Title
People vs. Dizon
Case
G.R. No. 134802
Decision Date
Oct 26, 2001
A 21-year-old student was robbed, abducted, and raped by Renato Dizon, who threatened her with a knife. She escaped, identified him, and he was convicted of Robbery with Rape, with the death penalty upheld due to aggravating circumstances.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 134802)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Posture

Crime occurred on July 7, 1997. Information filed July 14, 1997; arraignment August 7, 1997. Trial court decision convicting appellant promulgated July 13, 1998. Decision under automatic review by the Supreme Court (en banc) resulted in affirmation with modification as to damages.

Factual Narrative (Prosecution Evidence)

Arlie Rosalin alighted from a bus along EDSA and was accosted seconds later by appellant, who placed a fan knife against her neck, announced a holdup, and demanded valuables. Appellant robbed her of jewelry, money, and a backpack. He then ordered her to walk with him, keeping a knife at her side and his arm around her, crossing Roosevelt Avenue past Munoz market to Project 7. At a dark, isolated basketball court appellant forced Rosalin to remove clothing, inflicted multiple sexual assaults including forcible vaginal penetration, forced oral and manual sexual acts, bit and physically assaulted her (banging head on vehicle hood and wall, slapping), and repeatedly restrained her. Rosalin furtively observed appellant’s face at well-lit points and later identified distinctive physical markers (a cheek mole and extensive lower-body tattoos). After escaping, she reported the assault to bystanders and the barangay; police recovered some victim’s items and the appellant’s black cap at the scene. Appellant was later located at the Munoz market area, produced the fan knife upon seeing the victim, was disarmed and arrested.

Charges, Plea, and Defenses

Appellant was charged with Robbery with Rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 (as amended by R.A. 7659) for robbery by force or intimidation accompanied by rape. He pleaded not guilty and presented defenses of denial and alibi, asserting he was at home resting in San Jose del Monte that evening and worked as a tricycle dispatcher with specified hours. His testimony was uncorroborated and denied involvement.

Trial Court Disposition and Sentence

The Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 219, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape attended by two aggravating circumstances, sentenced him to death, ordered payment of actual damages (P9,500.00) and moral damages (P200,000.00), and costs. The trial court appreciated cruelty and commission in an uninhabited place as aggravating circumstances.

Issues Raised on Appeal

  1. Alleged failure of positive identification by the victim.
  2. Alleged erroneous appreciation of aggravating circumstances (cruelty and uninhabited place).
  3. Claim that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape (including an asserted error as to the statutory paragraph).

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Identification and Credibility

The Court affirmed the trial court’s crediting of the victim’s testimony. It rejected appellant’s contentions that (a) physical impossibility of disrobing while holding the victim and a knife made the victim’s account implausible (the Court cited testimonial demonstration and analogous precedents confirming such conduct is feasible), (b) the victim had reasonable opportunity to escape and therefore her failure to do so undermined credibility (the Court emphasized terror, physical restraint, and repeated threats making escape infeasible), and (c) the victim did not positively identify him because others had pointed out where a suspect was located in a crowded market. The Court held recognition is distinct from initial failure to see in a crowd; the victim provided a prior detailed description (mole, tattoos) and repeatedly observed the assailant’s face at lighted points and while forced to sit astride him, enabling positive identification. The Court applied the established rule that alibi cannot overcome clear and positive identification unless the accused proves by clear and convincing evidence both that he was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene; appellant failed to satisfy this standard.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Cruelty as an Aggravating Circumstance

The Court endorsed the trial court’s finding of cruelty. It explained the legal test: cruelty exists where the accused deliberately and sadistically augments the wrong by inflicting another wrong unnecessary for accomplishing the primary offense, thereby inhumanly increasing the victim’s suffering. The Court found that appellant’s conduct—forcing the victim to perform demeaning sexual acts, making her handle and receive his foul-smelling genitalia, biting, slamming her head against objects, and administering slaps—went beyond the means necessary to commit rape and intentionally intensified her physical and moral suffering. Under this standard, cruelty was properly appreciated.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Uninhabited Place as an Aggravating Circumstance

The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the basketball court constituted an uninhabited place for the purpose of aggravation. The Court clarified that the inquiry is not mere proximity of houses or highways but whether the location afforded a reasonable possibility of the victim obtaining help. Given the nighttime setting, darkness, isolation, shielding by high walls, and appellant’s selection of the basketball court to avoid detection, the place was effectively uninhabited and ins

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms