People of the Philippines vs. Renato Canturia, et al.

A conspiracy to commit robbery does not make all conspirators liable for rape committed by one of them during the robbery unless the others were aware of or abetted the rape; the others are liable only for robbery by a band under Article 294(5) in relation to Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code. Positive identification by the victim, aided by flashlight illumination, may be sufficient to sustain conviction and overcome alibi.

The accused were alleged members of a group known as “Dose Pares,” which the Irosin police had linked to several robberies in the area. The victims were the spouses Romeo and Leonor Mendenes and their children, residents of Irosin, Sorsogon. The prosecution proceeded under the Revised Penal Code provisions on robbery with rape, robbery by a band, and conspiracy, while the appellate proceedings implicated Section 8, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court on dismissal of appeals by escaped appellants.

At about midnight on September 10, 1985, the spouses Romeo and Leonor Mendenes and their three children were asleep in their home in Irosin, Sorsogon. Eight men armed with bolos surrounded and entered the house. One of them bored a hole through the lawanit window of the bedroom, unlocked it, and entered with his companions. The first intruder, later identified as Carlos Baron, roused the spouses, brandished his weapon, ordered them to lie face down on the floor, and bound Romeo hand and foot. Another bolo-wielding man entered through the same window, opened the main door, and let the others in.

The bandits ransacked the house and went through the family’s belongings. Baron stayed beside Romeo and kicked him whenever he tried to lift his head. Renato Canturia moved beside Leonor and began touching intimate parts of her body. He dragged her out of the house to a place about thirty meters away. There, by threat of his jungle knife, two and a half meters long, he forced her to remove her clothes. Ignoring her pleas, he pawed her body, mashed her private parts, and had sexual intercourse with her twice, with the knife pointed at her throat. A third attempt was aborted when he heard his companions whistling. He ordered her to dress, pulled her back inside the house, and tied her hands.

Before leaving, the armed men warned the spouses not to tell anyone lest death befall them. The children slept throughout their parents’ ordeal. After the malefactors left, Leonor, whose feet had not been fettered, went to Romeo, and they freed each other. Still fearful, they fled with their children to Romeo’s father’s house. When daylight came, Romeo reported the incident to the Irosin Police Station, and Leonor underwent a physical examination at the Irosin District Hospital, where she was found positive for spermatozoa.

Police believed that the group known as “Dose Pares” was responsible, as they had received reports of several robberies allegedly perpetrated by this group in the area. On September 19, 1985, police officers went to the houses of Carlos Baron, Orlando Diin, Renato Canturia, Glorioso Lerit, Antonio San Jorge, Norberto Gabito, Edison Diin, and Edison Sanchez. In the course of investigation, they found some of the items stolen from the Mendeneses in the house of Antonio San Jorge. The eight men were brought to headquarters, where Romeo and Leonor pointed to them as the robbers; Leonor particularly identified Canturia as her rapist.

The eight suspects were charged with robbery with rape. The prosecution’s case was anchored mainly on Leonor’s testimony. She unequivocally identified all eight accused and described each one’s participation: Baron roused them and hogtied Romeo; Glorioso Lerit and Edison Diin were look-outs; the robbers methodically divested the family of its possessions; and Canturia brutally defiled her. Six accused testified for the defense: Edison Diin and his father Orlando Diin, Glorioso Lerit, Antonio San Jorge, Renato Canturia, and Edison Sanchez. All put up alibi. San Jorge claimed he was in the mountains of Tabon-Tabon stripping abaca; the other five claimed they were in their respective houses sleeping or drinking with friends. After presenting defense evidence, Sanchez and Lerit escaped from the Sorsogon Provincial Prison and remained at large.

The trial court gave full credit to the prosecution’s evidence, particularly Leonor’s testimony, and rejected the defense of alibi. It found the prosecution’s proofs entitled to full credit and rejected the alibi, and its factual findings on Leonor’s identification became the central issue on appeal.

• Alibi and Identification: Accused-appellants argued that the trial court failed to give due weight to the defense of alibi because Leonor Mendenes’s identification was untenable; she allegedly lacked sufficient time and opportunity to see and remember the faces of the robbers.
• Darkness and Illumination: They maintained that the crime occurred in the middle of the night, the lone 25-watt bulb was immediately turned off by the first robber to enter, and only a flashlight remained as illumination, making Leonor’s identification incredible and erroneous.
• Rapist’s Identity: They contended that Leonor could not have seen the face of the person who raped her because the place where the sexual violation occurred was pitch black, and that this erosion of the proof of identity should have enhanced the acceptability of alibi.

