G.R. No. 132470; April 27, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO SULTAN y LATO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of Juditha Bautista. On the evening of June 2, 1997, while walking home in Novaliches, Quezon City, she was accosted by accused-appellant Fernando Sultan, who pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and declared a hold-up. He forced her into his house, where he divested her of her jewelry and cash. He then, under threat with an ice pick, ordered her to undress and proceeded to rape her. After the act, he tied her up. He untied her later and raped her a second time. The following day, after pretending to agree to elope with him to secure her release, she reported the incident to her family. A plan was orchestrated where Juditha would meet Sultan for the supposed elopement, leading to his arrest by her brother, a police officer, and companions on a bus.
Accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming the sexual encounter was consensual. The trial court found Juditha’s testimony credible and convicted Sultan of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay restitution and moral damages. On appeal, Sultan questioned the credibility of the complainant and the lack of corroborative evidence for the robbery.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of robbery with rape based on the complainant’s testimony and in appreciating the second act of rape as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and damages. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Juditha Bautista’s credibility, noting that her detailed and consistent narration of events, including the forcible taking of property and the sexual assaults under threat, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the absence of physical evidence of robbery does not negate its commission, as the victim’s positive identification and testimony are adequate. The medico-legal findings, particularly a fresh laceration, corroborated the claim of recent sexual intercourse.
Regarding the penalty, the Court clarified that in the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the commission of multiple rapes is not expressly listed as an aggravating circumstance. Since the enumeration of aggravating circumstances in Article 14 is exclusive, the additional rape cannot be considered to justify the imposition of the maximum penalty. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly applied. The Court also modified the award of damages, adding P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto in line with prevailing jurisprudence.