SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 227705, October 11, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERMIN ROMOBIO Y PAULER, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal from the November 13, 2015 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06513, which affirmed with modification the August 14, 2013 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 22, Naga City, Camarines Sur, finding accused-appellant Hermin Romobio y Pauler (Hermin) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape as defined and penalized under Article 294, in relation to Article 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.
The Information dated August 11, 2009 alleged:
That on or about August 9, 2009, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a deadly weapon did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons, take, steal and carry away three cell phones (Samsung E200, Nokia 2660, and another Nokia); Four (4) pcs. gold ring; three (3) wristwatches (2 lady and 1 men); three (3) gold necklaces, cash money of P4,000.00, bags, wallet, perfumes, lotions, yellow jacket, BDO and RCBC ATM cards, or a total of P120,000.00, belonging to and owned by the herein complaining witness [AAA]3 and that by reason or on occasion of said robbery, tied, boxed complainant on the different parts of her body causing physical injuries and with the use of a bladed weapon, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and feloniously thru force and violence, by poking a knife succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the said complaining witness against her will as evidenced by medical certificate hereto attached, to her damage and prejudice.Hermin pleaded "Not Guilty" in his arraignment.5 Trial ensued while he was under detention.6 The witnesses for the prosecution were AAA, Dr. Vito C. Borja II, and PO2 Alexander Sierra Lapid. The defense presented Hermin, his mother Rosita Romobio, his brother Henry Romobio, and his wife Annaliza Delos Reyes Romobio.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
FINDINGS:Version of the Defense
1. Thickened vulva with healed laceration located at perineum.
2. NEGATIVE for Sperm Cells
Other findings:
1. Contusion hematoma, 4.5 cms. x 3 cms., mandible, left.
2. Contusion hematoma, .5 cm. x 10 cms., wrist, left.
3. Lacerated wound, .5 cm. x 1 cm., anterior neck.
4. Severe pain on the forehead and on the right wrist.7
WHEREFORE, viewed in the light of the foregoing premises, the Prosecution having proven the guilt of the Accused, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered finding Accused HERMIN ROMOBIO y PAULER, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the special complex crime of ROBBERY with RAPE defined and penalized under Article 294, in relation to Article 266-A and B of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA; to indemnify [AAA] the amount of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (PHP 75,000.00) PESOS as MORAL DAMAGES; the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND (PHP 30,000.00) PESOS as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES and to restitute the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS & 00/100 (PHP 120,000.00) Philippine Currency, representing the value of the stolen property to [AAA].Hermin elevated the case to the CA, which denied the appeal for lack of merit. In affirming the RTC Decision, the CA further ordered Hermin to pay an interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded reckoned from the finality of the judgment until the same are fully paid.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.8
It can be culled from the evidence presented by the Prosecution that before HERMIN raped [AAA] he first ransacked the drawers inside her room and even had a plastic where the things he took from the drawers and "aparador" such as her jewelries and cellular phones were placed. Afterwards, HERMIN sat on the bed where [AAA] was lying and tied, removed her blanket, tore her T-shirt and underwear then raped her. The primary intention of HERMIN was made manifest by his actions that is, to rob [AAA] which precedes his intention to rape her.Since rape, by its nature, is usually committed in a place where only the rapist and the victim are present, the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than the victim herself.26 An accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim provided that such
x x x As testified to by LAPID, a member of the team who responded to the victim and who went inside the house of [AAA], her belongings were scattered. They checked on the possible entries since there was no damage on the front door and the back door of the house and noticed that there was an open window inside the comfort room which was around 40-50 centimeters wide, thus, the perpetrator must have entered the house of [AAA] through the said open window of the comfort room. [AAA] also testified that when she was awakened, she saw HERMIN holding a knife and upon seeing him he made a gesture telling her not to make noise, otherwise [he] [would] kill her ("dai ka magribok ta gagadanon ta ka"), thus, robbery was committed not only with force upon things but through intimidation.
