People v. Precioso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 6, 1985, at approximately 9:30 p.m., four armed men, their faces covered, entered the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Rafael Galvadores. They forcibly took cash and valuables totaling P30,000.00. During the incident, the accused allegedly committed multiple acts of rape against Leah Alimpoos and Teresita Pescador, both minors. Procedural History: The accused, Rolando Precioso, alias "Bodot," and Gerardo Monforte, were charged with robbery in band with multiple rape. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7 at Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, convicted both accused and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnities and damages. The Petition: Accused-appellants Rolando Precioso and Gerardo Monforte appealed their conviction, arguing that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the identification by the victims was flawed, and that the complainants had no motive to falsely accuse them.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the rape victims positively identified the accused-appellants. Whether the defense of alibi is tenable. Whether the crime charged is correctly denominated as "robbery in band with multiple rape."
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellants for robbery with rape, modifying the awards for indemnification. The Court held that the crime is robbery with rape, with "band" being a generic aggravating circumstance, and not a composite crime. The penalty imposed by the trial court of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The indemnification for the rape victims was increased.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellants and positive identification: The Court found that the prosecution witnesses testified clearly and consistently, and their testimonies were mutually corroborative and confirmed by other witnesses. The identification of the accused-appellants by the rape victims, both through voice and sight, was positive and credible. The Court reiterated that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded great respect on appeal. The Court also found no improper motive for the complainants to falsely impute such serious offenses. On the defense of alibi: The Court reiterated the rule that alibi must not only show that the accused was elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Precioso's alibi was unconvincing as his grandmother's house was only 150 meters away. Monforte's alibi was directly contradicted by documentary evidence showing the bandsaw was not operational due to power disconnection. The Court noted that Precioso's claimed alibi was physically impossible given the proximity of his grandmother's house to the crime scene. Monforte's alibi of working at a bandsaw was disproven by certification showing the bandsaw's power was disconnected at the time of the incident. The defense of alibi was found to be weak and unsubstantiated, especially when contradicted by eyewitness testimony. On the denomination of the crime: The Court clarified that there is no composite crime of "robbery in band with multiple rape." Following the ruling in People vs. Apduhan, Jr., the offense is robbery with rape, and "band" (cuadrilla) is a generic aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, not a qualifying circumstance for robbery with rape under Article 295. The Court emphasized that Article 295 does not apply to robbery with rape, homicide, intentional mutilation, or lesiones graves. On the penalty and indemnification: The Court affirmed the imposition of reclusion perpetua, noting that when a penalty is single and indivisible, it is applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law cannot be invoked. The indemnification for the rape victims was increased to P30,000.00 for Teresita Pescador and P50,000.00 for Leah Alimpoos, in line with current jurisprudence, considering the aggravating circumstances of multiple rapes and the manner in which they were committed.
Main Doctrine
There is no composite crime of "robbery in band with multiple rape." The offense is robbery with rape, and "band" (cuadrilla) is a generic aggravating circumstance. The penalty for robbery with rape, when committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, is reclusion perpetua to death.