People vs. Coritana

In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, all conspirators are liable as principals for the rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless the co-conspirator proves not only that he did not participate in the rape but that he tried to prevent it. The taking of personal belongings of employees during the same criminal episode forms part of the single continuing crime and does not constitute a separate offense of theft.

AAA, a 24-year-old single woman, worked as a cashier at an eatery in Tacloban City, with a regular shift from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. the following day. The accused-appellant, Judito Coritana, was known to AAA as a resident of Sitio Barcelona, the sitio adjacent to the eatery, and she recognized him because he would usually attend their barangay's fiesta. His co-accused, identified only as "John Doe," remained unidentified and at large throughout the proceedings. The special complex crime of robbery with rape is penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659.

AAA, a 24-year-old single woman, worked as a cashier at an eatery located in Tacloban City, with a regular work schedule from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. the following day. At around 5:00 a.m. of March 3, 2001, AAA sent her co-worker, Teresita Madrigal, to the market, leaving AAA alone to tend the eatery. Two men soon arrived and ordered two special La Paz Batchoy. AAA identified one of the men as accused-appellant Judito Coritana, whom she knew as a resident of Sitio Barcelona, the sitio adjacent to the eatery, and whom she recognized because he would usually attend their barangay's fiesta. The other man she did not know; she described him only as an old man armed with a short bolo.

While AAA was preparing the batchoy near the cashier's booth, the old man approached her, poked a knife at the right side of her waist, and threatened her not to shout. The accused-appellant closed the main door of the eatery, then proceeded to the drawer and took the P1,100.00 therein. The old man directed AAA to go to the bathroom, which measured only half a meter by two meters. Inside, the old man tore a piece of cloth into three parts, using one to tie AAA's hands behind her back, another to tie her ankles, and the last to blindfold her. He then ordered her to bend over at an angle of about 80 degrees, with her head almost touching the toilet bowl and her back toward him. The old man pulled down her pants and underwear, inserted his penis into her vagina, and made pumping motions for about five minutes. Thereafter, the old man called on the accused-appellant, who then ravished the victim in the same manner. Throughout the ordeal, AAA remained silent because the accused-appellant threatened her with a knife.

The two men left AAA in the comfort room, still tied and blindfolded. On their way out, they took a plastic pail, AAA's bag containing P200.00, and Teresita's bag containing P1,800.00. Teresita arrived from the market at around 6:00 a.m. After learning of the incident, the eatery owner accompanied AAA to the Tacloban Police Station, where she executed a sworn statement. AAA was then brought to the Eastern Visayas Regional and Medical Center, where Dr. Karen Palencia, an obstetrician-gynecologist, examined her at around 10:00 a.m. The medical findings showed complete fresh lacerations of the hymen at the 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions, scanty bloody discharge, and a vaginal smear positive for spermatozoa.

The police, headed by SPO4 Benigno Santa Romana Liemes, responded to the scene on the morning of the same day. AAA identified the accused-appellant by name and residence. The police proceeded to his stated address and were informed that he was at Sitio Barcelona, Brgy. Aslum, Sta. Rita, Samar. On March 10, 2001, at 5:00 a.m., the accused-appellant was arrested and brought to the Tacloban Police Station.

The accused-appellant testified in his defense that he worked as a pedicab driver from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and half-day on Sundays. He claimed that on March 2, 2001, he was at the house of his brother at Brgy. 54, Magallanes District, Tacloban City, following his usual routine of driving the pedicab, returning it to its owner Antonio Cornillos, then going home to watch television and sleep at around 10:00 p.m. He stated he followed the same routine on March 3, 2001, and the next day, a Sunday, went to his parents' house at Sitio Barcelona, Brgy. Aslum, Sta. Rita, Samar, where police arrived with an unidentified woman, told him his pedicab was missing, and forced him to go to the police station. His sister-in-law, Rose Coritana, corroborated his testimony, affirming that he drove the pedicab from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and stayed at their house from March 1 to 3, 2001, and that on March 4, 2001, he went home to Brgy. Aslum at noontime. Both the RTC and the CA found the victim's testimony credible and trustworthy, sustaining the conviction.

• Failure of Positive Identification: Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to positively identify him and to prove concretely his involvement in the commission of the crime of rape.
• Impossibility of Voice Identification: Accused-appellant maintained that because the victim remained tied with her back away from the person who ravished her, it was unlikely she could have identified him through his voice, particularly where the prosecution failed to present concrete proof of the victim's familiarity with his voice sufficient to distinguish it from the other culprit's.
• Presumption of Innocence: Accused-appellant suggested that because the prosecution's evidence was weak, the inference yielding to the presumption of innocence should prevail.

• Positive Identification: Whether the prosecution positively identified the accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
• Conspiracy and Liability for Rape: Whether the accused-appellant may be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape even if he did not personally commit the rape, by virtue of conspiracy.
• Constituent Acts vs. Separate Theft: Whether the taking of the personal belongings of the victim and her co-worker during the robbery constitutes a separate crime of theft or forms part of the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
• Award of Actual Damages: Whether actual damages should be awarded for the money taken during the robbery.
• Modification of Damages: Whether the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages should be modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Positive Identification: Yes. The victim's testimony was found credible and trustworthy by both the RTC and the CA, and she identified the accused-appellant by name and residence immediately after the crime, affirming familiarity with him as a resident of the adjacent sitio who would attend their barangay's fiesta.
• Conspiracy and Liability for Rape: Yes. Conspiracy to commit robbery with rape was established, rendering the accused-appellant liable as principal for the rape committed by his co-conspirator, regardless of whether he personally committed the sexual assault, absent any showing that he tried to prevent the rape.
• Constituent Acts vs. Separate Theft: The taking of the personal belongings forms part of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The acts were borne from one criminal resolution to rob and constitute a single continuing crime, not a separate offense of theft.
• Award of Actual Damages: No. Other than the victim's testimony, there was no independent and reliable evidence to determine the value of the money stolen, and competent proof such as receipts is required to warrant an award of actual or compensatory damages.
• Modification of Damages: Yes. In accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the awards were modified to P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of finality until fully paid.

• Positive Identification: The victim's testimony displayed certainty as to the identity of the accused-appellant as one of the perpetrators. She identified him by name and residence immediately after the crime, affirming that she was familiar with him as he would usually attend their barangay's fiesta. Both the RTC and the CA found her testimony credible and trustworthy, and the Supreme Court found no cogent reason to deviate from those findings. The accused-appellant's argument that the victim could not have identified him through voice because she was tied with her back turned was rendered immaterial by the fact that she had already identified him upon his arrival at the eatery, before the assault began.

• Conspiracy and Liability for Rape: Jurisprudence instructs that when two or more persons are charged as co-conspirators in the crime of robbery with rape, it is irrelevant whether one or all of them committed the rape. For as long as conspiracy to rob is proven, all are treated as principals in the crime of robbery with rape. Whenever rape is committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery, all who took part are liable as principals, although not all took part in the rape. For one to be convicted solely of robbery and not rape, the co-conspirator must prove not only that he did not sexually abuse the victim but that he tried to prevent it. In this case, the accused-appellant and his companion acted in conspiracy to rob the eatery — the accused-appellant closed the door and took money from the drawer while the old man held the victim at knifepoint. The medical examination confirmed the victim was raped. Absent any allegation or proof that the accused-appellant tried to prevent the rape, he was liable as a co-conspirator and principal in the special complex crime of robbery with rape, regardless of whether he personally committed the sexual assault.

• Constituent Acts vs. Separate Theft: The RTC had concluded that the taking of the victim's and Teresita's bags, which occurred without further violence as the perpetrators exited, constituted simple theft that could not be punished because it was not alleged in the Information. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, holding that the taking of the personal belongings of the eatery's employees was a constituent act forming part of the special complex crime of robbery with rape, as the acts were borne from one criminal resolution — to rob. Robbery with rape is a continuing crime; although there is a series of acts, there is but one crime committed. The accused-appellant and his companion intended to rob the eatery, and the taking of the employees' personal belongings was a consequence of their original and single impulse, not a separate and distinct offense.

