GR 118133; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118133 ; February 28, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO BALACANAO y QUINES, et al., accused. ROBERTO SALVADOR y AGCAOILI, et al., accused-appellants.
FACTS
On June 24, 1990, armed men stormed the house of spouses Manuel and Estelita Calata in Amulung, Cagayan. The perpetrators robbed the couple and, during the incident, Estelita was raped by multiple assailants. The spouses initially identified several accused in sworn statements. The investigation expanded when an anonymous letter implicated Damaso Cabana, who, upon arrest, executed a confession naming his accomplices. An Information for Robbery with Rape was filed against fifteen individuals. Five accused evaded arrest, while eight pleaded not guilty. Cabana was discharged to become a state witness.
The prosecution established that two groups—one from Solana and one from Amulung—converged at the Calata residence. The assailants tied up Manuel Calata and neighbors who chanced upon the scene. They demanded money and stole various items. Estelita was forcibly dragged to a bedroom and successively raped by several accused. The defense generally interposed alibi, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident. The trial court convicted the accused-appellants, sentencing them to death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused-appellants for the complex crime of Robbery with Rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of the victims, particularly Estelita Calata, to be credible, positive, and consistent. Her identification of the appellants in open court was categorical. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over such positive identification, especially as the appellants failed to prove it was physically impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The Court also upheld Cabana’s testimony as a state witness, finding it corroborated on material points.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Information alleged the crime was committed “by the use of force, violence and intimidation of persons,” but it did not specifically allege that a deadly weapon was used or that the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, which is a qualifying circumstance for the imposition of the death penalty under the Revised Penal Code. The general allegation of being “armed with guns” in the narrative is insufficient to satisfy the strict requirement that qualifying circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the Information to afford the accused their right to be fully informed of the nature of the accusation. Consequently, the penalty was lowered to reclusion perpetua. Civil indemnity and moral damages were awarded to the victim.