GR L 35491; (May, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35491 May 27, 1983
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMERITO MENDEZ alias Emer and PATERNO LESULA alias Pating, accused-appellants.
FACTS
In the evening of July 7, 1971, two armed men entered the house of spouses Saturnino Pacomios and Julia Lanzaderos in Loon, Bohol. The intruders, one tall and fair and the other short and dark, hogtied the five occupants, including the grandchildren Rufa and Susana Sombrio. They ransacked the house, stealing cash and valuables. Rufa, 24, testified the tall man took her to the sala and, under threat of death, raped her. Susana, 17, testified the short man took her to a bedroom, gagged her, and raped her. Medical examinations the next day confirmed recent sexual intercourse and fresh hymenal lacerations.
The crime was reported, but the perpetrators remained unidentified until July 26, 1971, when Rufa and Susana saw Paterno Lesula in their barrio and pointed him out to their uncle. On August 1, at a police lineup, Rufa identified Emerito Mendez as the tall assailant. Both accused were charged. During the trial, the sisters positively identified Mendez and Lesula as their rapists. The defense presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere during the incident and victims of a political frame-up.
ISSUE
Was the identity of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime of robbery with double rape proven beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the positive identification by the victims was credible and sufficient to establish the accused’s identity beyond reasonable doubt. The malefactors did not wear masks, and the house was illuminated by a kerosene lamp and the flashlights used by the perpetrators themselves during the robbery. This provided adequate lighting for the victims, who were in close proximity to their assailants during the prolonged criminal acts, to clearly observe and remember their facial features.
The Court found the alibis of the accused weak and unsubstantiated. It also rejected the claim of a political frame-up, noting the victims had no ill motive to falsely accuse the appellants. The defense’s admission of the corpus delicti (the fact that the crime was committed) coupled with the strong, consistent, and categorical eyewitness testimony overcame the presumption of innocence. The crime was properly classified as the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, aggravated by dwelling and nocturnity. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each appellant was affirmed.