People v. Cinco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 14, 1985, at approximately 9:00 PM, the house of Marianito Minok in Brgy. Hitomnog, Dagami, Leyte, was robbed by a group of accused, including David Cinco, Felicito Tuscano, Rogelio Nuiz, Teofilo Tuscano, Loreto Castro, Maning Ballanad, Willing Disabelle, Erning Tuscano, and unidentified companions. They stole cash, rice, a pig, a wristwatch, and bolos totaling P1,885.00. During the robbery, Jerico Buhalog, Edmundo Minok, and Rogelio Caseres were manhandled and sustained physical injuries. Subsequently, Gloria Cinco was separated from the boys, taken to a grassy area, beaten, stripped, and gang-raped by six of the accused: David Cinco, Felicito Tuscano, Rogelio Nuiz, Teofilo Tuscano, Maning Ballanad, and Willing Disabelle. Dr. Angel Cordero examined Gloria Cinco on April 16, 1985, and confirmed the rape and the infliction of hematoma on her right forearm around the time of the assault. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch XV, Palo, Leyte, found David Cinco, Rogelio Nuiz, Teofilo Tuscano, and Felicito Tuscano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of robbery in band with multiple rape and physical injuries, sentencing them to death. Loreto Castro was found guilty of robbery in band and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. Armando Cinco died during the pendency of the case, and others remained at large. The Petition: The four accused meted the death penalty (David Cinco, Rogelio Nuiz, Teofilo Tuscano, and Felicito Tuscano) appealed the decision, alleging errors in giving credence to the complainant's testimony, discrediting the defense witness, and finding them guilty of robbery with multiple rape and physical injuries.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the complainant, Gloria Cinco, regarding her identification of the appellants as her rapists. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of the defense witness, Francisco Justo, who supported the alibi of some appellants. Whether the trial court erred in finding the appellants guilty of robbery with multiple rape and physical injuries.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of David Cinco, Rogelio Nuiz, Teofilo Tuscano, and Felicito Tuscano for the crime of robbery in band with multiple rape. The death penalty imposed by the trial court was commuted to reclusion perpetua, and each appellant was ordered to pay increased damages to Gloria Cinco. The conviction of Loreto Castro for robbery in band was also affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of identification and credibility of Gloria Cinco: The Court found no error in giving credence to Gloria Cinco's testimony. The appellants' claim that she could not have recognized them in the dark was countered by the fact that it was a moonlit night, providing ample illumination. Furthermore, the accused made no attempt to conceal their identities. The Court also noted that a rape victim would naturally strive to identify her attackers. Gloria's explanation for her subsequent lack of resistance – that she was too weak after struggling with the first attacker – was deemed plausible. Her credibility was further bolstered by the corroboration of medical findings and the absence of any motive to falsely implicate the accused, given her status as a married woman with a family. The Court reiterated that a woman in such a situation would not publicly admit to such abuse unless it were the truth, citing People vs. Valdez and People vs. Gan. On the issue of alibi: The Court found the alibis of the appellants to be unconvincing and lacking in credibility. David Cinco, Teofilo Tuscano, and Felicito Tuscano claimed to be making copra in Barangay Macaalang, which is only two kilometers away from Barangay Hitomnog, the crime scene, and connected by a foot path. No evidence was presented to show the impossibility of their presence at the crime scene. Rogelio Nuiz's alibi of being in Tacloban City was uncorroborated. The Court reiterated the principle that alibi is the weakest defense and must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt about the accused's physical impossibility of being present at the crime scene, citing People vs. Sato. In the face of positive identification, alibi crumbles. On the issue of guilt for robbery with multiple rape and physical injuries: The Court found the appellants' allegation that they were not seen entering and carting away items from the house to be without merit. They were positively identified as part of the group that committed the robbery. As co-conspirators in a robbery by band, they are equally guilty with those who actually committed the acts. The Court applied the principle that in robbery by a band, all members are presumed to be conspirators in the assaults committed by the band, unless they prove they attempted to prevent the assault, citing People vs. Bazar. The Court affirmed their conviction for robbery in band with multiple rape, noting that under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 77, when robbery is accompanied with rape and committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. However, due to the 1987 Constitution, the death penalty was commuted to reclusion perpetua.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for robbery in band with multiple rape, reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua, and emphasized that alibi is a weak defense when faced with positive identification. It also clarified that all members of a band committing robbery are presumed conspirators unless they prove they attempted to prevent assaults.