People v. Bracero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 7, 1993, at approximately 7:00 PM, three men, identified as Napoleon Presillas, Nazareno Presillas, and accused-appellant Timoteo Bracero, entered the residence of spouses Alberto and Maritess Densing. They identified themselves as military personnel, then later as members of the New People's Army (NPA), demanding P10,000.00 or two hand grenades. Alberto denied possession of the grenades and stated he only had P150.00. Napoleon Presillas pointed a gun at Alberto. Maritess Densing was ordered to retrieve the P150.00 from their room. While upstairs, accused-appellant Bracero accompanied Maritess, held her by the waist, mashed her breasts, and embraced her. Maritess gave the money to Bracero. Napoleon Presillas then took Maritess to the back of the house and raped her. Subsequently, Alberto and Napoleon proceeded to sell the Densing's cow, while Maritess was left guarded by Nazareno and accused-appellant Bracero near a field of coconut trees. Bracero ordered Maritess into the field, threatened her, and raped her. He then forcibly took her Seiko 5 wristwatch. Later, Napoleon Presillas raped Maritess a second time. The spouses reported the incident to the police and Maritess was examined at the hospital, with findings of healed lacerations and spermatozoa. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 25, found accused-appellant Timoteo Bracero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two distinct and separate crimes of robbery and rape. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for robbery and rape, to be served successively. The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision, imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering the elevation of the records to the Supreme Court for review. The Petition: Accused-appellant Bracero appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's alleged grave error in giving credibility to the testimonies of the spouses Densing due to inconsistencies and contradictions, and in disregarding his defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimonies of the spouses Alberto and Maritess Densing were credible despite alleged inconsistencies. Whether the defense of alibi interposed by the accused-appellant should be given weight. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape or two separate crimes of robbery and rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modification, finding accused-appellant Timoteo Bracero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of witnesses and alleged inconsistencies: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the issue of credibility of witnesses is within the exclusive province of the trial court. The testimonies of Alberto and Maritess Densing were found to be consistent, coherent, and categorical, with no discernible hesitation in identifying the accused-appellant. The Court emphasized that it is a natural reaction for victims to observe the malefactors, and in this case, the accused-appellant's participation in accompanying Maritess upstairs, holding her, and raping her, along with Alberto's prior acquaintance with him as a former classmate, made positive identification highly probable. Any alleged inconsistencies between sworn statements and testimonies in open court were deemed trivial and minor, as affidavits taken ex-parte are often incomplete and inferior to open court testimony. The Court found no improper motive for the spouses to falsely accuse the appellant, thus their identification was given full faith and credit. On the defense of alibi: The Court held that alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove being elsewhere but also demonstrate the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. The records showed that the accused-appellant resided in Danao City, and it was not physically impossible for him to travel to Sogod, the scene of the crime, given that transportation was available until the evening. Therefore, his alibi was not given credence. On the classification of the crime: The Court found the trial court's decision to convict the accused-appellant of two separate crimes of robbery and rape to be erroneous. It reiterated that when robbery is accompanied by rape, as in this case, it constitutes a special complex crime under Article 294, Paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Consequently, the accused-appellant should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of robbery with rape.
Main Doctrine
When robbery is accompanied by rape, the same must be punished as a special complex crime, and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.