Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- CA-G.R. CR. HC. No. 020707

Luis Ablaza

Accused-Appellant.

x---------------------------------------------x

ON APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 10TH JUDICIAL

REGIONAL BRANCH 13 OF QUEZON CITY

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

Submitted by

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

OSG Building, 134 Amorsolo St.,

Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines

GAITE, John Glim F. 1C

SUBJECT INDEX

Page No. Contents

3 Table of Authorities

4 Prefatory Statement

Jurisdictional Statement

5 Statement of Issues

Statement of the Case – Facts

6 Statement of the Case – Procedural Histo.

7 Counter-Arguments/Discussion

17 Prayer

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Order of Appearance)

Cases

People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640, 657-658.

People v. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009.

People v. Bandin, G.R. No. 176531, April 24, 2009.

People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010.

People v. Garte, G.R. No. 176152, November 25, 2008.

People v. Cinco, G.R. No. 186460, December 4, 2009.

People v. Aboganda, G.R. No. 183565, April 8, 2009.

People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 179190, January 20, 2009.

People, v. Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009.

People v. Baylen, G.R. No. 135242, April 19, 2002.

People v. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527.

People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980.

People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009.

People v. Quilaton, G.R. No. L-69666 January 23, 1992.

People v. Lascuna, G.R. No. 90626, August 18, 1993.

People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 123186, July 9, 1998.

People v. Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489, 506-507.

People v. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173.

People v. Bautista, 49 Phil. 389.

People v. Manzano, G.R. No. 108293, September 15, 1995.

People v. De la Cruz, 229 SCRA 754.

Mupas v. People, G.R. No. 172834, February 6, 2008.

People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 782-783.

People v. Balacano, G.R. no. 127156, July 31, 2000.

STATUTES/LAWS

Revised Penal Code, Arts. 14, 266-A, 293, 294 par. (1).

Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2).

Republict Act No. 9346.

WORK CITED

Reyes, L. Revised Penal Code Book I. 17th ed. (2008).

3

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

People of the Philippines

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus- CA-G.R. CR. HC. No. 020707

Luis Ablaza

Accused-Appellant.

x---------------------------------------------x

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

The Office of the Solicitor-General, representing the People of the Philippines,

submits this brief to answer the allegations raised by herein accused-appellant in

his Appeal to this Court.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Appellant Luis Marione Ablaza appeals from the May 21, 2011 final judgment

promulgated by Judge Corazon Fernando of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial

Regional Branch 13, Quezon City, finding him and two others guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape. As stated in People v. Mateo1,

pursuant to the Revised Rules in Criminal Procedure, in cases when the penalty

imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the

Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction.

1 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 657-658.

4

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

The issues enumerated below are discussed by the accused-appellant, Luis

Marione P. Ablaza in his Appellant’s Brief and are now subject for review by this

Court:

I. Did the trial court err in giving full weight and credence to the testimony

of private complainant?

II. Did the trial court err in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime charged?

III. Did the trial court err in finding that there was conspiracy between

accused-appellant and the other accused in Crim. Case No. 12345?

IV. Did the trial court err in declaring that accused-appellant conspired with

the others in committing the crime of Robbery with Rape?

V. Did the trial court err in disregarding accused-appellant’s defense of

alibi?

VI. Did the trial court err in appreciating the circumstances of dwelling,

nighttime, and treachery?

VII. Did the trial court err in convicting accused-appellant despite the

constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence?

VIII. Did the trial court err in imposing the penalty of death?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I. Facts

On August 20, 2010, Maricar Jimenez was robbed of her personal belongings

by Marianito Ballesteros, Miguel Escueta, and Luis Marione Ablaza, herein accused-

appellant. Ballesteros also raped Jimenez while the two other accused prevented the

victim from escaping.

On that fateful night, Maricar Jimenez, a professional accountant, was driving

her Honda CRV with plate number XKY 232 in Guerrero St., C.P. Garcia, Quezon City.

She was forced to stop because the left rear tire of her car blew out. No other cars

were in sight to help the woman. It is at this very moment when the three accused

suddenly came out of nowhere and attacked the victim. Ballesteros pointed his gun

at her and shouted: "Bumaba ka dyan!” while Escueta and Ablaza ransacked her car.

