People v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The case involves an appeal by Federico Conrado against his conviction for rape. The original complaint alleged that on January 13, 1982, in Malasiqui, Pangasinan, Melquiades Fernandez and Federico Conrado, conspiring and mutually assisting each other, forcibly and against her will had sexual intercourse with Rebecca M. Soriano, a 15-year-old virgin. The victim testified that after she finished bathing, the two accused entered the bathroom, tied her neck with a cloth, and then both sexually assaulted her. Following the assault, Fernandez applied mud to her vagina. She immediately reported the incident to her employer's daughter, Amelita Malong, who corroborated seeing mud on the victim's lower body. 2. Procedural History: The accused, Fernandez and Conrado, pleaded not guilty and underwent trial. The prosecution presented the victim, Amelita Malong, Teofilo Malong (employer), and a Medico-Legal Certificate from Dr. Wilfredo Claudio, which noted hymenal lacerations and the presence of a dead sperm cell. The defense offered alibis for both accused, claiming they were not at the scene. The trial court found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt, noting the weakness of alibi against positive identification and the proximity of the accused's claimed locations to the crime scene. The court sentenced each to two death penalties, indemnification, and costs, finding the crime aggravated by cruelty or ignominy. The accused appealed this decision. 3. The Petition: Federico Conrado appealed the trial court's decision, primarily seeking to reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. His assigned errors challenged the conviction for two crimes of rape, the finding of aggravating circumstances of cruelty or ignominy, and the imposition of two death penalties. Melquiades Fernandez withdrew his appeal due to the 1987 Constitution's provision reducing death penalties to reclusion perpetua. Conrado, despite advice to withdraw, insisted on his appeal. The Supreme Court, while finding no merit in the appeal, modified the sentence, reducing the death penalties to reclusion perpetua for each of the two rape convictions and increasing the indemnity to P20,000.00, affirming the conviction as modified.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused were correctly convicted of two crimes of rape despite only one rape being alleged in the complaint. Whether the aggravating circumstance of ignominy was properly appreciated. Whether the imposition of two death penalties was correct.
Ruling
The appealed judgment, as modified, is AFFIRMED. The conviction for two crimes of rape is sustained due to conspiracy. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy is appreciated. The death penalties are reduced to reclusion perpetua, and the indemnity is increased to P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction for two crimes of rape: The Court held that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused for two crimes of rape. Although the criminal complaint alleged only one crime of rape, the rule against duplicity of offenses is a ground for a motion to quash, and failure to raise this issue before conviction constitutes a waiver. More importantly, the Court found that conspiracy existed between the accused. They entered the bathroom together, one restrained the victim while the other committed the act, and then the other accused also committed the act. This conspiracy rendered each of them liable for both acts of rape, as each cooperated in the commission of the rape perpetrated by the other. The Court cited a long line of cases holding that in multiple rape cases with conspiracy, each defendant is responsible for the rape committed by the others. On the issue of the aggravating circumstance of ignominy: The Court affirmed the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of ignominy. The victim's testimony that mud was plastered on her vagina, though not found by the examining physician, was corroborated by Amelita Malong, who saw mud on the victim's private part immediately after the incident. The Court reasoned that the delay between the incident and the medical examination (almost two hours) could account for the absence of mud, as it might have washed off. The Court found it difficult to believe that the victim would fabricate such a detail, which would cause her humiliation. The act of plastering mud on the victim's vagina was considered an act of ignominy, demonstrating greater perversity by the offenders. On the issue of the imposition of two death penalties: The Court acknowledged that the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty based on Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed by two or more persons, and Article 63, which mandates the application of the greater penalty when an aggravating circumstance is present. However, the Court noted that under Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty is no longer imposable and is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Therefore, the sentence on appellant Federico Conrado had to be reduced to two penalties of reclusion perpetua. The indemnity to be paid to the victim was also increased to P20,000.00 in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Conspiracy renders each accused liable for all offenses committed by the co-conspirators. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy may be appreciated even if physical evidence is absent, provided there is credible testimony. The penalty for rape committed by two or more persons, aggravated by ignominy, is reclusion perpetua to death, with the greater penalty applied in the absence of mitigating circumstances. Under the 1987 Constitution, death penalties are reduced to reclusion perpetua.