G.R. No. L-32244 - People vs. Soriano

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-32244)

Facts and Manner of the Offense

The prosecution evidence showed that around midnight of Sunday, June 15, 1969, four men entered the small dwelling of Felix and Elma. The hut, described as a kubо or dampa of about three square meters, had decaying walls of cogon grass, and its entrance was covered by a blanket. The malefactors entered noiselessly by removing the blanket. They brought two flashlights and one of them carried a carbine. Soriano entered first. Elma recognized Soriano because he was a compadre of her sister, and she recognized Marigmen because he had previously passed by their hut. Marigmen carried the carbine and flashlight.

The men overcame Felix, then hogtied him by tying his hands over his head with buri leaves and pointing the carbine at his throat. They stepped on Felix’s body. While Felix was disabled, Soriano raped Elma. Elma testified that Soriano forcibly removed her short pants without first unzipping them, tore them at the middle, pinned her hands and shoulders, and inserted his penis into her organ. She shouted for help. During the rape, Marigmen alternately pointed the muzzle of the carbine at Elma’s throat and at Felix, who remained tied beside her. Elma perceived that the rape had been consummated because her blouse became wet. After Soriano satisfied his lust, Marigmen followed in raping Elma, and two additional malefactors—unidentified by Elma—also took turns raping her. After the multiple rapes, Elma felt weak, dizzy, uncomfortable, and physically exhausted, and she cried.

The malefactors then took loot totaling P375, consisting of a Nivico radio-phonograph (P150), a lady’s ring (P25), four Banlon shirts (P100), and four long pants (P100). After taking these items, they warned the couple not to report the assault and robbery to the authorities, threatening that they would be killed. Because of fear of retaliation, Felix and Elma did not complain right away. They instead transferred to another place.

Statements of the Victims and Corroborating Circumstances

Felix’s statement, presented in evidence, explained that the malefactors threatened him at gunpoint, including a threat of being returned to be killed if they reported to any officer of the law. He added that the couple did not report immediately because they had nowhere else to live and were afraid.

A key evidentiary development occurred on June 24, 1969 at about three o’clock in the afternoon, when Pascualita Barawel-Palo, an eighteen-year-old married woman, met Soriano at Sitio Cambarwang, Barrio Adela, San Jose. Palo and her mother were gossiping at the house of a neighbor. Soriano entered searching for his missing carabao. When told that no one present knew anything about it, Soriano volunteered that he had committed robbery with rape in the hut of a couple from D-6, where he claimed they had taken a radio, a ring, and clothes, and had raped the woman. He spoke in a mocking manner because the women he was talking to were Visayan, and he even suggested that the rape victim resembled the daughter of the one he was addressing. Palo recollected prior news she had heard about the robbery with rape involving Elma Lachica and Felix Bentibano. Despite hearing Soriano’s boast, she did not report it immediately for fear of reprisal.

On June 25, 1969, Bentibano encountered Soriano, who was wearing trousers with a green patch in the seat. Bentibano recognized them as his own. Soriano responded by asking whether Bentibano regarded him as a thief. Bentibano attempted to assault Soriano with a bolo, but Soriano was disarmed and ran away.

On July 2, 1969, Palo executed an affidavit recounting Soriano’s boastful admission of participation. The following day, July 3, 1969, the spouses executed their own sworn statements before the Municipal Judge, naming Soriano as one of the malefactors who robbed and raped Elma. Based on these statements, the chief of police filed a complaint for robbery with rape dated July 3, 1969.

Apprehension of the Other Accused and the Filing of the Information

On July 31, 1969, around six o’clock in the evening, Patrolman Andres Baldonado, together with the chief of police and other policemen, apprehended Marigmen, along with Rodolfo Fajardo and Juanito Pineda, in Sitio Mabuhay, Barrio Central, San Jose for illegal possession of two carbines and a home-made paltic; the policemen confiscated these items. Marigmen and his companions were taken to the police headquarters. A few days later, Soriano was apprehended.

Marigmen later wrote a letter to his wife asking that a radio-phonograph be delivered to the police. A Banlon shirt worn by Marigmen was presented as Exhibit C. Ultimately, the provincial fiscal filed an information charging robbery with multiple rape against Soriano, Marigmen, and two unidentified persons.

Issues on Appeal and the Defense Theory

Soriano appealed the conviction. He alleged that the trial court erred in failing to acquit him, in finding his guilt established beyond reasonable doubt, and in concluding that conspiracy existed. He interposed an alibi.

