G.R. No. 213216 , April 20, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ricky Arguta alias “Joel” and Wilson Cahipe alias “Siwit,” Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

On January 30, 1997, two Informations were filed charging Wilson Cahipe with two counts of Rape and Ricky Arguta with one count of Rape. The charges stemmed from incidents on December 5, 1996, in Tanauan, Leyte. The prosecution’s evidence established that around 8:00 PM on that date, AAA was intercepted by accused-appellants while on her way home. They threatened her with a bladed weapon, dragged her to a beach cottage, bound her hands and feet, and removed her clothes. Arguta first had carnal knowledge of her, after which Cahipe took his turn and raped her. An hour later, Cahipe returned, dragged AAA to a store owned by Lino Ostero, and raped her again before returning her to the cottage. AAA was found by her father the next day. A medico-legal report indicated AAA had healed and partially healed hymenal lacerations but was negative for spermatozoa. In their defense, accused-appellants denied the accusations and proffered alibis, claiming they were elsewhere at the time. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of Simple Rape in Crim. Case No. 97-02-76, sentencing them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. The RTC acquitted Cahipe of the second rape charge in Crim. Case No. 97-02-77 for insufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, adding an award for exemplary damages. Accused-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether accused-appellants’ conviction for Rape should be upheld.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is upheld but modified from Simple Rape to Qualified Rape. The Supreme Court found the appeal devoid of merit. The crime occurred during the effectivity of the old rape provision, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of rape were established: accused-appellants had carnal knowledge of AAA, accomplished through force and intimidation by threatening her with a bladed weapon. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts, giving weight to AAA’s categorical testimony over the accused-appellants’ denial and alibi. However, the Court modified the conviction, noting that the rape was committed by two persons with the use of a deadly weapon. Under Article 335, when rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, it is Qualified Rape. The presence of either circumstance qualifies the crime. Since both circumstances were present, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The monetary awards were affirmed with interest.