People v. Demetrio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Mauricio Arroyo and Ernesto Poblete, along with Jose Demetrio, Ricardo Mendoza, Eduardo Ignacio, and John Doe, were accused of robbery with rape. The information alleged that on August 25, 1946, the accused conspired to break into the house of Severo Mapugay, Belen Cube, and Carmen Cube, taking P500 in cash and P2,000 worth of jewelry by means of threats and intimidation with firearms and knives. It was further alleged that Jose Demetrio raped Belen Cube by force and intimidation during the robbery. Procedural History: The trial court found four accused guilty, declaring the acts constituted the complex crime of robbery with rape. However, it sentenced only Mauricio Arroyo for the complex crime, while Eduardo Ignacio and Ernesto Poblete were sentenced for robbery only. Jose Demetrio and Eduardo Ignacio did not appeal. Mauricio Arroyo and Ernesto Poblete appealed to the Court of Appeals, which endorsed the case to the Supreme Court, opining that both appellants were guilty of robbery with rape with aggravating circumstances and thus merited life imprisonment. The Petition: Appellants Mauricio Arroyo and Ernesto Poblete appealed their conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the appellants are guilty of the complex crime of robbery with rape. Whether the aggravating circumstances of crime committed by a band and in the dwelling of the offended parties were correctly considered. Whether the appellants are liable for the rape committed during the robbery, even if they did not personally commit it.
Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is modified. Appellants Mauricio Arroyo and Ernesto Poblete are each sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and shall jointly and severally indemnify Belen Cube in the sum of P1,000. In all other respects, the sentence is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt for robbery with rape: The Court found sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants for the complex crime of robbery with rape. The testimony of the victims, Severo Mapugay, Belen Cube, and Carmen Cube, positively identified the appellants as two of the robbers. Belen Cube's identification of Mauricio Arroyo as her rapist was corroborated by her prior statement that the rapist was not among the first three accused she identified, indicating a fixed recollection of her assailant. The Court also gave credence to the extrajudicial statements of the accused, despite their claims of coercion, as the facts disclosed were known only to them and indicated an intent to minimize their responsibility. On the aggravating circumstances: The Court held that the crime was committed by a band, as evidenced by the five malefactors who broke into the house, armed with various weapons. Furthermore, the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended parties, which is an aggravating circumstance. These circumstances were erroneously not considered by the trial court and warranted the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree. On the liability for rape committed by a co-perpetrator: The Court reiterated the principle that any member of a band committing robbery is liable as a principal for any assault committed by the band, including rape, unless they attempted to prevent it. In this case, it was established that rape was committed during the robbery. The appellants did not prove they attempted to prevent the rape; instead, the prosecution showed that Mauricio Arroyo committed the rape, and his companions guarded the other inmates, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime. Therefore, all accused were liable as principals for robbery with rape, regardless of who physically committed the rape, as per Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
All members of a band committing robbery are liable as principals for any assault committed by the band, including rape, unless they attempted to prevent it. The mistaken allegation of who committed the rape is immaterial if the rape was committed by one of the band members.