Soriano testified that he was not acquainted with Marigmen. He claimed that on June 14, 1969 he was in Barrio Bubog borrowing money from Felix Acla and buying rice. He said that on June 16 at about eight o’clock in the morning, he left Bubog with his wife, his mother-in-law, and his son, arriving at Santa Fe at about one-thirty in the afternoon. He denied raping Elma on the evening of June 15, denied participation in the robbery, and stated that he had never met Felix Bentibano, Jr. and Elma Lachica. He further claimed that he saw his carabao near Bentibano’s house after a complaint on June 19, and that Bentibano and his wife boxed him. He asserted that he did not report the incident to the police due to pain from blows to his ears.

Soriano’s alibi was allegedly corroborated by his wife Linda Roldan, and by Pelagia Saulong, whom Pelagia said was his wife’s aunt though she could not state Linda’s family name. Their testimony, however, did not dislodge the prosecution’s identification evidence.

Appraisal of the Evidence and Determination of Identity

The appellate determination rested on the question of identity, particularly because the crime occurred at night and there was no confession executed by Soriano. The Court held that Soriano’s alibi could not prevail over the unequivocal identification made by the complainants and by Palo.

The Court noted several contextual factors: Barrio Bubog, where Soriano claimed to be staying, was adjacent to Barrio Central, where the crime occurred in Sitio D-6. There was a regular jeepney line between the barrios. Thus, it was considered possible for Soriano to travel from Bubog to the crime area and return to Bubog even if he had allegedly left Santa Fe on June 14. The Court also emphasized that, despite the midnight commission, the malefactors were recognized because they used flashlights. While the rapes were being committed, the flashlight was directed at the scene and illuminated the faces of the malefactors at the opening of each rape. Elma testified that the light enabled her to identify the two accused she recognized as well as how the flashlight was used.

Elma testified that she had known Soriano and Marigmen for a long time and was familiar with their voices. She added that the light used by the rapists enabled her to identify the two accused, and that the flashlight was used at the commencement of each rape. Felix likewise stated that he recognized Soriano during the robbery because Soriano held the carbine during the tying-up of Felix and because Soriano was illuminated by a flashlight and thus became identifiable.

The Court further accorded weight to the trial court’s credibility assessment. The trial court described Elma as a modest barrio housewife whose testimony was given in a voluntary and natural manner, at times interrupted by tears. The trial court observed that her narration was sincere and devoid of artificiality. It also concluded that positive identification of Soriano and Marigmen established beyond doubt that they participated in the robbery with rape.

Conspiracy, Force, and the Offense’s Composite Nature

Soriano also disputed conspiracy and suggested separate treatment of rape and theft. The Court rejected those arguments based on the circumstances of the attack. The Court found that the manner in which the men entered and acted showed they were animated by a double intention: to rape Elma and to divest Felix and Elma of their few possessions. The malefactors arrived armed and used flashlights, and upon entry they weakened the defense by disabling Felix, rendering him helpless to prevent both the rape and the taking of goods.

The Court held that force and intimidation were used to ensure both the robbery and the consummation of the rape. It ruled that Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code did not require the rape to occur before, during, or after the robbery. It was sufficient that robbery accompanied the rape, citing People vs. Caisip, 105 Phil. 1180, 1186. The Court also found that robbery was not a mere accident or afterthought.

The Court rejected the claim that all articles taken were found only in Marigmen’s possession, noting that the radio and other items were recovered and placed in evidence. Minor discrepancies in the accounts of Elma and Felix were treated as non-material; the Court cited the principle that candid witnesses may make mistakes or fall into inconsistencies without necessarily losing credibility.

Aggravating Circumstances and Modifications of the Penalty and Awards

The Court sustained the trial court’s appreciation of dwelling and nocturnity as aggravating circumstances. The Court rejected Soriano’s contention that nocturnity should not be aggravating because robbery was an offense against property and flashlights were used. It held that nocturnity could be appreciated when robbery was accompanied by violence against, or intimidation of persons. The Court reason

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-32244)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rogelio Soriano appealed from the Court of First Instance of Occidental, Mindoro, San Jose Branch, which found him and Narciso Marigmen guilty of robbery with rape.
Narciso Marigmen did not appeal, and the case against him remained final at the appellate stage.
The trial court sentenced Soriano and Marigmen to reclusion perpetua.
The trial court ordered solidary payment of PHP 375 to Felix Bentibano and indemnity of PHP 500 to Elma Lachica, the rape victim, plus costs.
The information charged robbery with multiple rape against Soriano, Marigmen, and two unidentified persons.
The Court affirmed the judgment as to Soriano with modifications as to indemnity and restitution.

