People vs. Aspili

Where the original design of the malefactors is robbery and rape was not part of that design, the crime is the single special complex crime of robbery with homicide, with rape merely aggravating it — not rape with homicide, and not two separate offenses — so only one penalty of reclusion perpetua may be imposed under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

All six accused were convicts serving final sentences at the Sta. Lucia Penal Colony in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, and the charges against them were laid under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111, in relation to Article 160 on band, with the complaints denominating the offense as rape with homicide and robbery in band. The decision notes in passing that the same acts are now denominated piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No. 532, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The victims were passengers and crew of the M/L Elsa, a private motor launch engaged in the carriage of passengers and cargo.

The M/L Elsa, with Catalino Nadayao as patron, Pepito Severino as engine operator, two other crew members, and thirteen passengers, left Puerto Princesa City for Dumaran, Palawan at three o'clock in the morning of December 28, 1969, carrying a cargo of liquor that included tanduay, beer, and coke. Among the seventeen persons on board were Narcisa Batayola, Daisy Gonzales, Josie Gonzales, Yolanda Argue, Wenifredo Magallanes, a certain Bunag, and several children ranging from two to nine years of age. Big waves and strong winds forced the launch to seek shelter at Balon, Sta. Lucia, Puerto Princesa City, where it arrived at about six to seven o'clock in the morning and was stranded because of the bad weather and a damaged rudder, near the site of the Sta. Lucia Penal Colony.

In the afternoon, between one and three o'clock, two men boarded the launch. Josie Gonzales identified them as Pacifico Rebutido and Rodolfo Aspili, and after Pepito Severino handed them the liquor they left the vessel. It was later established that these two, together with Ernesto Magbanua, Rodolfo Sales, Roberto Aguirre, and Eduardo Mendoza — all convicts-colonists of the Sta. Lucia Penal Colony — had been drinking tanduay since the morning of December 28, 1969 even as they hatched a plan to escape from the colony with the use of the M/L Elsa. The buying of the tanduay also served the purpose of acquainting them that the crew and passengers of the launch were innocent, peaceful, and unarmed.

Between seven and eight o'clock in the evening of the same day, the six carried out their agreed plan and, fully armed with pistols and bolos, boarded the launch bringing with them chicken and dried fish. Upon boarding, they placed themselves in strategic positions. Magbanua talked to the patron of the launch, who ordered Severino to fetch four bottles of tanduay; while in the act of handing the tanduay to Magbanua, the latter suddenly thrust his bolo at Severino's abdomen while pointing a pistol at him and shouting "walang kikilos." Severino jumped immediately into the sea upon seeing the rest of the accused draw their bolos, and Catalino Nadayao, having evaded a stab by Rodolfo Sales who nevertheless chased him, was constrained to jump overboard. Some passengers and the rest of the crew, frightened by the shouting and the ensuing commotion, likewise jumped into the sea, among them Daisy Gonzales and Yolanda Argue. Only five persons were left in the launch.

Josie Gonzales tried to jump overboard but Ernesto Magbanua prevented her by holding both her arms, then pulled and dragged her over the cargoes and pinned her down. While she lay there he forcibly raped her for about five to ten minutes, pointing a gun at her head. After Magbanua was through, Rodolfo Sales approached her, took off his pants, and laid on top of her for about three to five minutes while Magbanua still held her and pointed a gun at her; after Sales, Pacifico Rebutido approached her and likewise raped her, and although she tried to evade she was already weak and only felt pain. Narcisa Batayola, who likewise attempted to jump, was held by Magbanua at the back portion of her dress and told to return to the place where she and the other children were originally hiding. She saw the accused ransacking the cargoes and taking the contents thereof, and moments later Roberto Aguirre, then with a pistol, held her on the shoulders while Eduardo Mendoza held her legs and wrestled her down; Aguirre had sexual intercourse with her, followed by Mendoza. Thereafter Rodolfo Aspili brought her out toward a sawali and right there and then made her lie down in a slanting position; when Aspili was having sexual intercourse with her nobody was holding her, but she could no longer resist as she was already exhausted and weak.

