People vs. Barrientos

The designation of the offense in the information is not controlling; an accused may be convicted of multiple independent crimes, even if charged in a single information as a complex offense, when the facts alleged describe distinct criminal acts and the evidence shows the original intent was rape, not robbery. The sworn statement of the offended party, read together with the police complaint, constitutes a valid complaint for purposes of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, as the requirement is liberally construed to give voice to the victim’s grievance.

On 11 February 1992, at about 5:30 in the afternoon, Exaltacion Lopez, a 50‑year‑old public school teacher, was alone in her classroom at the Molave Regional Pilot School, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, preparing to go home. While she was closing the wooden jalousie windows, a man wearing pink jogging pants, naked from the waist up, and with his head wrapped ninja‑style, suddenly grabbed her from behind and pointed a batangas knife at her neck. Despite her pleas, he forced her to the health corner, completely undressed, and made her lie on the cemented floor. He succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Immediately after, he demanded money, and she handed over P100.00. He then raped her a second time, wiped himself with a table cloth, and left. Lopez informed her husband that evening and reported the incident to the police the following day.

The Incident. On 11 February 1992, at past 5:00 p.m., complainant Exaltacion Lopez, a 50‑year‑old teacher, was alone in her classroom at the Molave Regional Pilot School, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur. While she was closing the last wooden jalousie window, a man wearing pink jogging pants, naked from the waist up, and with his head wrapped in “ninja” fashion suddenly grabbed her right hand from behind and pointed a batangas knife at her neck. Despite her attempt to wrest the knife away, he led her to the health corner of the room. When she faced him, the man was already completely naked except for the cloth still partly covering his face. He ordered her to lie down on the cemented floor, and when she hesitated, he grabbed her by the blouse, causing her to fall. He positioned himself on top of her, pinned her hands above her head, and removed her panty. He then succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Immediately after, he demanded money, and she gave him a P100.00 bill. He did not leave but instead raped her a second time. After satisfying his lust, he wiped himself with a table cloth hanging from a magazine rack and departed. Lopez composed herself, closed the room, went home, and told her husband that evening.

Report and Identification. The following morning, Lopez, accompanied by her fellow teacher Cleofas Mendoza, reported the rape to the Molave Police. Chief of Police Inspector Motalib Banding conducted an investigation, visited the crime scene, and interviewed Lopez. She described the rapist as of medium build, fair complexion, with protruding eyes (“botlogon ng mata”) and a scar on his right arm near the elbow. Inspector Banding sent the table cloth for laboratory examination. About a week later, on 21 February 1992, police officers invited Joseph Barrientos for questioning. When Barrientos was presented to Lopez at the police station, she immediately identified him as the perpetrator. In the presence of Inspector Banding, Barrientos asked for her forgiveness, saying, “Ma’m, pasaylo-a ko sa akong nahimo nimo, dili nato ni kasohan, tabangan ta lagi ka Ma’m nga mawala ang estorya nimo” (Ma’m, forgive me for what I have done against you, we will not bring this to court, I will help you Ma’m to eradicate the story against you). Lopez refused to forgive him.

Medical Evidence. Dr. Vladimir Villaseñor examined the table cloth and found it positive for seminal fluid stains.

Defense Version. Barrientos denied the accusation and raised alibi. He claimed that on the morning of 11 February 1992, he left Molave for Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur, to borrow a fatigue uniform for ROTC summer camp. He stayed at his brother’s house and attended the death anniversary of his brother’s father‑in‑law on 12 February. He returned to Molave only on the afternoon of 13 February. He further alleged that on 20 February 1992, he was taken to the police station, where Lopez pointed at him, and he was locked up. The next day, he claimed, he was mauled, blindfolded, and maltreated by Inspector Banding and his men for refusing to confess. The defense presented six other witnesses to support the alibi and the claim of maltreatment.

• Sufficiency of Complaint: Whether the complaint signed by the Chief of Police, together with the sworn statement of the offended party, constituted a valid complaint conferring jurisdiction upon the trial court.

• Admissibility of Apology: Whether the testimony that accused asked the victim’s forgiveness was admissible despite the absence of counsel.

• Validity of Identification: Whether the identification of the accused by the offended party was sufficient to support conviction.

• Defense of Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the accused’s alibi.

• Proper Crime and Penalty: Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused of a single complex crime of rape with robbery.

• Sufficiency of Complaint: The sworn statement of Exaltacion Lopez, signed by her and filed in court to support the police complaint, was deemed a valid complaint. The requirement under Rule 110, Section 5, in relation to Article 344, is given a liberal interpretation; the victim’s “sinumpaang salaysay” in the vernacular and the English “complaint” complemented each other and satisfied the legal definition of a complaint as “a sworn statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party.” The purpose is to ensure the offended party’s intent to bring the wrongdoer to justice, and Lopez’s statement left no doubt on that score. Moreover, any objection to the sufficiency of the complaint was waived because the accused failed to move to quash the information on that ground before his plea, as required by Section 3, Rule 117.

• Admissibility of Apology: The apology was not a product of custodial interrogation; it was a spontaneous statement uttered by Barrientos in the presence of the Chief of Police and overheard by the latter without any questioning. No written confession or sworn statement taken in violation of the right to counsel was introduced. Hence, the accused’s request for forgiveness was properly admitted as evidence.

• Validity of Identification: Positive identification prevailed. Lopez identified Barrientos by a scar on his right arm, his bulging eyes, voice, fair complexion, and sturdy build—features she had observed during the commission of the crime. At the police station, she immediately recognized him and found the identifying scar at the exact location she had described. The trial court’s assessment of her credibility was accorded great weight, and no facts of substance were overlooked that would disturb that finding.

• Defense of Alibi: Alibi cannot overcome positive identification. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Barrientos failed to demonstrate such impossibility; the distance between Molave and Dumingag was not shown to preclude his presence at the locus criminis. Thus, the trial court did not err in rejecting the alibi.

• Proper Crime and Penalty: The original intent of Barrientos was to commit rape, and the demand for P100.00 was merely an afterthought when the opportunity presented itself between the two sexual assaults. Consequently, the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(2) did not apply. The designation in the information, however, was not controlling; the facts alleged in the body of the information clearly described two acts of rape with a deadly weapon and the taking of P100.00 by force. Accordingly, Barrientos could be convicted of two counts of rape qualified by the use of a deadly weapon under Article 335 (as worded prior to R.A. No. 7659) and a separate crime of simple robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5. The penalty for each rape was reclusion perpetua to death; absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the minimum — reclusion perpetua — was imposed. For robbery under Article 294(5), the penalty range is prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and in the absence of modifying circumstances, the minimum term was fixed at two years, four months and one day of prision correccional, and the maximum at seven years of prision mayor. Civil indemnity of P100,000.00 was awarded for the two rapes, and actual damages of P100.00 were ordered restored.

• Liberal Construction of Complaint in Rape Cases — The requirement under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and Rule 110, Section 5, that the prosecution be initiated by a complaint filed by the offended party is satisfied when the victim’s sworn statement, subscribed by her, charges the accused with rape and demonstrates her desire to seek judicial redress. The sworn statement and the formal complaint are read together, and technical deficiencies are liberally construed to give voice to the victim’s grievance. (See People v. Sangil, 208 SCRA 696.)

• Waiver of Objection to Information — Failure to move to quash an information on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form before entering a plea constitutes a waiver of that ground, except for grounds of lack of jurisdiction, no offense charged, extinction of the offense, or double jeopardy. (See People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 120093, 6 Nov. 1997.)

• Designation of Offense Not Controlling — The real nature of the crime charged is determined by the facts recited in the complaint or information, not by its title or the particular provision of law cited by the prosecutor. An accused may be convicted of as many offenses as are alleged and proven, even if they are erroneously charged in a single information as a complex crime.

• Distinction Between Complex Crime of Robbery with Rape and Separate Offenses — Article 294(2) applies only when the original criminal design is to commit robbery, and rape is committed as an accompanying or incidental crime. Where the primary intent is to commit rape and the taking of property is a mere afterthought, the offender is liable for separate crimes of rape and robbery. (See People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493.)

• Alibi vs. Positive Identification — Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness. For alibi to be credible, the accused must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

• Spontaneous Statements Outside Custodial Investigation — An uncounselled statement made spontaneously and overheard by law enforcers, which is not the product of interrogation, is admissible in evidence and does not violate the right to counsel.

• “The term ‘complaint filed by the offended party’ found in Rule 110, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, . . . should be given a liberal or loose interpretation meaning a ‘charge, allegation, grievance, accusation or denunciation’ — rather than a strict legal construction, for more often than not the offended party who files it is unschooled in the law. The purpose of the complaint in Section 5, Rule 110, is merely to initiate or commence the prosecution of the accused. The victim’s ‘sinumpaang salaysay’ which was prepared in the vernacular, and the ‘complaint’ in English, which must have been prepared for her by someone else, complement each other, when read together, and satisfy the legal definition of a ‘complaint’ …” — Explaining the liberal interpretation applied to the complaint requirement in rape cases.

• “The legal requirement imposed in Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code … is out of consideration for the aggrieved party who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through the scandal of a public trial. The overriding consideration in determining compliance with the requirement is the intent and determination of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redress.” — Stating the rationale behind the requirement and how the victim’s actions fulfilled it.

• “Controlling in an Information should not be the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being, by and large, mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited.” — Reiterating the rule that the facts alleged, not the label, define the crime.

• “Looking closely at the records of the instant case, it would be quite difficult to conclude that the original intention of appellant was to rob the victim … On the contrary, it would appear that the primary and real intent of appellant was to commit rape and that his demand for cash from his victim was just an afterthought when the opportunity presented itself specifically during a respite between the first and the second sexual intercourse.” — The Supreme Court’s basis for not applying the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

• People v. Sangil, 208 SCRA 696 — Followed as controlling authority for the liberal interpretation of the complaint requirement under Rule 110, Section 5, and Article 344, holding that the victim’s sworn statement, together with the formal complaint, constitutes a valid complaint.

• People v. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11 — Cited to reinforce the rationale that the complaint requirement under Article 344 protects the offended party’s choice not to expose herself to public scandal, and that the victim’s sworn statement demonstrated her determination to bring the accused to justice.

• People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 120093, 6 Nov. 1997 — Applied for the rule that failure to move to quash an information on the ground of formal defect before plea results in waiver of that objection.

• People v. Mabag, 98 SCRA 730 — Relied upon for the principle that the designation of the offense in the information is not controlling and that the accused may be convicted under Article 335 even when the information mentions Article 294(2). The case also illustrated the division in the Court regarding the appropriate penalty for robbery with rape, which informed the analysis of the correct penalty in the present case.

• People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493 — Cited to support the distinction that the complex crime of robbery with rape does not arise when the original intent is rape and the taking of property is an afterthought.

• People v. Reception, 198 SCRA 670 — Followed for the rule that familiarity with physical features is an acceptable method of identification.

• People v. Umali, 242 SCRA 17; People v. De Roxas, 241 SCRA 369** — Applied for the standard that alibi must be supported by proof of physical impossibility of being at the crime scene.

• Article 344, Revised Penal Code — The provision requiring a complaint by the offended party for the prosecution of crimes of rape was satisfied because the victim’s sworn statement, which charged the accused and was subscribed by her, demonstrated her clear intent to initiate the prosecution; the formal complaint and sworn statement were read together.

• Rule 110, Section 5, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — The requirement of a complaint signed by the offended party was given a liberal construction so that the sworn statement of the victim, together with the police complaint, was deemed a sufficient complaint to vest jurisdiction.

• Article 294(2), Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 767 — The special complex crime of robbery with rape was held inapplicable because the original design was to commit rape, not robbery; the taking of P100.00 was an afterthought.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code (prior to amendment by R.A. No. 7659) — Applied to the two counts of rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death; the minimum was imposed in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

• Article 294(5), Revised Penal Code — The taking of P100.00 by means of violence or intimidation was penalized as simple robbery under this paragraph, carrying the penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms for the simple robbery conviction.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Panganiban, and Martinez, JJ., concurred. No separate concurring opinions were filed.