G.R. No. 185708; September 29, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JUANITO CABIGQUEZ y ALASTRA, Appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of March 27, 2001, AAA and her three minor children were sleeping inside her sari-sari store in Cagayan de Oro City. They were awakened by Romulo Grondiano, whose face was partially covered but was identified by AAA’s daughter, BBB, through a distinguishing mole. Grondiano, armed with a gun, ordered them to lie face down, robbed the store of cash and goods, and then left, warning them not to make noise. Immediately after, appellant Juanito Cabigquez, who was unmasked and identified by BBB, entered. Armed with the same gun, he forcibly stripped AAA and raped her from behind in the presence of her crying children, threatening to kill them if they reported the crime.
AAA reported the incident to the police but did not initially identify the perpetrators out of fear. A medical examination confirmed the presence of spermatozoa. The identities of Cabigquez and Grondiano were only revealed by BBB after both men were later arrested on unrelated drug charges, which made the family feel secure enough to come forward. Separate Informations for robbery and rape were subsequently filed against them.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of appellant Juanito Cabigquez for the crimes of robbery and rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the charge of robbery, the Court found that Cabigquez, by acting as a lookout while Grondiano committed the robbery, was a co-conspirator. His presence and participation facilitated the crime, making him equally liable as a principal under the Revised Penal Code. The positive identification by BBB, who had a clear view of him, was deemed credible and sufficient.
Regarding the rape charge, the Court upheld the finding that Cabigquez had carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation. The presence of a gun and the immediate threat following a violent robbery created an environment of overwhelming fear that vitiated AAA’s will to resist, rendering any physical resistance futile. The medical finding of spermatozoa corroborated the fact of sexual intercourse. The delay in revealing his identity was satisfactorily explained by the reasonable fear for their lives, which dissipated only after his arrest. The qualifying circumstance of rape committed in full view of AAA’s children was also properly appreciated, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which observed the witnesses’ demeanor and found their testimonies credible, consistent, and worthy of belief.