AM 3250 J 11; (April, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. Nos. 3250 EN BANC April 27, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE CODERES, BASILIO CLARK and JULIUS CLARK, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Jose Coderes, Basilio Clark, and Julius Clark were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Zambales of three counts of rape and each sentenced to three death penalties. The prosecution alleged that on January 13, 1970, in Olongapo City, the three accused, conspiring together, successively raped the 16-year-old complainant, Rosie de Villa. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimonies of de Villa and an eyewitness, Jose Dumlao, Jr. De Villa testified that after being forced into a taxi, she was taken to a secluded area where each accused raped her in turn while the others held her down. Dumlao, a deputy sheriff, testified he witnessed the incidents and intervened by firing shots to apprehend the accused.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court found the testimonies of the victim and the eyewitness credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the crime. The victim’s detailed account of the successive rapes, delivered while she was crying, and the corroboration by Dumlao, who was a disinterested witness as a law officer, constituted strong evidence. The Court rejected the defense’s claims of fabrication, noting the immediate reporting of the crime and the medical certificate, though negative for recent sexual contact, did not negate rape as it could be explained by the victim washing herself afterward. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and abuse of superior strength were properly appreciated.
However, due to the lack of the required votes for affirmance of the death penalty, the Court, applying the rule in cases of divisible votes, reduced the penalty for each accused to three penalties of reclusion perpetua. The civil liabilities imposed by the trial court were affirmed. A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing the victim’s intoxicated state, the negative medical findings, and questions regarding the eyewitness’s credibility, but this view did not prevail.