In proving that rape was committed on the occasion of robbery, [AAA] testified that the perpetrator tied her left hand with one end of the plastic yellow cord and the other end was tied to her right hand. The middle portion of the cord was placed on her mattress. Both of her legs and ankles were "spread-eagle apart" and tied by a cord tied to a cabinet or "aparador". Her arms were raised while they were tied and the black strap of her bag was also used in tying her. She was tied while lying in bed then he inserted a piece of cloth inside her mouth and tied it. Thereafter, the perpetrator sat by the side of her bed, removed her blanket then tore her pink T-shirt and white underwear. Afterwards, [AAA] heard a rattling sound of a belt being unfastened then he placed himself on top of her. She felt that he licked her nipples and then inserted his penis into her vagina. While he was raping her, he uttered: "Pasensiya ka na sa gigibohon ko sa imo." [AAA] begged [to] him not to do it since she is already old but HERMIN told her: "follow what I want because your life is in my hands." [AAA] broke [down] in tears and her hands trembled while narrating how HERMIN raped her.25
[HERMIN], however, was positively identified by [AAA] as the one who perpetrated the robbery and sexually assaulted her at the latter's house on August 9, 2009 in Naga City. She noted specific details that would ascertain the identity of her assailant. For one, [she] was familiar with him as he used to work for her brother in the workplace located at the same compound where [she] lives. They even had a previous conversation when [she] requested [him] to fix the door and the clothesline inside her sister's house. She also noted that he was wearing a silver ring during the commission of the crime, which fact was confirmed by the policeman during [his] interrogation at the police station.Hermin's argument that no injuries were found on AAA's body which would indicate that he had carnal knowledge with her through force or violence was correctly disregarded by the CA. The absence of fresh lacerations in the victim's hymen does not prove that the victim was not raped.38 A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.39 In addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.40 Even without that report, rape may still be established.41
x x x
We agree with the submission of the OSG, thus:
"... [Hermin] conveniently downplays the crucial fact that [AAA] was familiar with him. His argument would have been acceptable had the perpetrator been a total stranger, someone whom [she] saw for the first time. That was, however, not the case. [Hermin] used to work for [AAA's] brother and their workplace was in the same compound as [AAA's] house. She [had] seen him around since 2006. Moreover, [he] also did some carpentry and masonry work for [AAA's] sister. [She] even [had] an occasion to talk to [him] while [he] was setting up the clothesline for [her] sister.37
x x x It is well settled that physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. Thus, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim.44AAA's positive identification of Hermin as the offender in the robbery with rape that took place on August 9, 2009 defeats the latter's defense of denial and alibi. Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the former must perforce prevail.45 An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness who was not shown to have any ill-motive to testify against the accused.46 Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.47 They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted.48
the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.49In the case at bar, Hermin's defense of denial and alibi must be dismissed. No fault can be attributed to the RTC for treating with disfavor the "collective uncorroborated testimonies" of Rosita, Henry, and Annaliza who supported the allegation that Hermin was at his residence on the date and time when the felony occurred. To add, the trial court, as the CA quoted, noted not just Hermin's admitted familiarity of AAA but his knowledge of her residence as well. Thus:
It is clear from the testimony of HERMIN that he knows [AAAI well and was very familiar with the place where she lives. He even confirmed that the place of ADORNA was five (5) houses distance away from the house of [AAA] and that there are several pathways to and from Princeton Street going to the direction at the back of her residence as well as to the other houses inside the compound. HERMIN also declared that even during the time when he worked as helper of [BBB], the brother of [AAA], there was no instance that he saw her husband and recalled an incident when [AAA] even requested him to fix the door and the clothesline inside her house. He also knew of the faucet in front of the house of [DDD], as he used to wash (sic machines) engines in that area when he was still working with [BBB]. The [overfamiliarity] by HERMIN of [AAA], as well as of the place where she lives, were validated and confirmed by his own unequivocal testimony.Under Article 105 of the RPC, Hermin is obliged to return to AAA the personal properties, as alleged in the Information and proven during the trial,51 that she was unlawfully deprived of, whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value as determined by the trial court.52
x x x No less than [HERMIN] himself declared that the compound where the automobile repair shop and the house of [AAA] are located is nearer to his house than the place of JOY ADORNA. He claimed that it [would] only take him twenty (20) minutes from his house to go to the compound where [AAA] lives and thirty (30) minutes, more or less, to the house of ADORNA.50
Q: With [regard] to the missing items, you mentioned three (3) cellphones were missing. Correct?An ordinary witness such as private complainant AAA cannot establish the value of jewelry (consisting of earrings, necklaces, wristwatches, rings, and bracelet in this case) and the trial court cannot take judicial notice thereof because the value of jewelry is neither a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration.57 In the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution witnesses, we cannot award the reparation for the stolen jewelry.58 Similarly, there is no evidence to establish the value of the cellular phones and the USB device since no proof as to their description, kind/model, and competent evidence of value was given by the prosecution witnesses.59 As to the sunglasses, bags, wallet, imported perfumes and lotions, ATM cards, jacket, and other personal effects taken by Hermin, the same could not be compensated as no value therefor was actually alleged in the Information or testified to in court.60 Nonetheless, Hermin is ordered to pay AAA the amount of P4,000.00, representing the amount of cash stolen. This amount was alleged in the Information, established by the prosecution, and not rebutted by the defense.61
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you own those three (3) cellphones?