The suspects took the following items: a laptop computer Macbook Pro, iPhone

5

cellphone, Louis Vuitton Retiro PM bag and wallet, diamond earrings and tennis

bracelet, all estimated to be worth Php 200,000, and Php14,500 in cash.2

After the said robbery, the three accused dragged her to a nearby grassy area

where she was abused and raped by Ballesteros. Escueta and Ablaza were holding

her hands and feet to prevent defense and escape by the victim. Ballesteros also hit

the victim on her face several times which resulted to her losing consciousness. She

was thereafter rushed to the hospital by Mrs. Encarnacion Evangelista and Mr.

Roger Evangelista, residents of 32 Guerrero St., C.P. Garcia, Quezon City, after

finding Jimenez in the talahiban just across their house. They were able to find the

victim because they saw three men leaving the scene with one of the suspect’s penis

still in plain view. The couple all became more suspicious because the Honda CRV

was left behind with no one inside.3

II. Course of Proceedings and Disposition in the Trial Court

Maricar Jimenez filed a criminal complaint for robbery with rape on

September 30, 2010 against the three perpetrators. The suspects were arrested on

three separate occasions about a month after the incident.4 The complaint states

that she was robbed and was raped afterwards.5 Jimenez was subjected to a medico-

legal examination by Dr. Ma. Melina Roque of the National Bureau of Investigation

(NBI). The results of the examination were submitted and presented to the court on

February 23, 2011.6

The Quezon City Prosecutor filed the Information before the Regional Trial

Court, 10th Judicial Regional Branch 13, of Quezon City. The accusatory portion

reads:

“That on or about 9:00 p.m. on August 20, 2010 in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a knife, and gun,

conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, forced

open the black Honda CRV with Plate No. XKY 232 owned by Maricar  G. Jimenez and by means

of violence against or intimidation of persons that is, at gun point, took, stole and carried away

the following items: a laptop computer Macbook Pro, iPhone cellphone, Louis Vuitton Retiro PM

bag and wallet, diamond earrings and tennis bracelet, all estimated to be worth Php 200,000,

and Php14,500 in cash, all belonging to and taken against the will of said WANDA S. RIVERA, all

to the latter's damage and prejudice; that on the occasion of the commission of the above

offense, said accused by virtue of their conspiracy, by means of force and intimidation, did then

and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of the said Maricar G.

Jimenez, a 22-year old woman, against her will.

2 Records, pp. 47-58.3 TSN, February 18, 2011, pp. 13-16.4 Records, pp. 5-9.5 Id., pp. 3-4.6 Exhibit “A”, records, p. 60.

6

 

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 12345.

The court proceeding commenced on January 30, 2011. The prosecution

presented four witnesses: Jimenez, Roger and Encarnacion Evangelista, and Dr.

Roque. Jimenez went to the witness stand on three separate occasions specifically

on February 14, 2011, March 7, 2011 and April 1, 2011.

The defense presented the defense of alibi and denial. They claimed that they

did not know each other. Ballesteros claimed that he could not have been at the

scene of the crime because he was reviewing for an exam in his house at

Manggahan, Fairview, Quezon City.7 Ablaza’s excuse was that he was taking care of

his sick grandmother who was confined at the Philippine General Hospital.8 Escueta

claimed to have slept early on the night in question at his house somewhere in

Cubao.9 All three presented witnesses to corroborate their respective alibis.

After all the evidence and witnesses of the parties were presented, Judge

Fernando of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Regional Branch 13, of Quezon

City promulgated its final decision on May 21, 2011. The dispositive portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused x x x GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the

crime of Robbery with Rape, committed with the use of a deadly weapon and with aggravating

circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and treachery, without any mitigating circumstance to

offset the same. Considering that there was conspiracy among the accused, they are hereby

sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and its accessory penalties; to pay Maricar G. Jimenez

the following amounts: P250,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00

as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.” 

Herein accused-appellant filed his appeal before the Court of Appeals on May

26, 2011.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS and AUTHORITIES

I. The RTC was correct in giving full weight and credence to the testimony

of the private complainant.

The RTC’s decision was based on the clear and convincing testimony of the

victim herself, supported by the medical examination conducted by Dr. Ma. Melina

7 TSN, January 28, 2011, pp. 20-23.8 Id., February 5, 2011, pp. 28-30.9 Id., February 10, 2011, pp. 35-40.

7

Roque of the NBI. The result of the medico-legal examination is submitted in this

report:

Genitalia: external examination = abundant pubic hair, nulliparous outlet, no bleeding note.

