G.R. No. 225600 , July 07, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Denel Yumol y Timpug, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Denel Yumol y Timpug, was charged with Robbery with Rape. The Information alleged that on October 21, 2006, in Olongapo City, appellant, with intent to gain, poked a gun at the victim, AAA, a 16-year-old minor, and took her Nokia 3350 cellphone. On the occasion of the robbery, he committed sexual assault by undressing her and inserting his penis into her genitalia against her will. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented AAA, who testified that while walking home, appellant approached her from behind, poked a gun at her, declared a hold-up, and took her phone. He then forced her at gunpoint to a children’s park, where he kissed her, touched her breast, ordered her to undress, and threatened to shoot her when she refused. He forced her to mount him, inserted his penis into her vagina, and ordered her to perform fellatio while poking the gun at her head. Afterward, he took her remaining fifty-peso bill and sim card. She reported the incident to her parents and authorities. SPO1 Norberto Ventura and SPO3 Edgar Rivera testified that during follow-up, AAA identified appellant from pictures and later positively identified him in person based on his voice, pants, and physical description (fat, semi-bald, shorter left hand). Dr. Rolando Marfel Ortiz testified that AAA had injuries indicating struggle and hymenal lacerations from forceful entry.
The defense presented appellant as its lone witness, who denied the charges, claiming he was at home watching movies at the time and was mistakenly identified.
The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of Robbery with Rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, sentencing him to Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordering him to return the stolen items or their value and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, imposing interest on damages.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant’s conviction for robbery with rape?

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution established all elements of Robbery with Rape beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the taking of personal property (cellphone, money, sim card) with violence or intimidation (poking a gun); (2) the property belonged to another; (3) the taking was with intent to gain; and (4) rape was committed on the occasion thereof. AAA’s positive identification of appellant, corroborated by police testimony and medical findings, prevailed over his denial and alibi. The defense of mistaken identity failed, as AAA had a clear view and recognized appellant’s voice and clothing. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without parole eligibility and the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and restitution, with interest, were upheld.