A: One of which belongs to my daughter which she failed to bring with her.
Q: Do you have receipt for the cellphone?
A: None, sir, because it was just given to me by my brother.
Q: How about the jewelries, do you own them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you buy them?
A: They were all given to me by my brother and sister.
Q: How about those perfumes, do you own them?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You said that you were selling those perfumes. Correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Of all those things that were taken from you during the investigation of the police, did you present any receipt or proof of ownership to tell them that you own them?
A: Only the boxes of cell phones.
Q: And what other box that you showed the police?
A: The three (3) cellphones.
Q: But you did not present receipt?
A: I have no receipt to produce because it was just given to me. 56
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, robbery with rape is penalized by reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty being a range consisting of two (2) indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty is applied when, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstance that are shown to be in attendance. The use by appellant of a knife was the means availed of to perpetrate the crime and to qualify it as being one of robbery with rape. The use of deadly weapon is here a qualifying circumstance, and not being among the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, it cannot also be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance.62On the award of damages, consistent with People v. Jugueta,63 the amounts of damages shall be P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages. Further, six percent (6%) interest per annum is imposed on all the amounts awarded reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Nina G. AntonioValenzuela and Pedro B. Corales concurring (Rollo, pp. 2-19; CA rollo, pp. 100-117).
2 CA rollo, pp. 42-64; Records, pp. 213-235.
3 The real name of the victim is withheld pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610, Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children. In People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil. 703 [2006]), this Court resolved to withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and use fictitious initials instead to represent her in its decisions. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed.
4 Records, p. 1.
5Id. at 29-31.
6Id. at 19-20.
7Id. at 15.
8 CArollo, p. 63; records, p. 234.
9Rollo, pp. 28-30.
10Id. at 34-36.
11People v. Agudo (3rd Division Resolution), G.R. No. 210453, March 25, 2015; People v. Obina. et al., 632 Phil. 288, 293 (2010); and People v. Gayeta, 594 Phil. 636, 645 (2008).
12People v. Palma, 628 Phil. 693, 699 (2010).
13 People v. Obina et al., supra note 11 and People v. Gayeta, supra note 11, at 645-646.
14People v. Montanir et al., 662 Phil. 535, 549 (2011) and People v. Talusan, 610 Phil. 378, 389 (2009).
15People v. Domingo, 432 Phil. 590, 609-610 (2002).
16People v. Gayeta, supra note 11, at 646.
17People v. Gabuya, G.R. No. 209038, June 8, 2016; People v. Evangelio, et al., 672 Phil. 229, 242 (2011); People v. Amper, 634 Phil. 283, 291 (2010); People v. Ortiz et al., 614 Phil. 625, 633 (2009); People v. Suyu, 530 Phil. 569, 596 (2006); and People v. Domingo, supra note 15, at 610.
18People v. Domingo, supra note 15, at 609 and People v. Naag, 404 Phil. 542, 553 (2001).
19People v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 220889, July 5, 2017; People v. Evangelio, et al., supra note 17, at 245; and People v. Tamayo, 434 Phil. 642, 654 (2002).
20People v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 220889, July 5, 2017; People v. Evangelio et al.,supra note 17. at 245-246; People v. Tamayo, supra note 19; and People v. Domingo, supra note 15, at 609.
21People v. Suyu, supra note 17; People v. Tamayo, supra note 19; People v. Domingo, supra note 15, at 609; and People v. Naag, supra note 18, at 554.
22People v. Tamayo, supra note 19 and People v. Naag, supra note 18, at 553-554.
23People v. Suyu, supra note 17.
