People v. Rojas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 19, 1994, at approximately 5:00 a.m., Rowena Agustin was walking home from a bakery when she was accosted from behind. Her attacker pulled her hair, poked a gun at her temple, and forced her to undress. He then forced his organ into her mouth and subsequently had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The incident occurred in a grassy area near an electric post, providing some light. After the assault, the accused warned Rowena not to tell anyone. Rowena, visibly distressed and with grass on her skin, recounted the incident to her employer, Aurora Sales Duque, providing a description of her attacker. Based on this description, Aurora's brother, Valiente Sales, suspected the accused-appellant, who was renting a room in his house. The accused was apprehended and subsequently identified by Rowena in two separate identification procedures: first, at the barangay hall among approximately twenty men, and second, at the police station in a line-up of seven men. A medical examination conducted on Rowena revealed fresh lacerations in the genital area and abrasions on her thighs, and concluded she was in a non-virgin state. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 224, Quezon City, found the accused-appellant, Andy Rojas, guilty of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death and to pay P50,000.00 as indemnity. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, assigning two errors: (I) the trial court erred in finding that the complainant positively identified the accused as her rapist, and (II) assuming guilt, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant's identification of the accused-appellant as her rapist was positive and credible. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant for rape but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the accused-appellant should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and be ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages in addition to the P50,000.00 indemnity previously awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found the complainant's identification of the accused-appellant to be positive and credible. Rowena Agustin clearly saw the face of her attacker under the light of an electric post and provided an accurate description. She identified the accused-appellant twice: first, at the barangay hall among about twenty men, and second, at the police station in a line-up of seven men. The Court emphasized that this positive identification, made twice and under circumstances that negate mistake, prevails over the defense of alibi and denial. The Court noted that Rowena's identification was not based on suggestion from Valiente Sales, as she did not know who had been arrested. The Court reiterated that a positive identification by a credible witness is strong evidence of guilt. The Court cited People v. Cortes to support the principle that a positive identification by the victim is paramount. On Issue 2: The Court found merit in the accused-appellant's second assigned error regarding the penalty. While the accused-appellant used a gun during the commission of the rape, this fact was not alleged in the information. Therefore, the crime committed was simple rape, not rape with homicide or rape with the aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon, as the information did not specify it. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353), the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The Court also held that moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 are automatically granted to rape victims without need of proof, citing People v. Padilla.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by the victim, especially when made twice and under circumstances that negate the possibility of mistake, prevails over the defense of alibi and denial. The use of a gun in the commission of rape, if not alleged in the information, does not qualify the crime to rape with homicide, and the penalty remains reclusion perpetua for simple rape.