G.R. No. 222180 November 22, 2017
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Eleuterio Bragat, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

On February 9, 2005, at around 7:00 p.m., spouses AAA and BBB were in their home when four armed, masked men, including appellant Eleuterio Bragat, forcibly entered. The intruders hogtied the couple, demanded money, and assaulted BBB. Appellant then brought AAA to the back of the kitchen. Despite her resistance and plea that she was menstruating, appellant pointed a gun at her, threatened to kill her family, and proceeded to rape her. Following the rape, the robbers took ₱600.00 and a pair of gold earrings worth ₱3,000.00 from the spouses before fleeing. AAA was medically examined the next day, but sperm identification tests yielded negative results, which the examining doctor attributed to factors like post-assault washing or the victim’s menstrual condition.
Appellant denied the charges, presenting an alibi that he was at his employer’s house in a different town at the time of the incident. He claimed he was arbitrarily arrested after being pointed out by AAA. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification to the damages awarded, prompting this final appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of AAA to be credible, categorical, and consistent. Her positive identification of appellant, whom she saw when he removed his bonnet, was deemed reliable and sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the testimony of a rape victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction. The negative sperm identification result did not negate the rape, as the medical explanation provided valid reasons for the absence of physical evidence, which is not an essential element of the crime.
Regarding the alibi, the Court ruled it must be rejected as it was not physically impossible for appellant to have been at the crime scene. His defense was uncorroborated and could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification. The crime committed was correctly classified as the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as the rape was committed by reason of the robbery. All elements of both crimes were proven: the taking of personal property with intent to gain through force, and the carnal knowledge of AAA through force and intimidation on the occasion of that robbery. The penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole was properly imposed, and the awarded damages were affirmed with modification.