People vs. Boado

Positive identification of the accused by the victims, made under circumstances affording adequate opportunity to observe the malefactors, prevails over the defenses of denial and alibi, especially where the accused's claimed whereabouts are only about a kilometer from the crime scene. The presence of spermatozoa in the victim's vagina, coupled with proof that she was threatened with death and held at gunpoint, sufficiently establishes rape even without physical injury.

The accused, Raymundo Boado and Federico Rivera, were strangers to complainant Crispina Belvis and her three companions, who were traveling together on the business of Beautycraft. The charge was brought under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 767, which penalizes robbery with rape.

On September 20, 1974, Crispina Belvis, an interior decorator, and three employees of Beautycraft — Ernesto Zulueta, its secretary; Amado Paulino, its driver; and Tomas Sino Cruz, its carpenter — traveled from Dagupan City to San Fernando, La Union to deliver draperies for the interior decoration of the Bureau of Lands Office. They rode a Ford Fiera panel of Beautycraft. After completing their work, the four left San Fernando for Dagupan City at about 9:30 p.m., passing through the municipality of San Fabian, Pangasinan. Crispina sat in the front seat, with Paulino driving to her left and Zulueta to her right; Sino Cruz lay at the back seat of the panel.

When they reached Barrio Rabon, San Fabian, the panel had to stop because the road was blocked by two trunks of Caimito trees, with big stones on the side of the road. As Paulino was about to go down to remove the road blocks, a gunman armed with a .38 caliber revolver appeared suddenly and pointed the gun at his temple, saying, "This is a hold up." The gunman took the key of the panel. A second gunman pointed a shotgun at Zulueta's right temple, also stating that it was a hold up, and snatched Crispina's bag. A third gunman appeared in front of the panel and pointed his shotgun at the victims.

The gunmen ordered Crispina and her companions to get down and proceed toward the railroad track about six meters away. Near the railroad track, on a deepened portion planted with palay, the four were ordered to lie down and were hogtied with rubber strips taken from the panel. Their pockets were searched. From Crispina, the trio took P5.00, a sapphire ring worth P120.00, and a meter valued at P15.00. From Zulueta, they took a watch valued at P190.00 and a ring worth P60.00. From Sino Cruz, Boado took a watch worth P200.00, and from Paulino, the trio took P5.00. Crispina remembered Boado because, as he placed the stolen items in her bag, he held a lighted flashlight that illuminated his face.

After the robbery, one of the malefactors — a man with a short arm who was neither arrested nor tried — took Crispina about ten meters from her companions, ordered her to lie down, and removed her panty. When she refused, he had sexual intercourse with her. She did not and could not refuse because he pointed a gun at her and threatened to kill her if she did not yield; as she was raped, another malefactor with a long firearm stood guard. Boado then took his turn and raped her. He removed his army hat, his pants, and his drawer, pulled Crispina's feet to force her to lie down from a sitting position, and snatched the panty she had replaced. Her panty was torn and thrown away by Boado, who then inserted his penis into her vagina and began raising his buttocks up and down. She could not resist because he pointed a gun at her and threatened, "Papatayin kita kung hindi mo ibibigay" (I will kill you if you will not give it); she trembled from fright. Rivera, positively identified by Crispina as the third malefactor, then raped her. She pleaded with him not to touch her because she had children, but he pointed a gun at her head and threatened to kill her if she did not yield; he opened his zipper, put out his penis, inserted it into her vagina, and moved his buttocks up and down.

Afterwards, Boado and Rivera took Crispina to the Ford panel while the third malefactor brought the three other victims near the seashore. As Boado and Rivera were putting the stolen things inside a bag with the use of a flashlight, Crispina saw their faces. When Boado noticed her watching, he ordered her to lie down. Rivera took Crispina to her companions near the seashore. While Rivera guarded the victims, Boado and the unidentified culprit drove the Ford panel toward San Fabian. After a while, the two returned in the panel, and the three brought the victims to the panel. The victims were untied and Crispina's companions were boxed. The trio then told them to ride the panel and proceed on their way, warning them not to report the incident or they would be liquidated.

The four victims reached Dagupan City at about midnight of September 20, 1974, and immediately reported the incident to the city police, who in turn called the San Fabian police to investigate. That same night, Crispina went to the Pangasinan Provincial Hospital in Dagupan City for vaginal and internal examination. Dr. Fe Cruz Manaois, who conducted the examination, issued a certificate finding a parous outlet with no evidence of contusion or hematoma, no pubic hair other than the patient's, a firm and closed cervix, an anteverted uterus, a closed cervix with some transparent viscid secretions, and a vaginal smear positive for spermatozoa, with absence of any contusion, hematoma, or bruises in other portions of the body. Dr. Manaois testified that her findings on the vaginal smear taken from Crispina were positive for spermatozoa, that male sperm was found in the complainant's vagina, and that the complainant had already given birth.