Key Factual Allegations

The incident occurred at about midnight of Sunday, June 15, 1969, in Sitio D-6, Barrio Central, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
Felix Bentibano, Jr. and Elma Lachica were asleep inside a very small kubo/dampa with decayed cogon walls and an entrance covered by a blanket.
The malefactors removed the blanket and entered noiselessly, with two flashlights and one carbine.
Soriano entered first, and Marigmen followed with the carbine and flashlight, while the remaining two malefactors were later left unidentified in the decision.
Elma Lachica recognized Soriano because he was a compadre of her sister.
Felix Bentibano, Jr. and Elma Lachica recognized Marigmen because he frequently passed by their hut.
The malefactors tied Felix’s hands over his head with buri leaves and threatened him with the carbine.
The malefactors disabled Felix physically, stepping on his prostrate body to prevent interference.
Soriano raped Elma Lachica first, forcibly removing her short pants without unzipping, pinning down her thighs, and inserting his penis into her organ.
Marigmen alternately pointed the carbine’s muzzle at Elma and at Felix, who was hogtied beside her, while the rape was ongoing.
After Soriano satisfied his lust, Marigmen raped Elma, followed by two other malefactors Elma could not identify, with repeated rapes continuing until she felt weak, dizzy, physically exhausted, and she cried.
The group then took loot valued at PHP 375: a Nivico radio-phonograph (PHP 150), a lady’s ring (PHP 25), four Banlon shirts (PHP 100), and four long pants (PHP 100).
The malefactors warned the spouses not to report, threatening they would be killed if they did so.
The spouses initially refrained from reporting due to fear of retaliation and transferred to another place.

Identification Evidence

In a later statement, Elma Lachica asserted that she had long known Soriano and Marigmen, and that she could identify them by their voices and their faces.
She stated that the light from the flashlights used by the rapists illuminated the faces of the malefactors and that the flashlight was directed at the scene at the commencement of each rape.
She further stated that someone near the door focused the flashlight on the malefactor about to rape her.
In Felix’s statement, he explained that Soriano was identified because Soriano held the carbine before Felix was tied up, and when the baril was pointed and illuminated, Felix recognized Soriano.
Both spouses thus provided consistent identification of Soriano as one of the perpetrators who raped Elma and participated in the robbery.

Admissions and Linking Statements

On June 24, 1969, Pascualita Barawel-Palo, who was then eighteen years old, met Soriano in Sitio Cambarwang, Barrio Adela, San Jose.
Soriano entered the house where she and her mother were gossiping and was looking for his missing carabao.
When informed no one could help, Soriano voluntarily boasted that he had committed robbery with rape against persons from D-6, taking a radio, ring, and clothes, and raping the woman.
Soriano’s boast included laughter and mocking remarks because the rape victim was Visayan, and Soriano allegedly alluded to her by describing her likeness to Lachica’s daughter.
Barawel-Palo delayed reporting due to fear of reprisal and later executed an affidavit on July 2, 1969 recounting Soriano’s admission.
On July 3, 1969, Felix Bentibano, Jr. and Elma Lachica executed sworn statements before a Municipal Judge, pointing to Soriano as a malefactor.
Based on the sworn statements, the police filed a complaint in the municipal court on July 3, 1969 for robbery with rape.

Appellant’s Defense

Soriano interposed alibi and denied acquaintance with Marigmen, insisting that he was not involved in the rape or robbery.
He testified that he was in Barrio Bubog on June 14, 1969 borrowing money and buying rice, and that he left Bubog with his wife, mother-in-law, and son on June 16 arriving at Santa Fe by one-thirty in the afternoon.
He denied raping Elma on the evening of June 15 and disclaimed participation in the robbery.
He testified he had never met Felix Bentibano, Jr. and Elma Lachica, while confirming he knew Elma’s father whose farm adjoined his farm.
He testified that Patrolman Beato Punzalan visited him on June 19, 1969 regarding his carabao, and that Bentibano and his wife boxed him when he tried to retrieve the animal.
He claimed he did not report to the police because of pains from blows inflicted on his ears.
Soriano’s wife corroborated his alibi, stating they went to Bubog to borrow “one cavan” of rice, while Soriano himself described the transaction as borrowing money to buy rice.
An aunt of Soriano’s wife corroborated the alibi but was unable to identify the family name of Linda’s family.

Court’s Evaluation of Alibi

The Court held that Soriano’s alibi, corroborated by his wife and her aunt, could not prevail over the unequivocal identification by the spouses and by Mrs. Palo.
The Court considered that Barrio Bubog was adjacent to Barrio Central, and that there was a regular jeepney line between them.
The Court reasoned that it was possible for Soriano to travel from Barrio Bubog to Sitio D-6 in Barrio Central on June 15, 1969