G.R. No. 101793 December 7, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Melchor Olarte alias “Tolisok,” Roger “Nano” Vinearta, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of August 18, 1990, Pedro Noble and his wife Arlene were in their house and store in Bacolod City when three men knocked, asking to buy whisky. When told there was none, they asked for water. Pedro opened the door, holding a kerosene lamp. The men, claiming to be NPA members, forced their way in. One pointed a gun at the couple. Pedro recognized Melchor Olarte, a regular customer armed with a bolo, and described the gunman (later identified as Roger Vinearta) as about 18 years old, 5’2″ or 5’3″, with curly hair, dark complexion, and a mole below his right eye. The third man remained outside initially. Inside, the men tied Pedro’s arms and legs. As their two young children watched, Vinearta and the third man, at gunpoint, successively raped Arlene, who was three months pregnant, followed by Olarte. The men then ransacked the house and store, taking clothes, a wristwatch, and P200.00 cash, totaling P2,755.00, and left with a death threat if the crime was reported. The couple remained silent until three days later, when Olarte was arrested for illegal possession of firearms. During investigation, the robbery-rape was rumored, and Olarte was brought to the spouses, who identified him. Olarte named Vinearta and Felino Bagsik as companions. Only Olarte and Vinearta were tried, as Bagsik disappeared. The prosecution’s principal witnesses were the Noble spouses, who gave detailed accounts. The defense was alibi and denial.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellants, Melchor Olarte and Roger Vinearta, were correctly convicted of the crime of robbery with rape based on their positive identification by the victims.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Court found that both accused were positively identified by Pedro and Arlene Noble. Pedro clearly saw Vinearta’s face by the light of the kerosene lamp he was holding when he opened the door and later gave a description matching Vinearta. Arlene also clearly saw Vinearta upon entry. Olarte was easily recognized as a regular customer and townmate; his mask even fell off during the rape. The spouses had no motive to falsely accuse them. Their testimonies were consistent and detailed. The alibis of the accused were unconvincing and uncorroborated, and cannot prevail over positive identification. The crime falls under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 767, for robbery accompanied by rape committed by two or more persons armed with a deadly weapon (gun and bolo), punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. However, due to the constitutional proscription on the death penalty at the time, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Aggravating circumstances of craft, nocturnity, and dwelling cannot increase the penalty but are noted. The trial court’s decision is affirmed with the modification that accused-appellants are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 to Arlene Noble for the rape.