On September 21, 1974, the very next day after the crime, the victims went to the PC Headquarters in Lingayen, Pangasinan to report the incident, and their sworn statements were taken. Investigation was conducted by Sgt. Maximo Galsim of the PC. On September 23, 1974, the four victims again appeared at the PC Headquarters in Lingayen for a possible identification of the malefactors. In a line-up of eight persons, Crispina pointed to Rivera and Boado as two of the three who robbed them and raped her. In the same line-up, Zulueta and Sino Cruz identified Boado as one of the trio.

The defense presented denial and alibi. Boado claimed that on September 20, 1971 [sic], he was at his house with his parents and sisters and slept from 7:00 p.m. until the next morning; he resided at Barrio Tiblong, a former portion of Barrio Rabon where the crime took place. He denied participation in the crime and claimed he did not know Crispina. Barrio Tiblong is about one kilometer from Barrio Rabon, and a good road connects the two barrios. Boado admitted that on September 23, 1974, he and Rivera were included in a line-up at the PC Headquarters in Lingayen and that Crispina pointed to him as one of the participants; when pointed to, he remained silent. Camila Boado corroborated her son's alibi and stated that he was taken by the PC on September 23, 1974, together with two neighbors. Andres Genese, a former resident of Barrio Rabon, also corroborated Boado's alibi, narrating that on September 20, 1974, at about 9:00 p.m., he and his companions went fishing, passed by Boado's house, and saw Raymundo sleeping inside.

Rivera likewise interposed denial and alibi. He claimed that on the night of September 20, 1974, he was in their house at Barrio Tiblong, watching his stepfather Inocencio de Guzman, who was ill with tuberculosis and vomited blood that night. He was very close to his stepfather and considered him his legitimate father. He admitted that Barrio Tiblong is very near Barrio Rabon. He denied participation in the crime and stated that he stayed beside his sick stepfather the whole night until the following morning. Prior to the crime, he did not know Crispina and never had any misunderstanding with her; the complainant pointed to him and Boado as the malefactors, and that was why they were detained. Inocencio de Guzman corroborated Rivera's alibi, narrating that Rivera stayed with him the whole night of September 20, 1974, when he vomited blood. Soledad Basallo, de Guzman's wife, likewise corroborated Rivera's alibi. Gaudencio Genese, a farmer and resident of Barrio Tiblong, also corroborated Rivera's alibi.

An information for "Robbery With Multiple Rape" was filed against Boado, Rivera, and a John Doe. At trial, the court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the positive identification of both accused by Crispina and the victims Zulueta and Sino Cruz; that there was no ulterior motive for the witnesses' testimony; that the presence of spermatozoa in Crispina's vagina, coupled with the threats on her life, established rape despite the absence of physical injury; that the defense of alibi could not prevail over the positive identification, the houses of both accused being only about one kilometer from the crime scene; and that nighttime, uninhabited place, and aid of armed men attended the commission of the crime.

• Denial and Alibi: The accused denied participation in the crime and interposed alibi, Boado claiming that on the night of the crime he was at his house in Barrio Tiblong with his parents and sisters and slept from 7:00 p.m. until the next morning, and Rivera claiming that he was in their house at Barrio Tiblong watching his stepfather, who was ill with tuberculosis and vomited blood that night.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The defense questioned the trial court's finding that the aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and nighttime attended the commission of the crime.

• Positive Identification: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the perpetrators of the robbery and rape.
• Evidence of Rape: Whether the absence of physical injury on the complainant's private parts negates the finding that she was raped.
• Alibi: Whether the defense of denial and alibi interposed by both accused should be credited over the prosecution's evidence.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place, and aid of armed men attended the commission of the crime.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed upon the accused.

• Positive Identification: Yes. The evidence sufficiently established the positive identification of both accused by complainant Crispina Belvis and the victims Tomas Sino Cruz, Ernesto Zulueta, and Amado Paulino.
• Evidence of Rape: No. The absence of physical injury does not negate rape where the victim was threatened with death and held at gunpoint; the presence of spermatozoa in her vagina, found almost immediately after the crime, strongly indicates that she was raped.
• Alibi: No. The defense of alibi cannot stand against positive identification, especially where the houses of both accused were only about one kilometer from the crime scene.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Yes. Nighttime, uninhabited place, and aid of armed men were properly appreciated as aggravating circumstances.
• Penalty: The death penalty could not be imposed for lack of the necessary number of votes; the judgment of conviction was affirmed in toto, but the accused were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua.

