G.R. No. 130630 ; December 4, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BALIWANG BUMIDANG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Baliwang Bumidang was charged with rape. The prosecution evidence established that on September 29, 1996, at around 2:00 a.m., Bumidang, armed with a spear, forcibly entered the house of Melencio Imbat and his 56-year-old daughter, Gloria. Threatening to kill Melencio, he ordered the 80-year-old father to lie prone. Bumidang then entered Gloria’s room, poked the spear at her, forcibly removed her clothes, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The crime was committed in the presence of the helpless father. Bumidang escaped from jail during trial, leading the court to proceed with the trial in absentia.
The Regional Trial Court found Bumidang guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon. Appreciating the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and ignominy, the court imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant and imposing the death penalty despite his absence during trial and the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the damages. The legal logic is clear. First, trial in absentia is expressly authorized under the Rules of Court when an accused, after arraignment, escapes and fails to appear. The trial court properly proceeded, and the prosecution duly established the elements of rape through the credible, consistent, and categorical testimony of the victim, corroborated by her father and the medical findings. The use of a spear constituted the use of a deadly weapon.
Regarding the penalty, the Court affirmed the finding of the qualifying circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , warranting the range of reclusion perpetua to death. The Court, however, clarified the appreciation of aggravating circumstances. While dwelling was correctly appreciated, nighttime was not, as it was not shown to have been deliberately sought to facilitate the crime. Ignominy was also not properly appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance separate from the degrading manner inherent in the crime of rape itself. Nevertheless, with one aggravating circumstance (dwelling) present, the imposition of the death penalty remained justified under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, as the law prescribes death when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and an aggravating circumstance is present. The Court modified the awarded damages, increasing civil indemnity to ₱75,000 and awarding ₱50,000 as moral damages and ₱25,000 as exemplary damages.