Title
People vs. Evardone
Case
G.R. No. 248204
Decision Date
Aug 24, 2020
A woman was robbed and raped three times at knifepoint; the accused’s alibi was rejected, and he was convicted of Robbery with Rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to pay damages.
robbery with rape
two counts of rape
revised penal code
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28882)

Petitioner

The People of the Philippines prosecuted the accused for Robbery with Rape (Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659) and two separate counts of Rape (Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353).

Respondent

Jonathan Juarizo Evardone: pleaded not guilty; raised alibi and denial; later identified in a barangay proceeding and ultimately convicted by the trial court, affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals, and reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Key Dates

Incident: August 12, 2011 (around 4:30–5:00 a.m./p.m. as described in the record for various events). Information filed: October 18, 2011 (as the computation date for interest in CA decision). RTC conviction: November 17, 2016. CA decision: April 3, 2019 (affirmed with modification). Supreme Court decision: August 24, 2020 (appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed with modification). (The choice of applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution, given decision date after 1990.)

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (as the governing constitution for decisions dated 1990 or later).
  • Revised Penal Code: Article 294, paragraph 1 (Robbery with Rape); Article 266-A (rape provisions cited).
  • Special statutes and rules cited in the case: R.A. No. 7659 (amending Article 294), R.A. No. 8353 (amending rape provisions), A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (guidelines on the phrase “without eligibility for parole”), R.A. No. 7610 and A.M. No. 12-7-15-SC (use of fictitious names for child victims).
  • Jurisprudence relied upon by the courts: People v. Seguis; People v. Jugueta; People v. Candelario; People v. Tuppal; People v. Belmonte; People v. Tamayo; People v. Cabralan; People v. Alipio; People v. Arnaiz; and other Supreme Court authorities cited in the opinion.

Procedural History

The accused was charged in three separate Informations: one count of Robbery with Rape (Criminal Case No. 11-43069) and two counts of Rape (Criminal Case Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071). The RTC, Branch 100, Antipolo City, found the accused guilty on all counts on November 17, 2016, and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count, with awards of civil indemnity and moral damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the robbery-with-rape conviction but acquitted the accused of the two separate rape counts on the ground that multiple rapes accompanying a robbery are absorbed into the single complex crime of Robbery with Rape; CA modified damages and declared “reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole” (language later deemed improper by the Supreme Court). The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged credibility findings and sufficiency of evidence.

Facts as Found by the Prosecution and Trial Court

On August 12, 2011, AAA was accosted by two persons on NHA Avenue; one later identified as the accused and another unidentified male. A knife was used to declare a hold-up; the assailants grabbed AAA’s cellphone (reported value P500.00 in the record) and then forced AAA toward a red car and into a canal at different points, where the accused allegedly sexually assaulted her multiple times (three separate rapes described). AAA sustained incised wounds to the right thumb and right middle finger during the encounter. After the assailants left, AAA returned home, told family members, reported to police, left undergarments at the scene, and underwent medico-legal examination.

Medico-Legal and Corroborative Evidence

The medico-legal report documented recent blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen (deep healing laceration at 6 and 9 o’clock positions, erythema and laceration at the fossa navicularis), erythematous labia minora, and external incised wounds to the right thumb and right middle finger. AAA’s sister testified to AAA’s condition (wet and dirty upon return). AAA provided a physical description of the accused; a gay neighbor provided four names to barangay authorities, and AAA identified the accused among the four persons during a barangay proceeding on August 14, 2011.

Defense and Alibi

The accused claimed an alibi: attendance at a wake (Lydia Flores) from the evening of August 11, 2011 until about 5:00 a.m. on August 12, 2011, followed by eating lugaw in Sitio Broadway and then going home. The accused’s witnesses corroborated presence at the wake and subsequent activities. The accused contended that AAA’s testimony contained inconsistencies (loss of items, sequence and location of the rapes, timing of the attempted stabbing) and that identification could have been mistaken.

Trial Court’s Findings and Ruling

The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape (Article 294, par. 1) and of the two separate rape counts, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The RTC awarded P75,000 civil indemnity and P75,000 moral damages (as reflected in the RTC decision), credited preventive imprisonment, and found the prosecution established original intent to rob and that rape occurred on the occasion of the robbery.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Rape (Criminal Case No. 11-43069) but acquitted the accused of the two separate rape counts (Criminal Case Nos. 11-43070 and 11-43071) on the ground that the multiple rapes accompanying the robbery are absorbed into the single complex crime of Robbery with Rape (citing People v. Seguis). The CA modified damages upward (awarding P100,000 for civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages) and, incorrectly according to the Supreme Court, stated the penalty as “reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.” The CA also ordered legal interest and adjusted awards per Nacar.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

  • Whether the conviction for Robbery with Rape is supported by credible and sufficient evidence, given alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, lack of documentary proof of stolen property, identification issues, and the accused’s alibi; and
  • Whether the penalties and damages awarded by the CA were proper, including the CA’s imposition of the phrase “without eligibility for parole.”

Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed with modification. It affirmed the conviction for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape under Article 294, paragraph 1, and sentenced the accused to suffer reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the penalties and damages consistent with established jurisprudence: the Court deleted the CA’s phrase “without eligibility for parole” (finding it erroneous under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC absent circumstances warranting death had it not been for R.A. 9346) and adjusted the damages to P75,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each of the three incidents of rape (totaling P225,000 across the three incidents), with legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until full payment.

Supreme Court Reasoning on Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence

  • Credibility determinations are primarily for the trial court, which observed witnesses’ demeanor; the accused failed to provide compelling reasons to depart from the RTC and CA credibility findings.
  • Minor inconsistencies in AAA’s account (e.g., sequence and precise locations of the three rapes; whether jewelry and money in addition to a cellphone were taken) were not material to the elements of the crime and did not destroy her credibility. The Court emphasized that traumatic experiences may produce minor inconsistencies and that such inconsistencies on inconsequential matters do not negate proof beyond reasonable doubt.
  • The prosecution established the original intent to rob (knife used, hold-up declared, taking of the cellphone) and that rape was committed on the occasion of the robbery. The lack of documentary proof of the stolen cellphone did not negate the victim’s testimony and the totality of evidence.
  • Identification was deemed reliable: AAA testified that she looked at the assailant’s face, identified the accused at the barangay lineup, and was consistent at trial. The accused’s alibi was not shown to make his presence at the scene physically impossible, and denial/alibi are inherently weak defenses.

Legal Analysis on Robbery with Rape, Merger of Multiple Rapes, and Damages

  • The Court applied the established rule that multiple rapes committed on the occasion of a robbery are absorbed into the single special complex crime of Robbery with Rape (People v. Seguis). As a result, the separate rape Informations could not stand as independent convictions if they arose on the same occasion of the robbery; they are merged in the composite offense.
  • Although the separate rape counts are merged and cannot increase the penalty as additional offenses, each additional rape incident committed on the same occasion may give rise to additional awards of damages to which the victim is entitled. The Court therefore

    ...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