• Positive Identification: The evidence for the prosecution sufficiently established the positive identification of both accused by complainant Crispina Belvis and the victims Tomas Sino Cruz, Ernesto Zulueta, and Amado Paulino. Crispina pointed to Boado as the second man who raped her, identifying him because his face was illuminated by the flashlight he was holding when he placed the stolen things in a bag; she remembered Rivera because of his square-shaped face and wide-opened nose, and Boado because he wore an army hat. She identified both in a line-up of eight persons on September 23, 1974, at the PC Headquarters in Lingayen, Pangasinan, pointing to them as members of the three-man group who raped her and robbed them. She had ample time to identify her assailants during that night because of her proximity to them for a sufficient period when they perpetrated the crime. Zulueta and Sino Cruz also positively identified Boado as one of the malefactors, their identification being aided by the flashlight Boado held and the headlight of the Ford panel. There was nothing on record, and the defense never alleged or proved, any ulterior motive for the witnesses to falsely impute such a despicable crime on the accused. Crispina's testimony was straightforward, simple, and logical, and therefore presumed embedded in sincerity; it is difficult to believe that a married woman with children would willingly submit to sexual abuse by three total strangers, one after the other.

• Evidence of Rape: Although the medico-legal examination of the complainant's private part did not conclusively establish that she was raped because of the absence of injury, it was proven that she was unable to resist the three who raped her because she was threatened with death if she did not give in and the three had guns pointed at her. Being a married woman with several children, and unable to resist because of the threat on her life, there would naturally be no physical signs of injury on her private part even if three persons had successively raped her. The presence of sperm in her vagina, as found in the medical examination conducted almost immediately after the crime, strongly indicated that she was really raped. The complainant was emphatic when she testified that the three malefactors successfully put their penis into her vagina; no more eloquent evidence of rape is necessary in light of that narration coming from a completely credible source.

• Alibi: The defense of alibi put up by both accused cannot stand against their positive identification by the witnesses for the prosecution. Besides, the houses of both accused, where they claimed to be during the night of the crime, are in Barrio Tiblong, only about one kilometer from Barrio Rabon where the crime occurred, and it was very easy for them to travel in a few minutes the distance between the two places.

• Aggravating Circumstances: The crime took place at about 9:00 p.m. on September 20, 1974, and during the almost two hours that it occurred, there was no evidence of any vehicle or pedestrian that passed the portion of the national highway where the crime happened. The prosecution established that there were no houses near the scene of the crime, and the possibility of any help or assistance to the victims was almost nil. The malefactors clearly selected that uninhabited place as the scene of the crime to prevent any interference with their evil act. Nighttime was likewise deliberately sought, as the culprits prepared a block on the national road with tree trunks and stones and ambushed the victims when their Ford panel was forced to stop; under cover of darkness, they suddenly appeared near the vehicle to perpetrate the robbery. The cover of darkness facilitated the commission of the crime and was taken advantage of by them. As to aid of armed men, it was clearly proven that three armed men committed the robbery and the rape; the mere fact that the third malefactor was not apprehended and brought to trial cannot alter that proven event.

• Penalty: The Court concurred in the trial court's finding of moral certainty in the guilt of both accused for the crime of robbery with double rape and the sentence of death. However, for lack of the necessary number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty, the accused was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, with costs.

• Positive Identification Prevails Over Denial and Alibi — Where prosecution witnesses positively identify the accused under circumstances affording adequate opportunity to observe them, such identification prevails over the accused's bare denial and alibi. In this case, complainant Crispina Belvis identified Boado because his face was illuminated by the flashlight he held while placing the stolen items in her bag, and identified Rivera by his square-shaped face and wide-opened nose; both were identified in a line-up of eight persons, and two other victims also identified Boado.

• Alibi Unavailing Where the Accused's Location Is Easily Accessible — Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification, and it is unavailing where the accused's claimed whereabouts are only about one kilometer from the crime scene and easily reachable within a few minutes. Here, the houses of both accused in Barrio Tiblong were only about one kilometer from Barrio Rabon, where the crime occurred, and a good road connected the two barrios.

• Spermatozoa as Evidence of Rape Despite Absence of Injury — The absence of physical injury on the victim's private parts does not negate rape where the victim was threatened with death and held at gunpoint, since a married woman with children would naturally offer no physical resistance under such threats. The presence of sperm in the victim's vagina, found in a medical examination conducted almost immediately after the crime, strongly indicates that she was raped.

