G.R. Nos. 92961-64 September 1, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN C. MAGPAYO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Benjamin C. Magpayo was charged in four separate cases before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon: 1) Criminal Case No. 6436 for Rape of Lilibeth Bobis, a minor under 11, on April 10, 1988; 2) Criminal Case No. 6437 for Robbery of P27.00 from Lilibeth Bobis on the same date; 3) Criminal Case No. 6438 for Robbery of jewelry from Jacquiline Yutuc-Jaime in February 1988; and 4) Criminal Case No. 6443 for Forcible Abduction with Rape of Mara N. Chico, under 12, in November 1987. The trial court convicted him on all counts. In Criminal Case Nos. 6436 and 6443, he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay P30,000.00 moral damages to each victim. In Criminal Case Nos. 6437 and 6438, he was sentenced to indeterminate prison terms and ordered to indemnify the victims. The prosecution evidence established a common modus operandi: appellant would approach young girls, accuse them of a theft (e.g., of coffee), and under that pretext bring them to an isolated place (a cemetery or grassy area) where he would commit the crimes. The victims positively identified him. For Lilibeth Bobis, medical examination confirmed recent sexual intercourse. Appellant appealed, contesting the identification, the sufficiency of evidence for robbery, the application of Rule 130, Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence, and the award of damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, including the application of Rule 130, Section 34 regarding evidence of similar acts to prove identity, plan, or scheme.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The prosecution established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the young victims were clear and convincing, and they positively identified appellant as the perpetrator. The medical evidence for Lilibeth Bobis corroborated the rape. The trial court correctly applied Rule 130, Section 34 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, as the evidence of the separate crimes was admissible to show appellant’s plan, system, or modus operandi—specifically, approaching young girls, falsely accusing them of theft, and taking them to an isolated place to commit the offenses. The crimes, though jointly tried, were supported by separate proofs. The awards of moral damages and indemnity were proper. The conviction for robbery in Criminal Case Nos. 6437 and 6438 was also upheld as the elements of the crime were established.