GR 42149; (October, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42149 October 23, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EWALDO CABATLAO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused, Ewaldo Cabatlao, was charged with Robbery with Rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on September 20, 1970, in Baganga, Davao Oriental, Cabatlao and an unidentified accomplice, armed with deadly weapons, entered the house of spouses Quirico and Lolita Pandan. They hogtied Quirico, stole P200.00 from a trunk, and thereafter, both men successively raped Lolita Pandan against her will. The case proceeded against Cabatlao alone as his co-accused remained at large.
At trial, the prosecution presented the spouses, who positively identified Cabatlao as one of the perpetrators. Lolita Pandan gave a detailed account of the robbery and the subsequent rape, which was corroborated by a medical certificate showing her injuries. The defense relied on alibi, presenting witnesses who testified that Cabatlao was ill and at home during a drinking spree on the night of the crime. The trial court found the alibi weak and unconvincing due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses, and convicted Cabatlao, imposing the death penalty.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of Robbery with Rape and in imposing the death penalty.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Lolita Pandan, whose testimony was found to be spontaneous, natural, and sincere. The positive identification by the victims, made shortly after the incident, prevailed over the defense of alibi, which was not only inherently weak but also riddled with contradictions among the defense witnesses’ accounts. The Court reiterated the doctrine that alibi cannot stand against positive identification.
However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed. The crime was committed in 1970, and at that time, Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 , prescribed the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua for robbery with rape when committed by two or more persons. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty, as this was not the prescribed penalty under the law applicable at the time of the commission of the offense. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court sentenced Cabatlao to an indeterminate penalty of seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum. The civil indemnity was also increased.