G.R. No. L-53542 December 14, 1987
The People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe Cirilo, Jr.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Bernabe Cirilo, Jr., along with Pedro Mendoza and Manuel Sosota, was charged with robbery with rape. The prosecution alleged that on September 26, 1971, the three armed and masked men entered the house of Asuncion Segovia, hogtied her, her 14-year-old daughter Maria, and Maria’s classmate Lourdes Fernandez, also 14, and ransacked the house. Mendoza and Sosota were accused of raping Maria, while Cirilo was accused of raping Lourdes and later Maria. The three accused were tried jointly based on common evidence, primarily the testimonies of the two victims and Segovia. Each accused presented a separate alibi.
After trial, the court dismissed the robbery charge and found no conspiracy. It acquitted Mendoza and Sosota for insufficient evidence but convicted Cirilo of two counts of simple rape, sentencing him to two penalties of reclusion perpetua. Cirilo appealed, arguing that since all three were tried jointly on the same evidence, the acquittal of his co-accused necessitates his own exoneration.

ISSUE

Whether the acquittal of the co-accused in a joint trial, based on the same body of evidence, mandates the acquittal of the remaining accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rejects the appellant’s “package deal” argument that a joint trial requires identical outcomes for all accused. The Court clarified that evidence in a joint trial does not operate with equal weight against each accused, especially where conspiracy was not established. The prosecution’s evidence was not identical for all three; the victims’ testimonies specifically implicated each accused differently. Maria testified she was raped by Mendoza, Sosota, and later Cirilo, while Lourdes testified she was raped only by Cirilo. Their identification of Cirilo was more convincing and distinct: they recognized him from a prior jeepney ride, and during the incident, they saw his face clearly when his mask fell, when he lit a cigarette, and by refrigerator light. He was positively identified by the victims just four days later, unlike his co-accused who were identified months afterward.
Given this positive identification, Cirilo’s alibi—that he was assisting a neighbor’s childbirth—was correctly deemed weak and insufficient to overcome the credible testimony of the victims, who had no motive to falsely accuse him. The acquittal of the co-accused, which cannot be reviewed due to double jeopardy, does not invalidate the separate and sufficient evidence establishing Cirilo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court modified the penalty, noting the crimes were qualified by dwelling and use of a deadly weapon, but imposed reclusion perpetua per crime due to the constitutional prohibition on the death penalty, and ordered civil indemnity to each victim.