People v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 23, 1993, at around 11:00 p.m., Valentin Gabertan and his wife Clara were attacked in their compound by five men, including appellant Boy Domingo and his co-accused. The assailants, armed with a piece of bamboo, wood, ipil-ipil posts, and a bolo, initially demanded money and identified themselves as NPA members. Valentin recognized them as his neighbors. During the confrontation, Valentin was clubbed and injured while attempting to defend himself and his son. Clara was forcibly pulled out of their house, stripped, and sexually abused by Joel Temporal, Boy Domingo, Benedicto Pedro, and Jessing Valdez. Heherson Rivera stood guard. The assailants also stole cash amounting to P5,350.00, a gold Seiko watch valued at P2,000.00, nine turkeys valued at P3,600.00, and two chickens valued at P200.00. Valentin sustained multiple physical injuries, including hematomas and rib fractures. Clara suffered scratch marks and abrasions. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City (Branch 36) found appellant Boy Domingo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with multiple rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. He was also ordered to pay P11,200.00 for the stolen items and P100,000.00 as moral damages. The Petition: Appellant Boy Domingo appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the trial court erred in disregarding his defense of alibi.
Issue(s)
Whether the defense of alibi of the appellant is credible and sufficient to overcome the positive identification by the victims. Whether the crime committed is robbery with multiple rape or robbery with rape. Whether the awarded damages are in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Ruling
The appeal is denied. The decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty is affirmed, with modifications regarding the classification of the crime and the awards for damages. Appellant is convicted of robbery with rape and ordered to pay P11,150 as actual damages, P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto, P50,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alibi versus positive identification: The Court held that the alibi of appellant Boy Domingo could not prevail over the positive identification made by credible witnesses, Valentin and Clara Gabertan. The RTC's assessment of witness credibility, based on their demeanor during trial, is given great weight. The victims had a clear view of their unmasked assailants due to moonlight, and their testimonies were candid, consistent, and lacked any imputation of ill motive. The Court found the defense witnesses' testimonies insufficient to establish the physical impossibility of appellant being at the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court found the duration of palay harvesting testimony incredible, suggesting it was easy for appellant to leave and commit the crime. On the classification of the crime: The Court modified the RTC's finding from robbery with multiple rape to robbery with rape. It explained that the special complex crime of robbery with rape requires that the original intent of the accused was to rob, and rape was committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. The Court found that the assailants' initial demand for money, guns, and animals from Valentin Gabertan demonstrated their animus lucrandi (intent to gain). The rape was committed subsequently, on the occasion of the robbery. The elements of robbery with rape were present: taking of personal property with violence or intimidation, ownership by another, intent to gain, and the commission of rape. On the award of damages: The Court corrected the award for actual damages to P11,150.00, representing the exact value of the stolen items. It also modified the awards for indemnity ex delicto and moral damages to P50,000.00 each, and exemplary damages to P25,000.00, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence at the time. The RTC's award of P100,000.00 for moral damages was reduced.
Main Doctrine
An alibi, to be credible, must not only be corroborated by disinterested witnesses but must also demonstrate the physical impossibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime. Positive identification by credible witnesses, absent any showing of ill motive, prevails over a weak alibi. The crime of robbery with rape requires proof of the intent to rob preceding the commission of rape.