GR 45280 81; (June, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-45280-81 June 11, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX GARCIA and PASTOR MINDAROZA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The appellants, Felix Garcia and Pastor Mindaroza, were charged with two counts of rape against fourteen-year-old Lydia Catibog. The prosecution evidence established that on June 1, 1975, in San Pablo City, the two, who were known to the victim, dragged her to a secluded banana plantation. Threatening her with a knife, they took turns in having carnal knowledge of her against her will, with one holding her feet while the other assaulted her. The victim reported the incident days later, and a medical examination confirmed a healed hymenal laceration. The defense, primarily through Garcia, claimed a romantic relationship with the victim, alleging consensual encounters and framing the accusation as revenge for his brother’s prior case against the victim’s family.
ISSUE
The core issues for automatic review were the correctness of the convictions and the propriety of the death penalties imposed by the trial court for both accused.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court found the victim’s testimony credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, thereby establishing the crimes beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of a sweetheart relationship was rejected for being inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence. On the penalty, the trial court erred in imposing death. The circumstance that the rape was committed by two or more persons is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating, circumstance under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the use of a deadly weapon was also a qualifying circumstance, the rapes were properly qualified, but no generic aggravating circumstance was present to justify the supreme penalty. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Thus, each appellant was sentenced to two reclusion perpetuas and ordered to pay indemnity. The Court also corrected the procedural error regarding Mindaroza, who was a minor at the time of the crime; the trial court improperly suspended his sentence under the Child and Youth Welfare Code for such a grave offense, warranting the imposition of the correct penalty.