• Award of Actual Damages: The absence of a specific allegation in the Information as to the amount taken is not an obstacle to conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with rape, because the gravamen of robbery is not the amount or value of the thing taken but the taking with intent to gain of the property of another with violence or intimidation. The prosecution need not prove the actual value of the property stolen, as the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount. However, the allegation and proof of the value of the thing taken is necessary to justify an award of actual damages. Under Article 2199 of the Civil Code, a person is entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as has been duly proved. In criminal cases, competent proof such as receipts, description, or exchange rate is required. Here, other than the victim's testimony, there was no independent and reliable evidence to determine the value of the money stolen, so the victim was not entitled to reparation.

• Modification of Damages: Pursuant to the Court's ruling in People vs. Jugueta, the awards were modified to conform to current jurisprudence for crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua. Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were each set at P75,000.00. Interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum was imposed on all damages from the date of finality of the Decision until fully paid, in accordance with Nacar vs. Gallery Frames.

• Conspiracy in Robbery with Rape — When two or more persons conspire to commit robbery and rape is committed on the occasion of or as a consequence of the robbery, all conspirators are liable as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape, regardless of whether each personally committed the rape. To escape liability for the rape component, a co-conspirator must prove not only that he did not participate in the sexual abuse but that he tried to prevent it. The Court applied this doctrine to hold the accused-appellant liable for the rape committed by his unidentified companion, because conspiracy to rob was established and there was no showing that the accused-appellant attempted to prevent the rape.

• Robbery with Rape as a Continuing Crime — The special complex crime of robbery with rape is a continuing crime; although there is a series of acts, there is but one crime committed. Acts of taking personal property that are borne from one criminal resolution to rob — including the taking of employees' personal belongings during the same criminal episode — are constituent acts of the single crime and do not constitute separate offenses such as theft. The Court applied this principle to reject the RTC's characterization of the taking of the victim's and co-worker's bags as simple theft.

• Animus Lucrandi and Unlawful Taking — When unlawful taking is proved, intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is presumed. The gravamen of robbery is not the amount or value of the thing taken but the taking with intent to gain of the property of another with the use of violence or intimidation. The absence of a specific allegation as to the value of the property taken in the Information is not an obstacle to conviction, especially where what is stolen is money, in which value is implied. However, proof of the value of the thing taken is necessary to justify an award of actual damages.

• "For as long as conspiracy to rob is proven, all will be treated as principals in the crime of robbery with rape. Succinctly, whenever rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of the robbery, all who took part therein are liable as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in the rape. For one to be convicted solely of robbery and not rape, the co-conspirator must prove not only that he himself did not sexually abuse the victim but that he tried to prevent it." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine on conspiracy in the special complex crime of robbery with rape, establishing the conditions under which a co-conspirator who did not personally commit the rape remains liable as principal.

• "The crime of robbery with rape is a continuing crime, thus, although there is a series of acts, there is but one crime committed." — This formulation defines the continuing-crime character of robbery with rape, explaining why acts of taking property during the same criminal episode cannot be segregated into separate offenses.

• "The gravamen of the offense of robbery is not the amount or value of the thing taken. Rather, it is the taking with intent to gain of the property of another with the use of violence or intimidation against persons." — This passage states the essential element of robbery that distinguishes it from theft and explains why the absence of a specific amount in the Information does not preclude conviction.

• People vs. Mendoza, 354 Phil. 177 (1998) — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that all conspirators in robbery with rape are liable as principals for the rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless a co-conspirator proves he tried to prevent the rape.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Cited as the basis for modifying the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to conform to current jurisprudence for crimes penalized by reclusion perpetua.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Cited as authority for imposing 6% per annum interest on all monetary awards from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.
• People vs. De Leon, 608 Phil. 701 (2009) — Cited in connection with the principle that the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved, and that intent to gain is presumed when unlawful taking is proved.
• Beltran, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 662 Phil. 296 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the allegation and proof of the value of the thing taken is necessary to justify an award of actual damages, and that competent proof such as receipts is required.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The Court applied this provision to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the lesser penalty under Article 63 of the RPC, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of indivisible penalties; provides that the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. Applied to impose reclusion perpetua rather than death.
• Article 2199, Civil Code — Provides that a person is entitled to adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss as has been duly proved. Applied to deny the award of actual damages for lack of competent proof of the value of the money stolen.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concurred.