G.R. No. 104285 -86 May 21, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTOR ANGELES Y RAMOS, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Victor Angeles was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila of two separate offenses: rape and robbery against Analie Baltazar. The charges stemmed from events on February 24, 1989. The rape complaint alleged that by poking an ice pick at her, dragging her from her house, and bringing her to the Three Bird Lodge, Angeles succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Baltazar against her will. The robbery information alleged that Angeles, with two unknown companions, broke into Baltazar’s house, destroyed a door screen, and stole a Betamax and a typewriter valued at P15,500.00. The cases were initially raffled to different branches but were consolidated for joint trial. Angeles pleaded not guilty to both charges. He filed a motion to quash the rape complaint on double jeopardy grounds, arguing it was the same offense as the robbery for which he was already arraigned, but this was denied. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for each offense and ordered to pay damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not holding that the arraignment for robbery barred the prosecution for rape on double jeopardy grounds, and whether the appellant should have been charged with the special complex crime of robbery with rape instead of two separate offenses.
2. Whether the trial court erred in believing the testimony of Analie Baltazar and in not finding the appellant’s testimony more credible.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of double jeopardy did not apply because robbery and rape are not the same offense, nor is one included in the other. However, the Court found that the trial court erred in treating the crimes as two separate offenses. Based on the facts, where the robbery and rape were committed on the same occasion and formed part of a single criminal impulse, the appellant should have been convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, not two distinct crimes. Consequently, only one penalty should be imposed.
2. The Supreme Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of Analie Baltazar. Her testimony, corroborated by the medico-legal findings of a healed hymen laceration, was clear and consistent. The appellant’s defense of alibi was weak and uncorroborated. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court regarding the commission of the crimes.
The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court’s decision modified the trial court’s judgment. Appellant Victor Angeles was found guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the victim Analie Baltazar in the amounts of P50,000.00 for the rape and P15,000.00 for the unrecovered stolen items, plus costs.