= hymen (+) complete, old healed laceration at 4 and 7 o'clock.

speculum = vaginal wall no erosions/laceration.

cervix = pinkish, (+) whitish discharge.

Internal examination = admits 1 finger with ease,

cervix = closed, small midline, firm, non-tender on wriggling,

uterus = small,

adnexae = negative for tenderness.

Positive for spermatozoa (emphasis supplied)

The results of the said exam proved that not only robbery was committed but

also rape, as alleged by the victim. Moreover, the allegation that the RTC committed

a mistake in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of Jimenez is

untenable. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that “corroboration of the

victim’s testimony is not a necessary condition to a conviction for rape where the

victim’s testimony is credible, or clear and convincing or sufficient to prove the

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The weight and sufficiency of

evidence are determined by the credibility, nature, and quality of the testimony.”10

In this case, Jimenez did not waiver in his accusation that Ablaza along with the

three other accused committed the offense. The veracity of Ms. Maricar Jimenez’

testimony must not be doubted considering her straightforward and unflinching

answers to the questions presented to her during cross-examination, which

evidently reflect her integrity and trustworthiness:

x x x

“Atty. Kalaw:

Q: Can you describe to us what happened after the three accused supposedly dragged you to a talahiban?

A: The man with the gun raped me while the other two was [sic] holding my hands. I can’t break free. After hitting me several times with the gun, I fainted.

Q: Ms. Jimenez, how can you possibly say that the three were the ones who robbed and raped you when the place is actually a dimly lit area along C.P. Garcia Ave.?

A: The place is still lit and my car has lights inside so I could actually see their faces well-enough to identify them. Besides, I’ve heard their voices while they were talking to each other. If it’s possible for them to see my LV (Louis Vuitton), my credit cards, Iphone, diamond earrings, and my laptop, I think it’s also very possible for me to see and observe the people who robbed me and raped me. “11

x x x

10 People v. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009.11 TSN, March 7, 2011, pp. 60-65.

8

Even assuming that the victim did not actually see the suspects’ faces, it is

still possible to convict the accused on the basis of the victim’s identification of their

voices.12

Furthermore, accused-appellant’s allegation that the victim executed sworn

statements that were incongruent should not lie. In People v. Alfredo,13 the Supreme

Court ruled that testimony in open court has greater weight than affidavits. The

Court said:

“Discrepancies do not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, for affidavits, being

taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for lack of searching

inquiries by the investigating officer or due to partial suggestions, and are, thus,

generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.” (emphasis

supplied)

In People v. Garte,14 the Supreme Court likewise ruled that “inconsistencies

found in the ex parte affidavits do not necessarily downgrade the credibility of a

witness. They are products sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of

want of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable

to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.” Despite

the alleged substantial differences from the affidavit and testimony, the victim’s

statement must stand because the sworn testimony was clear, natural, convincing,

and truthful and thus, should be given greater weight by the court.

The accused-appellant also alleged that the victim’s testimony is riddled with

inconsistencies. This argument is untenable as it has been held by the Supreme

Court that minor inconsistencies in the rape victim’s testimony cannot be used

against the credibility of the latter. The Court even said in People v. Malate15 that

“minor and insignificant inconsistencies tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the

credibility of the witness for they show that his testimony was not contrived or

rehearsed. Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the

credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest

spontaneity and lack of scheming.” In the instant case, the testimony of the victim

supported by the result of the medico-legal examination was proven to be sufficient

to be the basis for conviction. There might have been inconsistencies as to her real

age and as to the exact time of the commission of the offense, but the fact remains,

as attested by Ms. Jimenez herself, that she was raped and the three were the

12 People v. Bandin, G.R. No. 176531, April 24, 2009.13 G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010; citing People v. Sara, G.R. No. 140618, December 10, 2003, 417 SCRA 431, 4430.14 G.R. No. 176152, November 25, 2008.15 Supra note 10.

9

perpetrators of such a deplorable human act. In the recent case of People v. Cinco,16

the Court even said that failure to specify the exact time of the perpetration of a

crime will not necessarily make the information defective. It said that:

“The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime

because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman. It is sufficient that the complaint

or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the

date of its actual commission.”