• Aggravating Circumstances of Nighttime and Uninhabited Place — Nighttime and uninhabited place are properly appreciated as aggravating circumstances where the malefactors deliberately selected the time and place to facilitate the crime and prevent interference. Here, the crime occurred at about 9:00 p.m. on a portion of the national highway with no houses nearby and no vehicle or pedestrian passing during the almost two hours it took place, and the malefactors prepared a road block with tree trunks and stones to ambush the victims under cover of darkness.

• Aid of Armed Men — The aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men is appreciated where three armed men committed the robbery and rape, notwithstanding that the third malefactor was not apprehended and brought to trial.

• Death Penalty Requires the Necessary Number of Votes — The death penalty cannot be imposed without the necessary number of votes; where the required votes are not obtained, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.

• "The defense of alibi put up by both accused Boado and Rivera cannot stand against their positive identification by witnesses for the prosecution." — This states the ratio decidendi on the defense of alibi, establishing that positive identification by credible prosecution witnesses overrides the accused's claim of being elsewhere at the time of the crime.

• "The presence, however, of sperm in her vagina as found out in the medical examination conducted almost immediately after the crime was committed strongly indicate that she was really raped." — This articulates the Court's treatment of the medico-legal evidence, holding that the presence of spermatozoa corroborates the victim's testimony of rape notwithstanding the absence of physical injury.

• "It is very difficult to believe that a married woman like the complainant Crispina, with children, would willingly submit to sexual abuse by three total strangers, one after the other, as the defense would like this Court to accept as a fact." — This passage defines the Court's credibility assessment of the complainant's testimony, invoking the presumption of sincerity and the improbability of a married woman with children consenting to such abuse.

• "However, for lack of the necessary number of votes for the imposition of the death penalty, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with costs." — This is the dispositive portion of the majority opinion, stating the reduction of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for lack of the required number of votes.

• People vs. Francisquite, 56 SCRA 764 — Cited in the majority opinion in support of the finding of the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place.
• People vs. Ong, 62 SCRA 174, 212 — Cited in the majority opinion in support of the finding of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
• People vs. Obtinalia, 38 SCRA 651 (1971) — Cited in Justice Teehankee's separate opinion for the rule that where the rape on the occasion of the robbery is committed by two or more persons, the death penalty provided by Republic Act No. 4111 must apply, and not the lesser penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
• People vs. Carangdang, 52 SCRA 259, 277 (1973) — Cited in Justice Teehankee's separate opinion for the rule that where robbery with rape is committed but the rape is qualified by the use of a deadly weapon and is committed by at least two persons, either factor supplies the controlling qualification, so that the law to apply is Article 335 and not Article 294 of the Penal Code.
• People vs. Mabag, G.R. No. L-38548, July 24, 1980 — Cited in Justice Teehankee's separate opinion in support of the same rule on qualified rape committed on the occasion of robbery.

• Article 294(2), Revised Penal Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 767 — Penalizes robbery with rape. The information was filed under this provision, and the trial court convicted the accused under it, imposing two penalties of death.
• Presidential Decree No. 767 — Amended Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code to provide the increased penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. Cited in Justice Teehankee's separate opinion as having removed the discrepancy between Article 294(2) and Article 335.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 — Provides the death penalty for qualified rape. Cited in Justice Teehankee's separate opinion as the law that should apply where the rape on the occasion of the robbery is qualified by the use of a deadly weapon and committed by two or more persons.
• Presidential Decree No. 77 — Cited in the information as the basis for the preliminary investigation conducted by the Assistant Provincial Fiscal.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

• Justice Teehankee — Filed a separate opinion voting for the affirmance of the death penalty. He argued that where robbery with rape is committed but the rape is qualified by the use of a deadly weapon and is committed by at least two persons, either of these two factors supplies the controlling qualification, so that the law to apply is Article 335 (as amended by Republic Act No. 4111) and not Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. He cited People vs. Obtinalia, which held that where the rape on the occasion of the robbery is committed by two or more persons, the death penalty provided by Republic Act No. 4111 must apply, and not the lesser penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua under Article 294(2). He noted that both qualifying elements were present in the commission of the rape — the use of deadly weapons and its perpetration by the three robbers. He also maintained that the real nature of the crime charged is determined not by the title of the information nor by the specification of the provision of law or specific article of the Penal Code alleged to have been violated but by the facts recited in the information and duly proven at trial, so that it was sheer technicality to contend that since the accused was charged under Article 294(2), he could be convicted only under that article. He observed that the discrepancy between the two articles was removed on August 15, 1975 through Presidential Decree No. 767, which amended Article 294(2) to provide the same increased penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons.