G.R. No. 90626 - People vs. Lascuna

Case Summary (G.R. No. 90626)

Criminal Information and Arraignment

The accused were charged on 16 January 1989 by information whose accusatory portion alleged that, with another person (Danilo Lagasca) still at large, the accused conspired to commit robbery and, on the occasion of that robbery, killed Honesto Altiche through strangulation and raped Luisa Villena, and thereafter inflicted physical injuries on Luisa. The information fixed the place of commission as Malolos, Bulacan, and claimed that the acts occurred on or about 16 October 1988. When arraigned on 1 February 1989, all four pleaded not guilty. On 10 February 1989, the trial court directed the amendment of the information to include Danilo Lagasca as co-accused, although the records showed that a separate information against him had been docketed separately. On 17 March 1989, after Luisa had completed her direct testimony, Ricardo Lascuna and Celso Algoba moved to change their pleas to guilty, which the trial court granted; judgment of conviction was then orally dictated against them, while trial continued against Rosita Villena and Placido Palangoy.

Prosecution Evidence: Entry, Assault, Rape, and Killing

The prosecution evidence established that Luisa Villena and her eight-month-old daughter were in her house on the night of 16 October 1988, and that Honesto Altiche was also staying with her because her husband was abroad. At around 7:00 p.m., while Luisa and Honesto watched television, Rosita Villena knocked and entered with her child and four strangers. Three of those strangers were later identified in court as Celso Algoba, Ricardo Lascuna, and Placido Palangoy. The fourth person was identified as Danilo Lagasca, who was not presented in court. Ricardo Lascuna and Danilo Lagasca carried knives and poked them at Luisa and Honesto, while Celso and Placido began ransacking the house. Luisa and Honesto were gagged and their hands and feet were tied.

Luisa and Honesto were then herded into the bedroom. There, Luisa was raped by Ricardo Lascuna, while Honesto was made to face away. After that, Luisa was dragged to the kitchen. From the bedroom, Luisa heard Honesto moaning. She subsequently lost consciousness and was left for dead after being strangled with pieces of cloth. Luisa testified that she saw Rosita giving instructions to the other perpetrators while the group remained in her home. She explained that she recognized the intruders because they stayed in the house from 7:00 p.m. until about 2:00 a.m. the following day, with their departure supposedly delayed by a checkpoint in the area.

Luisa stated that when she regained consciousness at around 3:00 a.m., she freed herself and found Honesto already dead. She discovered missing property including an instamatic camera, a men’s gold ring, a gold wrist watch, assorted clothes, a ladies’ gold ring, P 400.00 cash, and a pair of toy walkie-talkies. The total loss was P 4,900.00. She sought help from Eduardo Vinuya, who accompanied her to the house. They found the kitchen and living room in disarray and, in the bedroom, Honesto’s body with an electric cord tied around his neck. They reported the crime to the barangay captain and the police.

Police Investigation and Identification of Appellant

A police team was dispatched, and Luisa was questioned at the police station around 6:00 a.m., where she revealed that Rosita Villena was one of the persons who entered the house. Police officers apprehended Rosita in Bgy. Ibayo, Marilao, Bulacan. While being ferried to the station, Rosita, when asked about her companions, implicated Celso Algoba, “Dong”, Placido (Palangoy), and “Danny” (Danilo Lagasca), and she led the policemen to the respective houses. Danilo Lagasca escaped, but the other accused were apprehended and brought to the station where Luisa identified them. At the station, Placido Palangoy was wearing a polo shirt and pants (Exhibits “F-2” and “F-3”), which were among the items taken from Luisa’s house.

A sketch of the crime scene was prepared by Pat. Jose Marcelino, Jr., who testified that the body was inside the bedroom with an electric cord tied around his neck and that an electric cord was also coiled around the neck.

Medical Findings

The autopsy on Honesto Altiche by Dr. Juanito Sacdalan showed marks on the victim’s neck and wrists, and death was attributed to “asphyxia due to occluded trachea and esophagus,” with breaking of the trachea resulting from strangulation. For Luisa Villena, Dr. Rolando Victoria found abrasions in her neck, and Dr. Isadora Gatbonton reported findings on her genital area, including superficial abrasions and no bleeding, with negative spermatozoa. Dr. Gatbonton explained that the abrasion could possibly result from irritation or from violent attempts of penetration or insertion of an object.

Defense Evidence: Admission by Celso, Denial by Rosita, and Alibi by Placido

In defense, Celso Algoba admitted that he robbed Luisa’s house on 16 October 1989 together with Ricardo Lascuna, Danilo Lagasca, and another person whose name he did not know, but denied that Rosita and Placido were with them. He denied knowledge of Luisa’s rape and claimed that Ricardo and Danilo strangled and killed Honesto.

Rosita Villena denied participation. She asserted that she was at home with her daughter on the night of 16 October 1988, and that when she woke at 7:00 a.m. the next day, policemen searched and took toy walkie-talkies from their house. She maintained that Celso brought the toy walkie-talkies home and recounted the robbery. She also said she wanted to report the matter but desisted because Celso threatened her.

Placido Palangoy likewise denied participation and offered a narrative of alibi: he claimed that on the night of 16 October 1988, he was washing his child’s diapers upon orders of his wife, then fell asleep. The next morning, after hanging diapers and taking a bath, he said a stranger approached him and sold him clothes for P 60.00. He claimed that soon afterward the same stranger returned with policemen, and he was brought to the police station with three other men where they were confronted by a woman who identified them as the robbers.

Conviction and Appeal History

On 21 August 1989, the trial court orally “promulgated” a judgment finding Rosita Villena and Placido Palangoy guilty of the complex crime as charged under Art. 48 in relation to Art. 294 and sentenced them to life imprisonment, with indemnity of P 30,000.00 to the family of Honesto. A written decision was later issued, dated 21 August 1989, which imposed life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) and awarded P 30,000.00 each as indemnity, as shown in the dispositive portion. Rosita and Placido filed notices of appeal on 23 August 1989. Due to an error in the transmittal of the records, the Court of Appeals transmitted them to the Supreme Court on 30 October 1989, and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal on 29 May 1991. Rosita Villena filed a motion to withdraw her appeal on 16 March 1992, which the Supreme Court granted on 3 March 1991, leaving the Supreme Court to resolve only Placido Palangoy’s appeal. In the Brief, Placido assigned errors relating to alleged weight given to Rosita’s admission, the evidentiary significance of his possession of the taken clothes, rejection of alibi, sufficiency of evidence for rape and homicide participation, conspiracy liability, refusal to apply mitigating circumstances under Art. 13, and alleged deprivation of due process due to trial court bias.

Issues Raised by Appellant

The appellant contended that the trial court erred in: (a) giving weight to Rosita Villena’s supposed admission; (b) using his possession of maong pants and polo shirt against him without proper consideration of his explanation; (c) not giving weight to alibi and not requiring clear identification; (d) finding that rape occurred; (e) concluding that homicide and rape were part of conspiracy without proof of his participation or awareness; (f) not applying mitigating circumstances under Art. 13; and (g) allegedly denying due process due to manifest bias and premature judgment.

Ruling on Appellant’s Assigned Errors

The Court held that the first assigned error rested on a misreading of the RTC decision because the appellant’s conviction was not based on Rosita Villena’s admissions. The Court observed that the trial court’s findings did not reference any admission by the appellant.

On the appellant’s second assigned error, the Court addressed the possession of the pants and polo shirt taken from Luisa’s house. The appellant’s claimed story was that he purchased the clothes from Celso Algoba on the morning of 17 October 1988 while drying his child’s diapers. The Court rejected the story, emphasizing that at the police station, where Luisa saw him wearing the items, he did not volunteer that Celso had sold the clothes to him and only offered the explanation during his testimony. The Court held that he failed to overcome the presumption that a person found in possession of effects belonging to a person robbed and killed is considered the author of the aggression, death, and the robbery.

On the alibi and identification arguments, the Court held that the defense of alibi could not prevail against positive identification. It recognized that Rosita was the only person Luisa claimed to know by name, yet the Court ruled that it did not follow that Luisa could not identify the others. It noted that Rosita had disclosed the identities of co-accused and had led police to their houses where they were apprehended, except for Danilo Lagasca. The Court found it established that Luisa positively identified Placido Palangoy because the group stayed inside her house for hours, from about 7:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m., and Luisa remembered him well, including that he changed into the same pants and polo shirt he wore when apprehended.

Regarding rape, the Court rejected the appellant’s attack that the sexual assault details were based on leading questions. The Co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 90626)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted four accused for robbery with homicide, rape, and physical injuries before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan.
The RTC arraigned the accused on 1 February 1989, and all pleaded not guilty.
The RTC directed the assistant public prosecutor to amend the information to include Danilo Lagasca as co-accused.
Two accused, Ricardo Lascuna and Celso Algoba, sought leave to change their plea to guilty, and the trial court granted the request.
Trial proceeded against Rosita Villena and Placido Aquino Palangoy after the guilty pleas of Lascuna and Algoba.
Rosita Villena and Placido Palangoy were convicted in a decision promulgated after the trial court’s earlier “promulgation of judgment” statement.
Rosita Villena later moved to withdraw her appeal, and the Court granted the withdrawal, leaving the case to proceed only as to Placido Aquino Palangoy.
The appellant argued errors in the RTC’s evaluation of identification, alibi, rape evidence, conspiracy, mitigation, and alleged due process violations.
The Court affirmed the conviction with modifications as to the designation of the crime, the penalty, and the civil liabilities.