Furthermore, the accused-appellant is questioning these inconsistencies in

the time of the commission of the offense only on appeal. It has been consistently

held that questions with regard to this should be raised before entering an appeal;

otherwise it would be considered a waiver. It is too late for the accused-appellant to

protest the inconsistencies in the time found in the Information against him.17

Finally, the accusation of the accused-appellant that the testimony of the

victim should not be given full credence on the basis that it was not filed

immediately after the commission of the crime should not stand because as the

Supreme Court ruled in the case of People v. Mahinay:18 “Delay in revealing the

commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape

never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently

bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the

offender’s making good his threats.” Rape is an assail and attack to the dignity of a

woman that it is always understood that victims might choose to delay the filing of a

complaint due to several considerations known only to her. Mere delay should never

be considered as tantamount to consent to rape, as it is incredible to even think and

believe that a woman would want a man to rape her.

II. The RTC did not err in finding that accused-appellant is guilty beyond

reasonable doubt.

The trial court has relied on the credible testimony of the victim supported

by the results of the medico-legal examination and the testimony of the two

witnesses presented by the prosecution. The prosecution was able to establish the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In rape cases, the testimony of the

16 G.R. No. 186460, December 4, 2009.17 People v. Aboganda, G.R. No. 183565, April 8, 2009; People v. Mauro, G.R. Nos. 140786-88, March 14, 2003, 399 SCRA 126.18 G.R. No. 179190, January 20, 2009.

10

victim is enough for a conviction as this crime is often committed in isolated areas,

thus it is only the victim who can give testimony as to what happened.19

In the instant case, the accused-appellant was charged and convicted of the

special complex crime of Robbery with Rape under par. 1 of Article 294 of the

Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The elements of Robbery under Art. 293 of the RPC are the following: (1)

personal property; (2) belonging to another; (3) unlawful taking of that property;

(4) taking with intent to gain; and (5) violence against or intimidation of any person,

or force upon anything.

The elements of Rape under par. 1 (a) of Art. 266-A of the Code are as

follows: (1) the offender is a man, (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of a

woman; and (3) the act is accomplished using force, threat, or intimidation.

Notably, the prosecution has sufficiently established the existence of the

foregoing elements and on the basis thereof, convicted the accused-appellant

together with the two other suspects, Marianito Ballesteros and Miguel Escueta. The

victim testified as witness on February 14, 2011 and gave a detailed narration on

what transpired in the evening of August 20, 2010. She was able to identify Luis

Marione Ablaza as among the three people who committed the crime.20 The

examination conducted by Dr. Ma. Melina Roque on August 22, 2010 showing that

there was the presence of spermatozoa also corroborated the allegation that rape

was indeed committed.21 The fact that the hymen is complete and the hymenal

laceration is already healed only two days after the commission of rape does not

negate the fact that it was actually committed. The slightest penetration of the labia

consummates the crime.22 Furthermore, the presence of spermatozoa on the

reproductive organ of the victim proves that there was penetration of vagina and

emission of semen, as it would be impossible for a woman’s reproductive organ to

produce or secrete such fluid.

Rape was committed by reason and on the occasion of robbery. The primary

intent of the accused is to rob the woman; therefore there are no separate crimes of

Robbery and Rape committed, but only the special complex crime of Robbery with

Rape under par. 1 of Art. 294 of the Code. The crime is also aggravated by the

19 People, v. Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009; People v. Resurreccion, G.R. No. 185389, July 7, 2009, 592 SCRA 269, 276; citing People v. Baylen, G.R. No. 135242, April 19, 2002, 381 SCRA 395, 404.20 TSN, February 14, 2011, pp. 51-56.21 Id. note 6.22 People v. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980.

11

circumstances of nighttime and treachery.23 The circumstance of dwelling was

mistakenly considered by the RTC since the crime was committed in the car and on

a nearby grassy area in Geronimo St., C.P. Garcia Ave. Quezon City, and not inside a

dwelling. The exclusion of dwelling notwithstanding, the penalty is still reclusion

perpetua to death24 because there are no mitigating circumstances to offset the

aggravating circumstances.

