Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32244)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court En Banc, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Rogelio Soriano and Narciso Marigmen (with two John/Peter Does) with robbery with rape arising from an incident on the night of June 15, 1969 in Sitio D-6, Barrio Central, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The trial court (Court of First Instance, Occidental Mindoro, San Jose Branch) convicted Soriano and Marigmen and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordered them to pay P375 to Felix Bentibano and P500 indemnity to Elma Lachica (the rape victim), and costs. Marigmen did not appeal; Soriano did.
The factual narrative at trial showed that four armed men entered the couple’s small cogon-walled hut at midnight by removing a blanket covering the door. They used flashlights; one carried a carbine. The husband, Felix Bentibano, was hogtied and threatened; Soriano — known to the victims as a compadre of the victim’s sister — entered first and raped Elma Lachica, followed by Marigmen and two other men. The malefactors then took a radio-phonograph, a lady’s ring, and several garments (total proven value P375) and warned the couple against reporting the crime. Due to fear of reprisal the couple initially fled and only later reported the crime after third-party statements and admissions.
Key extrinsic events: on June 24, 1969, Pascualita Barawel‑Palo overheard Soriano boast that he had participated in the robbery with rape; on June 25 Bentibano confronted Soriano and noticed Soriano wearing pants with a green patch matching Bentibano’s; police arrested Marigmen (and others) July 31 for illegal firearms and subsequently arrested Soriano. Exhibits included recovered radio and a shirt. The provincial fiscal filed the information and the trial court, after hearing witnesses (including the victims, Mrs. Palo, and Soriano’s alibi witnesses), convicted Soriano.
Soriano raised an alibi and denied acquaintance with Marigmen; his alibi witnesses (wife and her aunt) corroborated his whereabouts in Barrio Bubog. The trial court nonetheless credited the positive identifications by the victims, noting use of flashlig...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the identification of appellant Soriano, and the rejection of his alibi, sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Were the acts of theft and sexual violation separate crimes or an instance of robbery with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, and was conspiracy or joint liability proven?
- What aggravating circumstances apply, and what is the proper penalty?
- Were the civil awards and disposition of recovered property approp...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)