GR L 48319; (July, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-48319-20 July 25, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EFRENIANO BALANE, alias Efren, ROMEO GIBA, ERIBERTO GIBA, alias Berting and INOCENTES BALANE — (at large), accused-appellants.
FACTS
In Criminal Case No. 411, accused-appellants Efreniano Balane, Eriberto Giba, and Romeo Giba were charged with Robbery with Multiple Rape. On April 10, 1974, they forcibly entered the house of Juan Camo in Bulan, Sorsogon. Armed with bolos, they stole cash and, on the occasion of the robbery, successively raped Estrella Camo, Juan’s daughter, against her will. The accused were positively identified by the victims despite attempts to conceal their faces.
In Criminal Case No. 412, all accused, including the fugitive Inocentes Balane, were charged. Later on the same night and in the same locality, the group broke into the house of Noli Grajo. They killed Grajo by hacking him and raped his common-law wife, Adelina Sambajon. The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to death for the complex and multiple crimes in both cases. The cases were consolidated for automatic review by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly convicted the appellants and imposed the death penalty for the crimes of Robbery with Multiple Rape and Rape with Homicide/Murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court found the testimonies of the victims credible and consistent, establishing the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged. The defense of alibi was properly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated. For Criminal Case No. 411, the crime committed was Robbery with Multiple Rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code. For Criminal Case No. 412, the Court, noting the trial judge’s finding that no robbery was proven in that incident, sustained the convictions for the separate crimes of Rape with Homicide for the Balanes and Murder for the Gibas, all acting in conspiracy.
However, the Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. This reduction was due to the lack of the necessary votes to affirm the capital punishment, as required by the prevailing rules. The indemnities and accessory penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed. Justice Aquino, in a separate opinion, dissented on the penalty, arguing that in Criminal Case No. 412, the crime should be classified as Robbery with Homicide and Rape, warranting the death penalty, but the majority imposed reclusion perpetua.