People v. Delabajan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: AAA, a blind victim, testified that she was raped by alias Kino Lascano and Alfredo Delabajan (appellant) who took turns in raping her. She identified them by their voices, as they were her neighbors and friends of her brother. The appellant allegedly tied her hands while Kino undressed her, and then the appellant held her feet while Kino raped her. Subsequently, the appellant raped AAA. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, finding the appellant guilty of six (6) counts of qualified rape, holding that the appellant actively participated in the rapes by tying the victim's hands and holding her feet. The CA also noted that AAA's testimony was corroborated by medical findings. The Petition: The appellant appealed his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Whether conspiracy existed between the appellant and alias Kino Lascano. Whether the appellant's defense of alibi was credible. Whether the appellant's claim of instigation was tenable. Whether the appellant could be convicted of six (6) counts of rape based on the evidence presented. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was proper. Whether the awarded civil indemnities were justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the number of rape counts to two (2). The appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count and ordered to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of prosecution evidence and elements of rape: The Court reiterated that for rape to prosper under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove carnal knowledge accompanied by force, threat, or intimidation. AAA's testimony was found to be clear, convincing, and credible, especially given her identification of the assailants by voice, a sense developed to a high degree due to her blindness. The Court found it inconceivable that a blind woman would fabricate such a story and undergo public scrutiny if she had not been a victim. The prosecution positively established that the appellant and Kino had carnal knowledge with the victim and employed force, threat, and intimidation, including threats to kill. On the presence of conspiracy: The Court agreed with the CA that conspiracy existed between the appellant and Kino. Conspiracy is shown when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design towards an unlawful purpose. The coordinated acts of Kino and the appellant, including entering the victim's house, threatening her, undressing her, tying her hands, holding her feet, and taking turns in raping her, clearly indicated a unity of action and a common purpose to commit the felony. Each conspirator is responsible for the acts of the other. On the appellant's defense of alibi: The Court rejected the appellant's alibi that he was gathering coconuts, finding it inherently weak and easily fabricated, especially when corroborated only by his wife. The defense of alibi requires proof that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Since the appellant admitted that Sitio Pasakayon was only a 30-minute walk from Sitio Maraga-as (where the crime occurred), his alibi was not given value. On the claim of instigation: The Court found the appellant's contention that AAA was instigated by Wawing Lascano to falsely testify against him to be unmeritorious and uncorroborated. The appellant's alleged motive (anger over his pigs being struck) was implausible, and the victim had no relation to Wawing. It was deemed inconceivable that a victim would subject herself to public scrutiny and scandal upon the instigation of a stranger. On the other rapes not proven with moral certainty: The Court sustained the appellant's conviction for only two (2) counts of rape, not the six (6) counts found by the CA. It is settled that each charge of rape is a separate crime requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. While AAA's testimonies on two instances were explicit, her statements about each accused raping her three times were too general and lacked specific details. The Court emphasized that a witness cannot make a conclusion of law; the determination of whether rape occurred is for the Court to make based on evidence. On the proper penalty: Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons is reclusion perpetua to death. As there were neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed. The Court noted that the death penalty could not be imposed as the information did not specifically allege that the appellant knew of the victim's blindness at the time of the commission of the crime. On the civil indemnities: The Court affirmed the mandatory award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, as these are awarded upon a finding of rape. Additionally, exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00 for each count of rape were awarded under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to serve as a public example.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman accompanied by force, threat, or intimidation. Conspiracy can be established by acts demonstrating a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. Alibi is weak and unavailing if the accused was not so far away that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Each charge of rape is a separate crime requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.