• Identification and Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in giving full credit to Leonor Mendenes’s identification of the appellants and in rejecting their defense of alibi.
• Liability for Rape: Whether all the accused may be convicted of robbery with rape on the basis of conspiracy and robbery by a band, or only Canturia is liable for rape.
• Liability of Co-Accused: Whether the other members of the band may be held liable for robbery by a band under Article 294, No. 5, in relation to Article 296, of the Revised Penal Code.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Whether dwelling and nocturnity should be appreciated, abuse of superior strength absorbed, and the maximum penalty imposed.

• Identification and Alibi: No. The trial court’s factual finding on identification is entitled to weight on appeal absent convincing indications of overlooked facts; Leonor’s positive identification, aided by flashlight illumination, was credible and sufficient to overcome alibi.
• Liability for Rape: No. Only Canturia is liable for rape; the conspiracy was to commit robbery only, and there was no proof the other band members were aware of or abetted Canturia’s rape.
• Liability of Co-Accused: Yes. The other appellants are guilty of robbery by a band under Article 294, No. 5, in relation to Article 296, of the Revised Penal Code.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Yes. Dwelling and nocturnity are appreciated; abuse of superior strength is absorbed by commission in band; with no mitigating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period.

• Identification and Alibi: The accuracy of Leonor’s identification was a factual issue resolved by the trial court, whose findings are given weight on appeal absent convincing indications that facts or circumstances of weight and significance were overlooked. No such indications existed. Leonor categorically pointed to the appellants, without hesitation or vacillation, repeated the identification in open court, detailed each accused’s participation, and broke down when identifying Canturia as her rapist. She explained that one robber held a flashlight whose light reflected on the robbers’ faces; she was not tied and could lift her face, unlike Romeo, who was kicked by Baron when he tried to look. Flashlight illumination was held sufficient for reliable identification, citing People vs. Apawan and Sause and People vs. Nopia. It is natural for victims to strive to observe their assailants, and Canturia stayed physically close to Leonor, especially during the rapes. The alibi defense could not prevail against positive identification.
• Liability for Rape: Two principles were recognized: in a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all; and when more than three armed malefactors take part in robbery, it is deemed committed by a band, with any member present punished as principal of any assaults committed by the band unless he attempted to prevent the same. However, only Canturia was responsible for rape because he alone perpetrated it. The evidence convincingly showed a conspiracy, but the agreement was to commit robbery only; there was no evidence that the other band members were aware of Canturia’s lustful intent and its consummation so that they could have attempted to prevent it. People vs. Hamiana and People vs. Pascual were cited, where other band members were not held liable for a rape committed by one member away from the robbery absent positive proof of awareness or abetment.
• Liability of Co-Accused: Although not liable for rape, the other appellants were liable for robbery by a band under Article 294, No. 5, in relation to Article 296, of the Revised Penal Code. The conspiracy to commit robbery was established, and the presence of more than three armed malefactors made the robbery one committed by a band. Article 296 made them principals of the robbery by a band, but liability for the rape was limited to Canturia because the rape was outside the conspiracy’s scope and there was no proof of awareness or abetment.
• Aggravating Circumstances and Penalty: Dwelling and nocturnity were appreciated against the appellants: the crime was committed in the victims’ place of abode, and the accused used the cover of night to facilitate it. Abuse of superior strength was absorbed by commission in band. Because the robbery was committed by a band with these aggravating circumstances and no countervailing mitigating circumstance, the penalty provided by law was imposed in its maximum period. Canturia’s conviction for robbery with rape and sentence of reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties were affirmed; the other appellants received an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum for robbery.

• Conspiracy and liability for separate crimes — A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it; the act of one is the act of all. The conspiracy’s scope limits liability: where the agreement was only to commit robbery, a co-conspirator is not liable for rape committed by another member during the robbery absent proof that he was aware of or abetted the rape. The Court applied this to hold only Canturia liable for rape while holding the others liable for robbery by a band.
• Robbery by a band — Under Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, when more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery, it is deemed committed by a band; any member present is punished as principal of any assaults committed by the band unless he attempted to prevent the same. The eight armed men constituted a band, but because the rape was outside the conspiracy and not shown to have been known or abetted, only Canturia was liable for rape; the others were liable for robbery by a band under Article 294, No. 5.
• Alibi and positive identification — Alibi is a weak defense when the accused is positively identified by a credible witness. The trial court’s factual findings on identification and credibility are entitled to weight on appeal absent overlooked facts of weight and significance. Light from a flashlight is sufficient illumination for reliable identification, as held in People vs. Apawan and Sause and People vs. Nopia.
• Possession of recently stolen property — A person found in possession of part of recently stolen property is presumed to be the taker of all, absent a satisfactory explanation. The Court applied this to San Jorge, whose explanation that the stolen items were peddled to his wife by Orlando Diin strengthened rather than weakened the case against him and his co-accused.
• Aggravating circumstances — Dwelling and nocturnity are aggravating circumstances that may be appreciated when the crime is committed in the victims’ place of abode and the accused uses the cover of night to facilitate the crime. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed by commission in band. When the robbery is committed by a band with aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period.

• "This notwithstanding, it is the Court's view that only Canturia should be held responsible for the crime because he alone perpetrated the detestable crime of rape. The others could not be held liable therefor. For while the evidence does convincingly show a conspiracy among the accused, it also as convincingly suggests that the agreement was to commit robbery only; and there is no evidence that the other members of the band of robbers were aware of Canturia's lustful intent and his consummation thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent the same." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for limiting liability for rape to Canturia despite the existence of a conspiracy and a robbery by a band.
• "Said other members of Canturia's band may and should be held guilty of the crime of robbery by a band under Article 294, No. 5, in relation to Article 296, of the Revised Penal Code." — This is the Court’s operative holding on the criminal liability of the co-accused after excluding them from liability for the rape.
• "Quite recently, this Court ruled that the light coming from a flashlight is sufficient illumination by which to make a reliable identification." — This passage articulates the identification doctrine applied to uphold Leonor Mendenes’s testimony despite the darkness.
• "The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nocturnity shall be appreciated against the appellants. The crime was committed in the place of abode of the victims; and the accused used the cover of the night to facilitate the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed by commission in band." — This passage defines the aggravating circumstances considered in imposing the penalty on the appellants.

• People vs. Apawan and Sause, G.R. No. 85329 (August 16, 1994) — Cited for the rule that light from a flashlight is sufficient illumination by which to make a reliable identification.
• People vs. Nopia, 113 SCRA 599 — Cited in support of the flashlight-illumination identification doctrine.
• People vs. Hamiana, 89 Phil. 225, 232 (1951) — Cited for the rule that other members of a band are not liable for a rape committed by one member away from the robbery absent positive proof that they were aware of or abetted it; the decision also cites People vs. Pascual, et al., 93 Phil. 1114 (unreported), for the same rule.
• US vs. Ungal, 37 Phil. 835 — Cited for the presumption that a person in possession of recently stolen property is the taker of all absent satisfactory explanation; People vs. Maclid, 212 SCRA 758, and People vs. Javier, 112 SCRA 186, are cited to the same effect.
• US vs. Ravides, 4 Phil. 271 — Cited for the rule that escape during appeal implies withdrawal of the appeal and renders the judgment final; the decision also cites US vs. Wilson, 82 Phil. 567, and Langao vs. Fakat, 30 SCRA 866, in support.

• Article 294, No. 5, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery by a band and provides the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. The Court applied it to sentence the co-accused to an indeterminate penalty for robbery.
• Article 296, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when more than three armed malefactors take part in a robbery, it is deemed committed by a band, and any member present is punished as principal of any assaults committed by the band unless he attempted to prevent the same. The Court used it to establish the band and to explain the co-accused’s liability for robbery by a band, while limiting rape liability to Canturia.
• Section 8, Rule 124, Rules of Court — Allows dismissal of an appeal when the appellant escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, or flees to a foreign country during the pendency of the appeal. The Court applied it to dismiss the appeals of Sanchez and Lerit.
• Section 3(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Establishes the presumption that a person found in possession of recently stolen property is the taker of all, absent satisfactory explanation. The Court applied it to San Jorge’s possession of stolen items.

Regalado, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.