It is also important to note that it has been consistently held that the findings

of fact of the RTC are accorded great respect and are seldom disturbed on appeal

because the judge had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, and to

determine by their demeanor on the stand the probative value of their

testimonies.25 

III. There was conspiracy among the accused in Criminal Case No. 12345.

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that conspiracy need not be

proven by direct evidence that the perpetrators actually agreed to commit the crime

charged. It can be deduced from the conduct of all accused before, during and after

the commission of the offense, showing that they acted with a common purpose and

design.26

In the instant case, the victim positively identified that the three suddenly

came out of nowhere and while Ballesteros is pointing the gun at her, Ablaza and

Escueta were ransacking her car and taking her personal properties. The victim also

identified Ballesteros as the one who raped her while still pointing his gun at her,

with accused-appellant and Escueta holding her hands and feet to prevent escape.27

From the foregoing testimony with regard to the acts of all the accused during the

commission of the crime, the RTC correctly established that there was indeed

conspiracy between the three offenders.

IV. The accused-appellant conspired with the other accused in committing the crime charged.

23 REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 14.24 Id., Art. 294, par. (1).25 People v. Malate, supra note 10; People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009.26 People v. Quilaton, G.R. No. L-69666 January 23, 1992; People vs. Dalanon, 237 SCRA 607 (1993).27 TSN, February 14, 2011, p. 48.

12

Marianito Ballesteros was the one who actually raped the victim, but the

Supreme Court has consistently held that whenever homicide or rape is committed

by reason or on occasion of robbery the general rule is that all those who took part

therein are liable as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide or rape,

although some did not actually take part in the homicide or rape.28

In order for accused-appellant to be convicted of Robbery only, there must be

sufficient proof that he tried to prevent the rape. There is no such proof presented in

this case. It was consistently stated by Jimenez in her testimony that Ablaza was

holding her hands while Ballesteros was raping her. Accused-appellant did not only

have the knowledge, but he actually helped in the consummation of the rape. He did

not try to prevent it. The RTC therefore correctly declared that accused-appellant is

guilty of Robbery with Rape. In a long line of cases,29 the Court held that “once

conspiracy is established between the two (three) accused in the commission of the

crime of robbery, they would be both equally culpable for the rape committed by

one of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves that he

endeavored to prevent the other from committing rape.”

V. The accused-appellant’s defense of denial and alibi is weak and the RTC did not err in its decision to disregard it entirely.

In cases with Rape, alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in

light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. It is evidence negative in nature

and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility than the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence.30 It is not enough

that he can prove that he is in another place when the crime was committed, he

must prove that it would be physically impossible for him to be present in the crime

at the time of its commission. It must likewise be supported by credible witnesses.31

In this case, the records show that all three presented alibi as defense. Accused-

appellant alleged that he was taking care of his sick grandmother who was confined

at the Philippine General Hospital. This alibi, however, was not considered because

there was no proof that he was indeed at the hospital when the crime was

committed. No logbook nor nurses or doctors were presented to corroborate the

28 People v. Lascuna, G.R. No. 90626, August 18, 1993; People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 123186, July 9, 1998.29 People v. Salvatierra, 257 SCRA 489, 506-507 (1996); People v. Macam, 238 SCRA 306, 315; 317 (1994), citing People v. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173 (1982); People v. Bautista, 49 Phil. 389 (1926).30 People v. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010.31 Id.; People v. Garte, supra note 14; People v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 170360, March 12, 2009, 580 SCRA 666, 683.

13

alibi of Ablaza. Even assuming that he was actually at the hospital at 8 o’clock in the

evening, it is still very probable that he left and went to C.P. Garcia, Quezon City with

the other accused since it would not take more than an hour to arrive at the crime

scene from Philippine General Hospital. In addition, even if his alibi was supported

by his sister, Marian Ablaza-Locsin, the defense would still not stand as he was

positively identified by the victim. It has been held that alibi is all the more

unworthy of merit when supported by relatives, friends, comrades-in-arms, and not

by credible persons.32

It should also be stressed that the positive identification of the accused-

appellant by the victim should be given full faith and credit because there could be

no ill motive on her part to falsely testify against the accused given the fact that they

do not even know each other prior to the commission of the offense.33

VI. The RTC correctly appreciated the circumstances of nighttime and treachery* against the accused.

As stated earlier, dwelling was mistakenly appreciated by the RTC. Dwelling

has been defined as a building or structure exclusively devoted for residence or rest

and comfort.34 In this case, the crime was committed on a road or highway. With

regard to nighttime, the court correctly appreciated it. Nighttime was specifically

sought by the perpetrators in order to accomplish the crime. The street is dimly lit

and there are few cars that pass on that street. The scene is definitely conducive to

the perpetration of crimes. It might even be probable that they were the ones who

planted the sharp object on the road that made the tire of the victim’s car blew out.