The defense gave a different account. According to the appellants, at about nine o'clock in the morning of December 28, 1969, Ernesto Magbanua and Roberto Aguirre left their nipa hut at the Sta. Lucia Penal Colony for the Prison Brigade to get their dirty clothes, and there met three private persons — passengers or crew of the M/L Elsa — eating camote cassava with the Capataz on duty, a certain Rudy; they then proceeded to the hut of Pacifico Rebutido, where Rebutido, Aspili, Sales, and Mendoza were drinking tanduay that the three private persons from the launch had brought. At about six o'clock in the afternoon they returned to the colony brigade for the usual daily checking and counting of prisoners, and afterwards went back to Rebutido's hut and planned to escape, agreeing to hire the M/L Elsa, anchored about ten arms' length from the wharf, with money, chickens, and dried fish. At about seven o'clock in the evening the group went to the launch using the colony's banca, with Magbanua boarding ahead and offering the patron money, chickens, and dried fish to bring them to liberty; Rebutido boarded last and, stepping on a loose board, fell inside the engine room, and the loud impact caused the patron to jump overboard shouting to his crew and passengers to do the same. Only two women, a man, and small children remained, and Magbanua told them not to jump because they had no bad intentions. The group then searched the sea and saved a boy about nine years old by pulling him toward the launch with a pole. Magbanua afterwards asked Josie Gonzales for sexual intercourse; she pointed him instead to Narcisa Batayola as the one with experience, and when told he did not like Batayola she agreed on condition that he not harm her, undressing when told to. Magbanua inserted his penis and after about five minutes Rodolfo Sales and Pacifico Rebutido pulled him up, reminding him that their agreement was only to escape. At about the same time Aguirre, who had earlier prevented Batayola from jumping, asked her for intercourse; she at first refused but later undressed, and Aguirre had two successive intercourses with her. Sales and Rebutido pulled Aguirre away, and the group boarded their banca after seeing someone flashing a light at the shore, proceeding to the mangrove swamp; on the way they noticed that Aspili had been left behind.

After the six accused left the launch, Josie and Narcisa, together with the children, jumped into the water and swam to the bakawan to hide, and were rescued by the Baracuda Launch. The dead bodies of Daisy Gonzales and Yolanda Argue were found, and necropsy examination showed that both died of suffocation by drowning, blood coming out from the nose, the mouth, and the openings of both ears due to rupture of the tympanic membrane. Dr. Duenas, the examining physician, likewise found that Josie Gonzales and Narcisa Batayola had both undergone sexual penetration recently. The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution's account, and the SC agreed that the prosecution correctly presented the facts of the case.

• Designation of the Offense: Appellants assigned as error the trial court's holding that the crimes they committed were rape with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of robbery in band, nighttime, superior strength, recidivism, and craft.
• Separate Offenses: Appellants argued, in the alternative, that assuming they were guilty of committing rape, the crimes of rape and homicide should be viewed as separate and distinct offenses.
• Conspiracy: Appellants assigned as error the trial court's holding that they conspired to commit the offenses of rape with homicide and its conviction of all of them for said crimes.

• Designation of the Offense: Whether the trial court erred in holding that the crimes committed by the appellants are rape with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of robbery in band, nighttime, superior strength, recidivism, and craft.
• Conspiracy: Whether the trial court erred in holding that the appellants conspired to commit the offenses of rape with homicide and in convicting all of them of said crimes.
• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Whether the interlocking extrajudicial confessions executed by the appellants are admissible notwithstanding that they were not informed of their right to counsel.
• Penalty: Whether two separate penalties of reclusion perpetua, to be served successively, may be imposed for the two rapes.

• Designation of the Offense: No. The crime is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code; there is no aggravating circumstance of "robbery in band," and the real nature of the crime is fixed by the facts alleged and proved, not by the title of the complaint.
• Conspiracy: No. Conspiracy need not be established because all six appellants directly participated in the rapes — three took turns with Josie Gonzales and three ravished Narcisa Batayola.
• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: Yes. The confessions were taken in January 1970, before the 1973 Constitution took effect on January 17, 1973, and the right to counsel in custodial investigation has no retroactive effect; in any event, guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt even without them.
• Penalty: No. Only one penalty of reclusion perpetua may be imposed, since the rape is merely an aggravating circumstance of a single special complex crime, not a separate offense.