Key Factual Allegations

The accusatory portion alleged that on or about 16 October 1988, in Malolos, Bulacan, the accused conspired and committed robbery with violence by taking toys, cash, assorted clothes, wrist watches, and valuable documents worth P 4,900.00 from Luisa A. Villena.
The information further alleged that on the occasion of the robbery, the accused attacked and strangled Honesto Altiche, resulting in his death.
The information charged that, during the same incident, the accused had carnal knowledge of Luisa Villena against her will, and inflicted slight physical injuries requiring medical attendance and incapacitating her for nine (9) days.

Prosecution Evidence and Circumstances of the Crime

Luisa Villena y Altiche testified that at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening she and her eight-month-old daughter and brother Honesto Altiche were in her house in Bgy. Cofradia, Malolos, Bulacan.
She testified that Rosita Villena knocked on the door, entered with her daughter, and brought four strangers, later identified in court as Celso Algoba, Ricardo Lascuna, and Placido Palangoy.
She stated that Ricardo Lascuna and Danilo Lagasca carried knives and poked Luisa and Honesto, while Celso Algoba and Placido Palangoy ransacked the house.
Luisa testified that she and Honesto were gagged and their hands and feet were tied, and both were herded into the bedroom.
She testified that she was raped in the bedroom by Ricardo Lascuna, while Honesto was asked to turn his back.
She testified that she was then dragged into the kitchen, where she later lost consciousness and was left for dead after Honesto began to moan and Luisa heard him.
She testified that she observed Rosita Villena giving instructions during the incident.
She asserted she recognized the perpetrators because they stayed from approximately 7:00 o’clock in the evening until 2:00 o’clock in the morning.
She testified she regained consciousness at around 3:00 o’clock and found her brother dead in the bedroom.
She testified that missing items included an instamatic camera, a gold ring, a gold wrist watch, assorted clothes, a ladies gold ring, P 400.00 in cash, and a pair of toy walkie-talkies, totaling P 4,900.00.
Luisa testified that she reported the crime, and neighbors helped locate the body and report to the barangay captain and police authorities.
A police team investigated the scene, and the trial record described disarray and an electric cord tied around Honesto’s neck.
Luisa was questioned in the police station around 6:00 o’clock that same morning, and she identified Rosita as one of the persons who entered her house.
During transportation to the station, Rosita implicated Celso Algoba, a “Placido (Palangoy),” and “Danny (Danilo Lagasca),” and she led the police to their houses.
The police apprehended the other accused except Danilo Lagasca, who escaped.
At the station, the appellant was found wearing a polo shirt and pants identified as among the items taken from Luisa’s house.
Police witness testimony and sketches supported the physical conditions of the scene and the binding with an electric cord.
Rosita Villena admitted participation in the commission of the crime, though the admission was not reduced to writing.

Medical and Forensic Findings

The autopsy of Honesto Altiche by Dr. Juanito Sacdalan attributed death to “Asphyxia due to occluded trachea and esophagus,” with the breaking of the trachea as a result of strangulation.
Dr. Rolando Victoria found abrasions in the neck of Luisa Villena.
Dr. Isadora Gatbonton reported a normal external genitalia with superficial abrasion over the posterior fourchette and opined that the superficial abrasion could be secondary to irritation from scratching or to a violent attempt at penetration or insertion of any object.
Dr. Gatbonton also testified that there were negative findings for bleeding and negative spermatozoa.

Defense Evidence and Asserted Theories

Celso Algoba admitted robbing Luisa’s house on 16 October 1989 with Ricardo Lascuna, Danilo Lagasca, and another unknown person, but he denied Rosita’s and Placido Palangoy’s presence at the time.
Algoba claimed he had no knowledge of the rape and that Ricardo and Danilo strangled Luisa and killed Honesto.
Algoba testified that when presented with an item recovered from Palangoy, he stated he sold the same to Palangoy for P 60.00.
Rosita Villena denied participation and asserted she was at home with her daughter, and she claimed policemen searched their things and took toy walkie-talkies.
Rosita testified that Celso allegedly brought the toy walkie-talkies home and narrated the robbery to her, but she desisted from reporting due to Celso’s threat.
Placido Palangoy denied participation and claimed he was washing his child’s diapers on the night of the incident and slept afterward.
Palangoy asserted that he was later approached by a stranger who sold him clothes for P 60.00, and later police confronted him after the lady declared he was among the persons who robbed her house.
The appellant raised alibi and challenged the sufficiency of his identification, including the absence of a police line-up identification.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant challenged the RTC for allegedly giving weight to an admission of guilt by Rosita Villena.
He assailed the trial court’s inference from his possession of maong pants and polo shirt taken from the victim’s house.
He argued that the RTC failed to give due weight to his alibi and that he was not positively and clearly identified as one of the perpetrators.
He claimed the evidence did not support the finding that rape was committed and argued that details were elicited through allegedly leading questions.
He contended that even if he participated in the robbery, the RTC erred in finding him guilty of rape and homicide for lack of evidence of his participation or knowledge.
He soug