People vs. Cabatlao

Where the alleged rape is not proved beyond reasonable doubt because the victim’s testimony is erratic and conflicting and the medical evidence does not corroborate it, the accused cannot be convicted of robbery with rape; he may be convicted only of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code.

Ewaldo Cabatlao and the spouses Quirico Pandan and Lolita Peligreno Pandan lived in the same locality of sitio Dalican, barrio Bobonao, Baganga, Davao Oriental. The Revised Penal Code punishes robbery with rape under Article 294, while Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111, raised the penalty for rape committed with deadly weapons or by two or more persons to reclusion perpetua to death.

At about midnight on September 20, 1970, the spouses Quirico Pandan and Lolita Peligreno Pandan and their two young children were asleep in their house in sitio Dalican, barrio Bobonao, Baganga, Davao Oriental. They were awakened by the noise of their chickens under the house. Lolita had barely lighted a wick lamp when the improvised door shutter of their main door was forcibly opened and fell down. Two armed men barged in: one armed with a dagger, identified as Ewaldo Cabatlao, and the other armed with a harass or bolo, who was not known to the victims. Quirico was immediately hogtied with both hands behind his back and made to lie face downward, and the other robber guarded him. Cabatlao then hogtied Lolita after thrusting his dagger at her body but hitting only her hand. Cabatlao forced open a wooden trunk with his dagger and extracted the spouses’ savings of P200. With his dagger, Cabatlao threatened Lolita with death and forced her to lie down; according to the trial court, he had sexual intercourse with her in three positions, after which his companion also had sexual intercourse with her. The following morning, the spouses reported the incident to their landlord, Arnulfo Balbuena, who accompanied them to the Municipal Police Department to formally lodge their complaint. Lolita was examined by the Rural Health Physician, who issued a medical certificate (Exhibit D).

Cabatlao interposed alibi, corroborated by four witnesses. The defense witnesses testified that on the night of September 20, 1970, Cabatlao was in his house at Dalican, Bobonao, Baganga, Davao Oriental; that he did not leave the house the whole day and night because he had severe headache, toothache, and stomachache; and that the witnesses were in his house engaged in a drinking spree, but Cabatlao did not participate because he was lying down in pain.

At trial, Lolita testified that she was abused three times in different positions: first while lying down; second with both her legs placed on the accused’s shoulder; and third while standing and bending downward with her buttocks in front of the accused. Quirico testified that he was lying face downward after being tied; that he did not look anymore because he pitied his wife; that he did not notice what transpired after he lay face downward; and that before Cabatlao went to his wife, Cabatlao put out the light, leaving the house in darkness. When asked whether his direct testimony that he saw his wife abused was a figment of his fertile imagination, Quirico answered, “Yes, sir, that was my calculation.” Lolita admitted that the dagger thrusts were only attempts to intimidate her and that she was superficially wounded only once by the first thrust, which she tried to parry. Dr. Teopisto M. Morales, the Rural Health Physician, testified that the victim’s body from the abdomen down showed no traumatic injury; that he examined the private parts for injury and semen deposits in the cervix and curvacious region but was not able to realize any remains of possible semen or traumatic injury; and that the four superficial wounds of the victim had dried up. The examination was made barely sixteen hours after the incident.

The trial court found that the offended spouses positively and steadfastly pointed to Cabatlao as one of the principal perpetrators, and that the affidavits taken by the police on September 22, 1970, only two days after the incident, showed that Cabatlao had been definitely and positively identified by the complainants. It rejected the alibi because the defense witnesses gave conflicting testimony: Gregorio Estrada testified that there was no partition or separate room in the house of Epifanio Cabatlao, while Lucindo Katipunan testified that there was a separate room or bedroom; Estrada testified that his daughter Luz Estrada had been living with the Cabatlaos in Bobonao since her marriage long before September 20, 1970, while Katipunan testified that he arrived in the Cabatlaos’ house in Bobonao to look for work only on September 20, 1970; Estrada testified that they drank Siu Hoc Tong that evening, while Katipunan testified that they drank tuba; Estrada testified that he arrived in Bobonao at 11:00 o’clock in the morning of September 20, 1970, while Katipunan testified that Estrada arrived at 9:00 o’clock in the morning; and Estrada testified that Katipunan was a resident of barrio Baculin, Baganga, Davao Oriental, while Katipunan declared that he was a resident of barrio Banao, Baganga, Davao Oriental. The trial court also noted that Katipunan admitted on cross-examination that Gregorio Estrada had told him what the latter testified in court, and concluded that the defense witnesses probably concocted their testimony beforehand.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant Cabatlao, through counsel de oficio, argued that the trial court erred in finding the prosecution evidence sufficient to justify a conviction.
• Silence as Evidence of Guilt: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in treating his silence in view of the evidence presented against him as indicative of guilt.
• Positive Identification and Alibi: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding him positively identified, thereby rejecting his alibi and making him liable to the extreme penalty.
• Robbery: Accused-appellant argued that the robbery was not clearly established because neither the trunk nor the padlock allegedly destroyed was exhibited in court; Barrio Captain Sayman testified that neither spouse mentioned the robbery when he and Patrolman Paquidongan investigated the incident in their house; and the alleged robbery of P200 was merely a suggestion of Patrolman Paquidongan.

• Sufficiency of Rape Evidence: Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that rape was committed on the occasion of the robbery, so as to support a conviction for robbery with rape.
• Robbery: Whether robbery was sufficiently established despite the non-presentation of the trunk and padlock and the alleged failure of the spouses to mention the robbery to the investigating authorities.
• Alibi and Identification: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Cabatlao’s alibi and finding him positively identified as one of the perpetrators.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether nighttime and dwelling may be appreciated as aggravating circumstances.
• Crime and Penalty: Whether Cabatlao should be convicted of robbery with rape or only robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, and what penalty is proper.

• Sufficiency of Rape Evidence: No. The rape was not sufficiently established; the victim’s testimony was erratic and conflicting, the alleged sexual positions were incredible, and the medical evidence showed no traumatic injury or semen, so robbery with rape cannot be sustained.
• Robbery: Yes. The finding that robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294, paragraph 5, was committed is supported by the evidence; the non-presentation of the trunk and padlock and the alleged omissions in the investigation did not negate the robbery.
• Alibi and Identification: No. The trial court correctly rejected the alibi because Cabatlao was positively identified and no motive was shown for the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely; the contradictions among the defense witnesses also impaired their credibility.
• Aggravating Circumstances: No. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because it was not alleged in the information and there was no evidence it was specially sought or taken advantage of; dwelling is inherent in robbery committed inside the victim’s house.
• Crime and Penalty: Cabatlao is guilty only of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294, paragraph 5, with an indeterminate penalty of four years and two months of prision correccional to ten years of prision mayor, indemnity of P200, and costs.

• Sufficiency of Rape Evidence: The SC subjected the rape evidence to thorough scrutiny in light of human nature and experience. It found the testimonies of Lolita and Quirico not only erratic but conflicting in material points. Lolita claimed she was abused three times in different positions—lying down, with both legs on the accused’s shoulder, and standing and bending downward with her buttocks in front of the accused. The SC held that while such acts were not impossible, they could only be achieved by complete submission of the woman and cooperation of both parties, making the portrayal incredible and bizarre under the circumstances. Quirico’s testimony further weakened the rape charge: he was lying face downward, did not look because he pitied his wife, did not notice what transpired after he lay face downward, and admitted that his direct testimony that he saw his wife abused was a figment of his fertile imagination and his calculation. The medical evidence also did not corroborate rape. Dr. Morales testified that the victim’s body from the abdomen down showed no traumatic injury; he examined the private parts for injury and semen deposits in the cervix and curvacious region but was not able to realize any remains of possible semen or traumatic injury. Lolita admitted that the dagger thrusts were only attempts to intimidate her and that she was superficially wounded only once by the first thrust she tried to parry. Dr. Morales declared that the four superficial wounds had dried up; the SC found it inconceivable that such wounds could have been inflicted during the commission of the crime barely sixteen hours before the examination, because a wound, though slight, will not dry up in sixteen hours, and the wounds may have been sustained elsewhere and were not the result of the alleged rape. Citing People vs. Ching Suy Siong, People vs. Joven, People vs. Lacuna, and Lopez vs. People, the SC held that rape through force requires lack of voluntariness and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; absence of physical injuries negates the use of force. Thus the alleged rape was not sufficiently established.
• Robbery: The SC held that the trial court’s finding that robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code was committed is supported by the evidence. Counsel de oficio challenged the robbery finding on the grounds that neither the trunk nor the padlock allegedly destroyed was exhibited in court, that Barrio Captain Sayman testified that neither of the spouses mentioned the robbery when he and Patrolman Paquidongan investigated the incident, and that the alleged robbery of P200 was merely a suggestion of Patrolman Paquidongan. The SC did not sustain these objections and upheld the robbery finding.
• Alibi and Identification: The SC held that the defense of alibi was correctly not sustained considering the positive identification of the accused. There was no showing of any motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against Cabatlao. The SC also held that the material contradictions in the testimonies of the defense witnesses on the alibi, as noted by the trial court, could not be ignored, and there was no reason to disturb those findings. The trial court had found conflicts on whether there was a partition or separate room in the house, when Gregorio Estrada arrived in Bobonao, what they drank that evening, and where Lucindo Katipunan resided; Katipunan also admitted on cross-examination that Estrada had told him what the latter testified in court, leading the trial court to conclude that the defense witnesses probably concocted their testimony beforehand. Thus the alibi could not overcome the positive identification.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The trial court appreciated nighttime and dwelling as aggravating circumstances. The SC held that nighttime could not be considered because it was not alleged in the information. Moreover, there was no evidence that nighttime was specially sought by the offenders or taken advantage of by them to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure its consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house, citing People vs. Galapia. The SC also held that dwelling could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the robbery committed in the Pandans’ house because it is an inherent element of robbery with force upon things committed inside the dwelling of the victim; entrance to the house is inevitable, and without such entrance there could be no robbery, citing People vs. Jaramilla. Thus neither aggravating circumstance could be considered.
• Crime and Penalty: The SC found Cabatlao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code, not robbery with rape. The penalty for robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5, is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period; the penalty lower by one degree is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. Following People vs. Liera, the SC imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years and two months of prision correccional to ten years of prision mayor. It also ordered Cabatlao to indemnify the offended parties in the sum of P200 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

• Rape in robbery with rape must be proved beyond reasonable doubt — In a prosecution for robbery with rape, the rape cannot be presumed from the robbery; it must be established by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The SC scrutinized the victim’s testimony and medical evidence, found the spouses’ accounts erratic and conflicting, and held that the alleged rape was not sufficiently established, reducing the conviction to robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
• Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification — Alibi is a weak defense easily manufactured and cannot overcome positive identification where no motive is shown for the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely. The SC upheld the rejection of Cabatlao’s alibi because he was positively identified and the defense witnesses’ testimonies were materially contradictory.
• Nighttime as an aggravating circumstance must be alleged and proved — Nighttime cannot aggravate a crime unless it is alleged in the information and shown to have been specially sought or taken advantage of by the offender to facilitate the crime or insure its consummation with minimum resistance. The SC rejected nighttime because it was not alleged and no such evidence was adduced.
• Dwelling is not aggravating when inherent in the crime — Dwelling cannot be separately appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when it is an inherent element of the crime. In robbery committed inside the victim’s house, entrance is inevitable and without it there could be no robbery, so dwelling cannot aggravate.
• Indeterminate penalty for robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5 — The penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period; the penalty lower by one degree is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period. The SC imposed four years and two months of prision correccional to ten years of prision mayor.

• “The alleged rape has not been sufficiently established.” — The SC’s conclusion on the rape charge, which led it to modify the conviction from robbery with rape to robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
• “The testimonies of Lolita Pandan and her spouse, Quirico Pandan, are not only erratic but also conflicting in their material points.” — The SC’s reason for rejecting the rape charge, emphasizing the inconsistent accounts of the alleged sexual assault.
• “The defense of alibi was correctly not sustained considering the positive Identification of the accused. There is no showing of any motive of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against said accused.” — The SC’s rejection of Cabatlao’s alibi and affirmation of his positive identification.
• “Nocturnity was not alleged in the information. Moreover, there is no evidence adduced that nighttime was specially sought by the offenders, or taken advantage of by them to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure its consummation with a minimum of resistance from the inmates of the house.” — The SC’s ruling that nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

• People vs. Ching Suy Siong, L-6174, February 28, 1955 — Cited for the rule that rape through force requires lack of voluntariness and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; the SC used it to reject the rape charge.
• People vs. Joven, L-36022, May 22, 1975, 64 SCRA 126 — Cited with Ching Suy Siong and Lacuna on the same rule that rape through force must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
• People vs. Lacuna, 87 SCRA 364, 374-375 — Cited for the rule that absence of physical injuries negates the use of force in rape.
• Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. L-47469, December 29, 1978, 87 SCRA 462, 471 — Cited for the rule that absence of injuries on the victim’s body and private parts negates the use of force in rape.
• People vs. Galapia, 84 SCRA 526, 531-532 — Cited for the rule that nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance unless alleged and shown to have been specially sought or taken advantage of.
• People vs. Jaramilla, 55 SCRA 563, 572 — Cited for the rule that dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when it is inherent in the crime of robbery committed inside the victim’s house.
• People vs. Liera, 82 SCRA 163, 171-172 — Cited for the proper indeterminate penalty for robbery under Article 294, paragraph 5.

• Article 294, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Punishes robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; the SC convicted Cabatlao under this provision and imposed the indeterminate penalty.
• Article 294, Revised Penal Code — The information charged robbery with rape under this article; the SC did not convict for robbery with rape because the rape was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111 — The trial court used this provision to impose death for rape committed with deadly weapons or by two or more persons; the SC did not apply it because the rape was not established.

• Justice Makasiar (Concurring) — Concurred in the statement of fact in Justice Aquino’s dissent and voted for the imposition of the death penalty.

• Justice Teehankee (Dissenting) — The record showed beyond doubt that qualified rape was committed by Cabatlao and his companion; the victim’s testimony stood uncontradicted. With the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and ignominy, he voted to affirm the death penalty, invoking People vs. Obtinalia and his separate opinion in People vs. Boado that the proper penalty is the more severe one under Article 335 as amended by Republic Act No. 4111, not the lesser penalty for robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 2.
• Justice Aquino (Dissenting) — The rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. After Cabatlao hogtied the spouses and took P200, he put out the light, removed his clothes, approached Lolita with a dagger, pushed her backward, tore her dress and panty, poked the dagger at her body, held her neck, and consummated sexual intercourse; his companion then raped her. The doctor certified wounds and opined they were caused by a dagger; the absence of genital injuries did not preclude sexual injury. Aquino believed Cabatlao should be convicted of robbery with rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, not convicted under Article 335 because he was not charged with a crime of chastity.