• Designation of the Offense: The SC found at the outset that the trial judge erred in designating the offense as rape with homicide aggravated by robbery in band, because neither in law nor in jurisprudence is there an aggravating circumstance of robbery in band, and because the evidence showed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. The records disclosed that the appellants took control of the M/L Elsa by threatening the crew and passengers with their bolos and pistols, and Narcisa Batayola testified that after the commotion that ensued when the appellants wielded their weapons, some of them immediately started ransacking the cargoes and taking the contents thereof. These acts manifested an unlawful intent to gain, through violence and intimidation of persons, by taking the vessel and the personal property of the crew and passengers, which comprises the crime of robbery. The overwhelming evidence revealed that the original design of the malefactors was to commit robbery in order to facilitate their escape from the penal colony, and that their original intent did not comprehend the commission of rape; hence rape could not be regarded as the principal offense, and since it attended the commission of robbery with homicide it was deemed to aggravate the crime, although damages or indemnification for the victim may still be awarded (People vs. Bacsa; People vs. Tapales), for it is the rape itself, instead of ignominy, that aggravates the crime (People vs. Mongado). On the deaths of Daisy Gonzales and Yolanda Argue, the appellants are clearly liable under People vs. Mangulabnan, it being immaterial that the death of a person supervened by mere accident provided that the homicide is produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery. Because rape and homicide co-existed in the commission of robbery, the offense is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape, punishable under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. The technical name assigned to the offense does not control, for the real nature of the crime charged is determined not by the title of the complaint nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated but by the facts recited in the complaint or information (People vs. Oliviera); as the acts constituting robbery with homicide were clearly set forth in the complaint and proven during trial, the appellants may be held liable for that crime regardless of the erroneous designation. This pronouncement rendered it unnecessary to deal with the alternative argument that rape and homicide should be viewed as separate and distinct offenses. The SC likewise upheld recidivism, all the appellants being recidivists who were serving sentence at the Sta. Lucia Penal Colony by virtue of a final judgment of conviction when they committed the offenses — Aspili, Magbanua, Mendoza, and Rebutido having previously been convicted of frustrated homicide, serious physical injuries, theft, and murder and trespass to dwelling, respectively, and Sales and Aguirre of robbery in band — and upheld band, all six having been armed when they boarded the vessel, as well as abuse of superior strength, since most of the victims were women and children ranging from two to nine years old. It discarded, however, the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and craft: there was no showing that the appellants purposely sought the cover of night, and no craft was employed since they had already boarded the vessel when they pretended to buy tanduay in exchange for the dried fish and chicken they carried, and even without such pretense they could nonetheless have carried out their unlawful scheme.
• Conspiracy: The SC held that the appellants' contention that there was no conspiracy in the commission of rape became immaterial in view of the fact that all of them directly participated in its commission: Magbanua, Sales, and Rebutido took turns in raping Josie Gonzales, while Aguirre, Mendoza, and Aspili ravished Narcisa Batayola. The SC accorded more weight and credence to the testimonies of complainants Gonzales and Batayola, reasoning that two girls thirteen and fifteen years old would not subject themselves to the rigors of a public trial if they were not motivated by an honest desire to punish their assailants, and that their narrations were corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Juanito Duenas, who physically examined them and found that both had indeed just undergone sexual penetration.
• Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confessions: The SC ruled that the interlocking extrajudicial confessions executed by the appellants are admissible even if they were not informed of their right to counsel, because the confessions were all taken in January 1970, long before the 1973 Constitution took effect. Article III, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution, for the first time, concretized the right of persons under custodial investigation to counsel, how to be informed of such right, and the effect of non-compliance; the requirements and restrictions surrounding this constitutional guarantee, however, have no retroactive effect and do not apply to confessions taken before January 17, 1973, the date of effectivity of the 1973 Constitution (Magtoto vs. Manguera). At any rate, even without considering the extrajudicial confessions, the SC was convinced that the guilt of the appellants had been incontrovertibly established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
• Penalty: The SC found that the trial judge erred in imposing upon the appellants two separate penalties of reclusion perpetua, both to be served successively, the basis for that imposition being the lower court's finding that the appellants were guilty of two crimes of rape with homicide, one for the rape of Josie Gonzales and the other for the rape of Narcisa Batayola. Having already pronounced that the rape committed is merely an aggravating circumstance, and the appellants being guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape, recidivism, in band, and abuse of superior strength, only one penalty of reclusion perpetua should have been imposed under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Robbery with homicide aggravated by rape — Where the original design of the malefactors is robbery and rape was not part of that design, rape is not the principal offense but merely aggravates the robbery with homicide, producing a single special complex crime punishable under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code by one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Damages or indemnification for the rape victim may still be awarded even though rape is only aggravating.
• Real nature of the crime is determined by the facts alleged and proved — The real nature of the crime charged is determined not by the title of the complaint nor by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the facts recited in the complaint or information. An erroneous designation of the offense does not prevent conviction for the crime actually alleged and proven.
• Homicide by reason or on occasion of robbery — It is immaterial that the death of a person supervened by mere accident, provided that the homicide is produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery; the liability of the malefactors attaches regardless.
• Aggravating circumstances must be proved — Nocturnity cannot be appreciated absent a showing that the offender purposely sought the cover of night, and craft cannot be appreciated where the pretense employed was unnecessary because the unlawful scheme could have been carried out even without it.
• Recidivism — Recidivism is present where the accused, at the time of the commission of the offense, were serving sentence by virtue of a final judgment of conviction, as shown by their prior convictions for frustrated homicide, serious physical injuries, theft, murder, trespass to dwelling, and robbery in band.
• Band and abuse of superior strength — Band is appreciated where all six appellants were armed when they boarded the vessel and perpetrated their acts, and abuse of superior strength where most of the victims were women and children ranging from two to nine years old.
• Direct participation renders conspiracy immaterial — Where all the accused directly participated in the commission of the offense, the absence of a conspiracy is immaterial to their liability; each is liable for his own acts.
• Non-retroactivity of the 1973 Constitution's right to counsel — The right of persons under custodial investigation to counsel, how to be informed of it, and the effect of non-compliance were first concretized by Article III, Section 20 of the 1973 Constitution; these requirements and restrictions have no retroactive effect and do not apply to confessions taken before January 17, 1973.
• Credibility of rape victims — Testimonies of complainants aged thirteen and fifteen are accorded more weight and credence, young girls not being expected to subject themselves to the rigors of a public trial unless motivated by an honest desire to punish their assailants, especially where corroborated by the examining physician's finding of recent sexual penetration.

• "For one, neither in law nor in jurisprudence is there an aggravating circumstance as robbery in band. More importantly, the evidence shows that what was committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide aggravated by rape." — The passage corrects the trial court's designation of the offense and identifies the crime actually proven.
• "The overwhelming evidence reveals that the original design of the malefactors was to commit robbery in order to facilitate their escape from the penal colony. Their original intent did not comprehend the commission of rape. Hence, the crime of rape cannot be regarded as the principal offense." — This is the ratio for treating rape as merely aggravating, which in turn produced the single penalty.
• "It does not matter if the technical name assigned to the offense is rape with homicide and with robbery in band, for the real nature of the crime charged is determined not by the title of the complaint, nor by the specification of the provision of the law alleged to have been violated, but by the facts recited in the complaint or information." — The canonical formulation of the rule that the allegations and proof, not the caption, control the offense.
• "The requirements and restrictions surrounding this constitutional guarantee, however, have no retroactive effect and do not apply to confessions taken before January 17, 1973, the date of effectivity of the 1973 Constitution." — The ruling on the temporal reach of the custodial-investigation right to counsel, which saved the 1970 confessions from exclusion.

• People vs. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136 [1958] — Cited to support treating rape as an aggravating circumstance where it attended the commission of robbery with homicide, with damages or indemnification still awardable to the victim.
• People vs. Tapales, 93 SCRA 134 [1979] — Cited alongside Bacsa for the same proposition on rape as an aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide.
• People vs. Mongado, 28 SCRA 642 [1969] — Cited for the rule that it is the rape itself, rather than ignominy, that aggravates the crime.
• People vs. Mangulabnan, 99 Phil. 992 [1956] — Cited for the rule that it is immaterial that the death supervened by mere accident, provided the homicide is produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
• People vs. Oliviera, 67 Phil. 427 [1939] — Cited for the rule that the real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts recited in the complaint or information, not by the title of the complaint or the provision of law alleged to have been violated.
• Magtoto vs. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 [1975] — Cited for the non-retroactivity of the 1973 Constitution's requirements on the right to counsel in custodial investigation, which do not apply to confessions taken before January 17, 1973.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — The provision on robbery with homicide, under which the appellants were sentenced to reclusion perpetua; the SC applied it as the governing provision because rape and homicide co-existed in the commission of robbery, producing a single special complex crime.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 — The rape provision invoked in both complaints; the SC held that rape could not be the principal offense because it was not part of the appellants' original design, and treated it instead as an aggravating circumstance of the robbery with homicide.
• Article 160, Revised Penal Code — The provision on band, invoked in the complaints in relation to Article 335; the SC held that there is no aggravating circumstance of "robbery in band," but upheld "in band" as an aggravating circumstance because all six appellants were armed when they boarded the vessel.
• Article III, Section 20, 1973 Constitution — The provision that first concretized the right of persons under custodial investigation to counsel, how to be informed of it, and the effect of non-compliance; the SC held it has no retroactive effect and does not reach confessions taken before January 17, 1973, the date of its effectivity.
• Presidential Decree No. 532 — The statute denominating the acts as piracy in Philippine waters, punishable by reclusion perpetua; the SC mentioned it in passing but found it unnecessary to apply it retroactively in favor of the appellants because the acts are likewise punishable therein by the same penalty.