24People v. Naag, supra note 18, at 554.
25 CA rollo, pp. 59-60; records, pp. 230-231.
26People v. Torres, 469 Phil. 602, 609 (2004).
27 See Id.; People v. Belmonte, G.R. No. 220889, July 5, 2017.
28People v. Verceles, 437 Phil. 323, 332 (2002).
29People v. Tamayo, supra note 19, at 652-653.
30 CA rollo, p. 61; records, p. 232.
31People v. Torres, supra note 26, at 608 and People v. Moreno, 425 Phil. 526, 538 (2002).
32 See TSN, August 25, 2010, p. 6.
33 See Peoplev. Laurian, Jr. 723 Phil. 699, 720 (2013); People v. Vidaña, 720 Phil. 531, 541 (2013); and People v. Tamano, 652 Phil. 214, 231 (2010).
34People v. Moreno, supra note 31, at 540; People v. Arellano, 418 Phil. 479, 489 (2001); People v. San Juan, 391 Phil. 479, 492 (2000); and People v. Alipayo, 381 Phil. 439, 451 (2000).
35People v. San Juan, supra.
36People v. Amper, supra note 17, at 290-291.
37Rollo, pp. 9-10; CA rollo, pp. 107-108.
38People v. Evangelio et al., supra note 17, at 245 and People v. Mamalayan, 420 Phil. 880, 892 (2001).
39People v. Evangelio et al., supra note 17, at 245.
40Id.; People v. Batuhan, G.R. No. 219830, August 3, 2016.
41People v. Batuhan, G.R. No. 219830, August 3, 2016.
42People v. Mamalayan, supra note 38.
43People v. Gayeta, supra note 11, at 647.
44People v. Moreno, supra note 31.
45People v. Evangelio et al., supra note 17, at 241.
46Id.
47Id.; People v. Belmonte et al., G.R. No. 220889, July 5, 2017.
48People v. Evangelio et al., supra note 17, at 241.
49Id.
50 CA rollo, pp. 62-63; records, pp. 233-234.
51 Per Information, AAA was allegedly robbed of P120,000.00 worth of valuables, consisting of: three cell phones (Samsung E200, Nokia 2660, and another Nokia); Four (4) pcs gold ring; three (3) wristwatches (2 lady and 1 men); three (3) gold necklaces, cash money of P4,000.00, bags, wallet, perfumes, lotions, yellow jacket, BDO and RCBC ATM cards. During the trial, however, she testified that the items stolen were: three (3) cellphones, five (5) earrings, five (5) necklaces, two (2) wristwatch, five (5) rings, one (1) bracelet, two (2) shades, imported lotion and perfumes, USB, money not less than Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00), black bag, yellow jacket, and other personal effects (See TSN, July 29, 2010. p. 8. and TSN, August 25, 2010, pp. 12-13).
52 See People v. Evangelio et al., supra note 17, at 250; People v. Carpio, 473 Phil. 747, 756 (2004); People v. Vallejo, 461 Phil. 672, 699 (2003); People v. Daniela, 449 Phil. 547, 575 (2003); and People v. Napili, 85 Phil. 521, 527 (1950).
53 See People v. Evangelio et al., supra note 17, at 250; People v. Carpio, supra; Peopie v. Daniela, supra; and People v. Napili, 85 Phil. 521, 527 (1950).
54United States v. Mendoza, 21 Phil. 407, 412 (1912).
55Id.
56 See TSN, April 13, 2011, pp. 9-10.
57Francisco v. People, 478 Phil. 167, 187-188 (2004); People v. Salvador, 446 Phil. 525, 547-548 (2003); People v. Reanzares, 390 Phil. 115, 125 (2000); People v. Cerbito, 381 Phil. 315, 330 (2000); People v. Paraiso, 377 Phil. 445, 467 (1999); People v. Abdul, 369 Phil. 506, 536 (1999); and People v. Marcos, 368 Phil. 143, 167-168 (1999).
58Id. See also People v. Verceles, supra note 28.
59People v. Salvador, supra note 57, at 548 and People v. Marcos, supra note 57. See also People v. Verceles, supra note 28.
60People of the Philippines v. Oranza, 434 Phil. 417, 433 (2002).
61People v. Salvador, supra note 57 and People v. Marcos, supra note 57.
62People v. Torres, supra note 26, at 612-613.
63 G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.