Case Summary (G.R. No. 133872)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Information filed: November 10, 1997.
Arraignment: November 26, 1997 (accused pleaded not guilty).
Trial court decision (guilty of robbery with rape; death penalty imposed): April 23, 1998.
Case submitted to the Supreme Court: deemed submitted November 5, 1999.
Supreme Court decision date: May 5, 2000. Because the decision date is after 1990, the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the constitutional framework applicable to the Court’s review.
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
Primary penal provisions and rules applied by the Court include: Revised Penal Code (Articles on rape and robbery, including Article 294 and Article 335(3)); Article 63 (on penalty imposition and the application of reclusion perpetua); the Indeterminate Sentence Law (for robbery); RA 7659 is referenced in relation to amendments affecting penalties; Civil Code Article 2230 in relation to damages. Jurisprudential doctrines regarding victim credibility, possession of stolen property, and the special complex crime of robbery with rape were applied in the Court’s analysis.
Prosecution Version of Facts
Prosecution evidence showed that on November 6, 1997, at about 7:30–9:00 p.m., the accused repeatedly entered the video shop where Amy was tending. On the last entry he allegedly jumped over the counter, put an arm around Amy’s neck and held a knife at her, increased karaoke volume to drown out her cries, dragged her to the kitchen, ordered her to undress, and raped her at knife point. During and after the rape, he allegedly struck and rendered her unconscious multiple times (banging her head on a wall and toilet bowl). After these assaults, he ransacked the premises and stole cash and jewelry belonging to Amy and her employer Ana. Amy was found bleeding and hospitalized; stolen items were later recovered in the accused’s possession.
Defense Version of Facts
Accused admitted entering the premises and taking valuables but denied consummated rape. He claimed a motive of theft conceived during the visit due to need for money, alleged that the encounter involved a struggle during which he held Amy’s hand to force cooperation, and described removing items from drawers and a jewelry box. He maintained he did not rape Amy and did not court her previously. He admitted possession of some items but denied stealing cash from the employer.
Trial Court Findings and Sentence
The trial court credited the victim’s testimony, accepted the accused’s judicial admission of theft, and concluded the elements of the special complex crime of robbery with rape were satisfied. The trial court also found the aggravating circumstance of dwelling applicable (reasoning that the shop doubled as a residence) and sentenced the accused to death, ordered indemnity and damages, and awarded actual damages for medical expenses.
Issues Presented on Appeal / Review
Primary issues raised by appellant: (1) the trial court failed to give due weight to medical testimony that allegedly negated consummated rape; (2) insufficiency of evidence to support robbery with rape conviction. The Supreme Court, exercising automatic review, also examined whether the crime constituted the special complex crime of robbery with rape or separate offenses, and whether dwelling was a valid aggravating circumstance.
Supreme Court’s Evaluation of Medical Evidence and Victim Credibility
The Court observed that the initial failure of the victim to tell examining physicians that rape was consummated does not necessarily negate rape. The Court relied on established jurisprudence recognizing a young woman’s reluctance to disclose sexual assault immediately, and on the victim’s subsequent sworn statement and consistent courtroom testimony. The examining physician’s explanation that the victim’s hymen was of an elastic type that could accommodate penetration without laceration was accepted. The Court concluded the victim’s testimony was credible and consistent, and that the medical findings did not undermine proof of consummated rape.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Rape and Robbery
The Court applied settled rules: a victim’s credible testimony that she was raped can suffice to establish the elements of rape, and the elements of robbery (ownership, unlawful taking, intent to gain, and force or intimidation) were proven by admission and physical evidence. The accused’s possession of stolen items recovered at arrest supported the presumption of authorship. Consequently, the Court found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape (with use of a deadly weapon) and robbery.
Nature of Offenses: Special Complex Crime vs. Separate Crimes
The Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s characterization of the crime as the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The Court analyzed the sequence of events and concluded that the rape preceded and was consummated before the idea and act of robbery: the rape was perpetrated first; asportation and looting occurred afterward and appeared to be an afterthought. Hence the factual circumstances did not match the definition of robbery with rape (where robbery is the original intent and rape accompanies it). The Court therefore convicted the accused of two separate offenses: rape (with a deadly weapon) and robbery.
Dwelling as an Aggravating Circumstance — Court’s Rationale
The trial court had treated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because the building contained a residence. The Supreme Court held dwelling aggravation applies only when the crime is committed in the offended party’s residence and the sanctity and privacy of a dwelling are invaded. Here the rape occurred on the ground floor that functioned as a commercial video rental shop open to the public; the upper floor was a residence. Because the rape occurred in the commercial portion—part of the public premises adjacent to kitchen and toilet used in connection
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 133872)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 387 Phil. 465, En Banc, G.R. No. 133872, decided May 05, 2000; Decision penned by Justice Panganiban.
- This matter is an automatic review of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. C-53066, dated April 23, 1998, which found accused-appellant Alexander TaAo y Caballero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape and imposed the death penalty.
- The Information was filed on November 10, 1997, by Asst. City Prosecutor Salvador C. Quimpo, charging robbery with rape allegedly committed on or about November 6, 1997 in Caloocan City.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on November 26, 1997, was defended by court-appointed counsel, and thereafter tried on the merits.
- The RTC convicted and sentenced appellant to death under Article 294, as amended, and ordered indemnities, actual damages, restoration of a gold ring of undetermined amount, moral and exemplary damages totaling P100,000.00, and costs.
- On automatic review, the Supreme Court modified the RTC Decision and recharacterized the crimes and penalties as set forth below.
Parties and Roles
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines, prosecution represented in brief by the Solicitor General and assistants (Ricardo P. Galvez, Asst. Sol. Gen. Maria Aurora P. Cortes, Solicitor Ronald B. de Luna).
- Accused-Appellant: Alexander TaAo y Caballero, person accused of robbery with rape; defense representation by Public Attorney’s Office attorneys (Arceli A. Rubin, Teresita S. de Guzman, Josephine M. Advento-Vito Cruz) and de oficio counsel at arraignment.
- Private complainant and principal victim: Amy de Guzman y Maquinana (sometimes referred as Amy de Guzman).
- Employer and property-owner victim: Ana Marinay y Sicyan (cousin and employer of Amy).
Statement of the Charge (Information)
- Accused was charged with robbery with rape allegedly committed on November 6, 1997, by means of force and intimidation upon Amy de Guzman, taking personal property totaling P16,000.00 (detailed items listed in the Information), and in the course thereof having sexual intercourse with Amy against her will and with the use of a bladed weapon.
Prosecution Version of Factual Events
- On November 6, 1997, around 7:30 p.m., Amy was tending a video rental shop at 153 Loreto Street, Morning Breeze Subdivision, Caloocan City, owned by her cousin-employer Ana Marinay.
- Accused Alexander TaAo, a relative of Ana’s husband Gerry Marinay, arrived and asked Amy about the times of Gerry’s and Ana’s arrival; he repeatedly went in and out of the shop.
- On his last entry, he jumped the counter, placed one arm around Amy’s neck and poked a knife at her neck with the other hand; Amy shouted for help but he turned up a karaoke to drown her cries.
- He dragged Amy to the kitchen, at knife point ordered her to undress and thereafter started raping her.
- Someone knocked at the shop door; he ordered Amy to put on her clothes and directed her upstairs to change as he intended to take her with him; he then pulled her down, punched her in the stomach thrice causing loss of balance, cursed, placed himself on top of her and poked the knife at her neck.
- Amy pleaded; TaAo momentarily put down the knife and kissed her; Amy grabbed the knife and concealed it under the stairs.
- TaAo became violent again, banged Amy’s head on the wall until she lost consciousness; when she regained consciousness she was in the toilet and he again banged her head on the toilet bowl several times causing another loss of consciousness.
- Thereafter TaAo went upstairs and looted valuables belonging to Ana; Amy lost her ring, bracelet and wristwatch during the incident.
- At about 9:00 p.m., Ana arrived, found the shop in disarray and the karaoke at full volume; she found Amy bathed in blood in the toilet.
- Barangay officials were called; Amy was brought to the MCU Hospital and later transferred to Jose P. Reyes Memorial Medical Center (JPRMMC) where she was confined for four days.
Defense Version of Factual Events
- Appellant’s account places him at the house/shop of his cousin Gerry Bautista Marinay on November 6, 1997 at around 7:40 p.m., where Amy greeted him as he was a frequent visitor.
- He says he drank water in the kitchen, bought cigarettes and returned to sit in front of Amy; after getting bored he went out and later returned.
- Appellant claims the thought of stealing struck him due to dire need for cash; he approached Amy, held her hands and asked her to lead him to where money and valuables were kept.
- According to him, Amy shouted; he covered her mouth; a struggle ensued and they fell and rolled on the floor; he subdued her and "forcibly" took her upstairs while holding her hand and proceeded to ransack drawers.
- He claims Amy freed herself, ran to the kitchen where she tried to get a knife but he wrestled it from her; he pushed Amy into the comfort room and shoved her head against tiles to muffle her.
- He alleges he took items including two wristwatches (including an Alba watch), a bracelet, clothes, a hair blower and a jewelry box with five rings, placed them in his pocket, and proceeded to his brother’s house in Taytay.
- He asserts he returned the jewelry box upon arrival of police and cousin but that the box was not presented in court; he denies raping Amy and claims he has a wife in Iloilo and a girlfriend in Manila.
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
- The RTC found the private complainant’s account candid, straightforward, spontaneous, frank and consistent despite rigorous cross-examination; the trial judge observed her deportment and found no indicia of fabrication or ill-motive.
- The RTC accepted the judicial admission by the accused that he stole valuables belonging to the private complainant and her employer.
- The trial court concluded the prosecution established the rape angle and, coupled with the admitted robbery, found the accused guilty of the complex crime of robbery with rape.
- The RTC appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, reasoning that the incident occurred at the residence of the private complainant’s employer which doubled as a video rental shop.
- Applying Article 63 RPC as amended by RA 7659 and Article 294 RPC as amended, the RTC imposed the death penalty, ordered indemnity to Amy of P50,000.00, actual damages of P2,687.65, restoration of an unrecovered gold ring of undetermined amount, and moral and exemplary damages totaling P100,000.00, plus costs.