The circumstance of treachery is also present in this crime. Treachery exists

only “when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing

means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially

to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the

offended party might make."35 In this case, the accused came out of nowhere

without the victim knowing of their presence. She could not defend herself as the

perpetrators are armed and greatly outnumbered her. The left rear tire of her car is

also damaged which would not help her to possibly escape from the offenders

easily. Thus, there is no risk to the accused that might arise and the execution of the

crime was insured given the circumstances. *There are some authorities, 32 People v. Manzano, G.R. No. 108293, September 15, 1995.33 People vs. de la Cruz, 229 SCRA 754 (1994).34 Citing Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book I, 17th ed. (2008).35 People v. Quilaton, G.R. No. 69666, January 23, 1992; citing Art. 14, par. (16) of the RPC.

14

however, which state that the aggravating circumstance of treachery is

absorbed in Robbery with Rape.36 (emphasis supplied)

Therefore it is important to note, that even if all of these circumstances are

not appreciated, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death should still be imposed

pursuant to par. 1, Art. 294 of the Code because of the absence of any mitigating

circumstances (emphasis supplied). R.A. 9346 was however passed in 2006

preventing the imposition of death penalty, and as a result the proper penalty would

now be reclusion perpetua with no eligibilty for parole.37

VII. The presumption of innocence was overcome by the prosecution’s proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused-appellant.

The Constitution38 guarantees that all accused must be presumed innocent

until the contrary is proved. In Mupas v. People,39 the Court held that:

“The prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the

quantum of evidence required. In addition, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and

must not rely on the weakness of the defense. In fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the

required quantum of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own

behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence shall prevail and hence, the accused shall be

acquitted. However, once the presumption of innocence is overcome, the defense bears the

burden of evidence to show reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused . Reasonable

doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability after

such investigation to let the mind rest each upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of

guilt is not demanded by the law to convict a criminal charge, but moral certainty is

required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.” (emphasis

supplied)

In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the guilt beyond

reasonable doubt of the three accused. The positive identification by the victim of

the perpetrators of the crime is sufficient to convict the suspects of the crime

charged. It is a rule that when a victim says she has been raped, she says in effect all

that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and if her testimony meets

the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.40

The prosecution was able to overcome that presumption of innocence not

only through the credibility of the testimony of the victim but also through the

36 Id. note 34.37 Republic Act No. 9346 (2006), Sec. 3.38 Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2).39 G.R. No. 172834, February 6, 2008; citing People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 782-783 (2000).40 People v. Balacano, G.R. no. 127156, July 31, 2000.

15

corroboration of the testimonies of Dr. Roque and the Evangelista spouses.

Furthermore as stated earlier, the accused’ defense of alibi is inherently weak and it

must crumble in the presence of a victim’s testimony which is clear, convincing,

natural, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. This

eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings, should be

enough to confirm the truth of her charges.41 

VIII. The RTC did not err in finding that accused-appellant is guilty of Robbery with Rape in accordance with par. 1, Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty should have been imposed pursuant to R.A. 9346.

The RTC should have reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua with no

eligibility for parole for the crime of Robbery with Rape. R.A. 9346 was passed into

law on June 24, 2006 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty. It repealed

R.A. 8177 (Act designating Death by Lethal Injection) and R.A. 7659 (Death Penalty

Law.42 Sec. 3 of RA 9346 provides that “person convicted of offenses punished

with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,

by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise

known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”

Despite this modification, the crime is still Robbery with Rape and its

heinousness is not and will never be diminished. (Emphasis supplied)

PRAYER

41 People v. Peralta, supra note 25. 42 Id. note 37, Sec. 1.

16

For the reasons stated above, the final decision of the Regional Trial Court,

10th Judicial Regional Branch 13, of Quezon City finding accused-appellant guilty of

Robbery with Rape should be affirmed. The penalty to be imposed should be

reduced pursuant to R.A. 9346.

Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted at Manila, Philippines on June 2, 2011.

Atty. John Glim F. Gaite

Associate Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General

OSG Building, 134 Amorsolo St.,

Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief has been mailed to Atty. Maricel Kalaw, the counsel for accused-appellant, on June 2, 2011.

By: Atty. John Glim F. Gaite

17