omission in awarding civil indemnity to Arlene Norbe should be rectified and supplemented by the appellate court.