G.R. No. 78358 January 23, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDUARDO DEBERTO, JUNITO ARENA, MARCIAL AMADO and RODULFO ONSEPEGO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

In the evening of June 7, 1985, in Jabonga, Agusan del Norte, appellants Eduardo Deberto and Junito Arena, armed and with faces partially covered, along with co-accused Marcial Amado, entered the house of the Monton family. They announced a hold-up, ordered the occupants to lie down, and robbed cash, cigarettes, a wristwatch, and a necklace. On the occasion of this robbery, Deberto and Arena, acting in conspiracy, took turns in raping Pilar Serrano, a married woman present in the house, inside a nearby residence under threat of a gun.
The accused were charged with robbery with rape. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Deberto and Arena of robbery with rape and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. Marcial Amado was convicted of robbery. Deberto and Arena appealed, arguing procedural errors and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. Amado later withdrew his appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting appellants despite their claims of (1) a violation of procedural due process in amending the information, (2) a violation of their constitutional rights during custodial investigation, and (3) serious contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the procedural issue, the amendment to the information, which merely specified the aggravating circumstance of “dwelling,” was a formal amendment that did not prejudice the substantial rights of the accused, as it did not alter the nature of the offense charged. Regarding the custodial investigation, any alleged defect was inconsequential because the appellants’ extrajudicial confessions were not utilized by the prosecution; the conviction was based on the credible testimonies of the victims and other evidence. Finally, the Court found no material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Minor inconsistencies on peripheral details, such as the exact manner of wearing masks, were deemed to enhance credibility rather than detract from it, as they indicated unrehearsed testimony. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect. The appellants’ alternative story—that they were forced by armed men to participate and were later given a share of the loot—was correctly rejected by the trial court as incredible and contrary to human experience. The Court modified the award of moral damages to the rape victim, increasing it to P30,000.00 from each appellant convicted of rape.