G.R. No. 247490 - Torres vs. Republic

Appellant Denel Yumol y Timpug was charged with robbery with rape for an incident that took place on October 21, 2006, in Olongapo City, Philippines.
The charge arose from an Information alleging that the accused, with intent to gain, committed robbery and subsequently, a sexual assault against a minor identified as AAA.

AAA was returning home from a mini concert with a schoolmate and boarded a jeepney.
As she was walking home after alighting from the jeepney, the appellant suddenly approached her from behind, pointed a gun at her, and declared a hold-up.

Appellant stole AAA’s Nokia 3350 mobile phone, valued at P3,550.00, along with a sim card and an additional fifty-peso bill.
He coerced her to move to a nearby children’s park where, through threats and physical violence (including the use of a gun), he forced her to comply with his sexual demands.
The sexual assault included undressing the victim, forced sexual intercourse characterized by an "up and down" movement, a forced fellatio while being threatened by a firearm, and repeated physical coercion.

Victim's (AAA's) testimony described the events in detail, including the physical interaction and the use of a firearm as a means of intimidation.
Testimonies of police officers (SPO1 Norberto Ventura and SPO3 Edgar Rivera) corroborated AAA’s account by relating how they conducted a follow-up investigation based on her description.
Dr. Rolando Marfel Ortiz provided medical evidence showing injuries consistent with a struggle, including abrasions and a lacerated hymen.

AAA identified the appellant through physical description (fat, semi-bald with a shorter left hand, and small penis) and recognized his voice and attire.
The police apprehended the appellant using this description, and his identification was later confirmed by AAA in open court.

He was at his cousin’s house in a different locale (Ruano Street, Gordon Heights) at the time of the incident, watching movies.
He claimed that he was mistakenly identified and that his presence on the scene was due to a fortuitous encounter with police while being mistaken for a vagrant.

The defense rested on a denial of the charges and an alibi contesting the prosecution’s presentation of evidence linking him to the crime.

The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape.
The trial court imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and directed restitution for the stolen mobile phone and money, as well as awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s verdict with a modification concerning the interest rate imposed on the monetary awards.
The appellate decision reiterated that the details of the crime and the identification of the appellant were established through reliable testimony and corroborative evidence.

Whether the trial court, and subsequently the Court of Appeals, correctly established the elements of robbery with rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Does the evidence support that the taking of personal property was accompanied by violence and intimidation?
Was the sexual assault committed as an accompanying crime to the robbery?

Can the victim’s identification be considered credible despite the alleged inadequate viewing conditions (poor lighting and relative positioning)?
Is the absence of a formal police line-up a sufficient basis to question the accuracy of the identification?

Whether the appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi were adequately contradicted by the evidence

Are the testimonies and forensic findings against the appellant compelling enough to discredit his self-serving account?