FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 251631, August 27, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ATILANO AGATON Y OBICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, C.J.:
Before us is an appeal from the Decision1 dated August 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR. HC No. 02949, affirming with modification the Decision2 dated April 18, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City in Criminal Case No. 2001-12-773, finding accused-appellant Atilano Agaton y Obico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape.
This Court notes that in People v. Evangelio, et al.,3 whose factual antecedents are identical to those of the case at bench, we affirmed the Decision of the CA finding Joseph Evangelio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape. At the time, however, accused Edgar Evangelio and appellant had not yet been brought to trial because they were facing another criminal charge and detained at the Bacolod City District Jail.
Upon arraignment on August 18, 2009,4 Edgar pleaded guilty, while appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime of Robbery with Rape as charged in the Information5 dated December 3, 2001, which reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The undersigned City Prosecutor of the City of Tacloban accuses EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GAL[L]O, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, ATILANO AGATON y OBICO, and NOEL MALPAS Y GARCIA of the crime of Robbery With Rape, committed as follows:The prosecution presented AAA as its first witness and moved to adopt her earlier testimony, presented during the trial of Joseph. She was likewise made to identify Edgar and appellant. During the hearing, the trial court ordered that the former plea of guilty of Edgar be considered as withdrawn and a plea of not guilty be reinstated. Other prosecution witnesses included BBB, CCC, Dr. Angel Cordero and Police Inspector A1iuro Abuyen.
That on or about the 3rd day of October, 2001, in the City of Tacloban, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and armed with a handgun and deadly/bladed weapons forcibly enter the inhabited house/residence of [BBB]6 and while inside, by means of violence and intimidation using said arms on the latter and the other occupants therein, and without the consent of their owners did, then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, and carry away from said residence the following personal properties belonging to:
(a) [BBB]:(b) [CCC:]
- Two Saudi-gold necklace with pendant with a combined value of P25,000 more or less;
- Saudi-gold bracelet valued at P25,000;
- Leather wallet containing P1,500 cash; and
- Two shoulder bags with a combined value of P2,000.
and -
- One tri-colored gold necklace (choker) valued at P50,000;
- One yellow gold necklace (choker) valued at P5,000;
- One gold necklace with Jesus Christ['s] head pendant valued at P12,000;
- One gold necklace with star diamond pendant valued at P8,000;
- One gold necklace, tri-colored cross diamond valued at P13,000;
- Three tri-colored bracelet (gold) with diamond valued at P18,000;
- Three tri-colored bracelet (twisted) valued at P15,000;
- One gold bracelet with diamonds valued at P60,000;
- One gold bracelet (dangling) valued at P4,000;
- One gold bracelet (chain) valued at P7,000;
- Five sets earrings and rings valued at P45,000;
- One set earrings and ring (diamond Solitaire) valued at P45,000;
- Two black colored wristwatch (Pierre Cardin) valued at P25,000;
xxx- [T]wo gold plated wristwatch (Pierre Cardin) valued at P25,000; and
- One gold bracelet (chain) valued at P4,000[.]
(c) [DDD:]to the damage and prejudice of said owners to the extent of the value of their respective properties above indicated.
- Instamatic Camera, Olympus brand.
That on the occasion of the said robbery and in the same house/residence, accused, by means of force and intimidation and using the said handgun and deadly/bladed weapons, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA], a 17 year old minor, against her will and consent and at a time when the latter lost consciousness after her head was banged on the bathroom floor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused ATILANO AGATON y OBICO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape and is hereby sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. He is ordered to return the pieces of jewelry and valuables taken from the spouses [BBB] and [CCC] as enumerated in the Information dated December 3, 2001. Should restitution be no longer possible, accused shall pay the spouses Aya-ay the value of the stolen pieces of jewelry and valuables in the amount of PhP336,000.00. He is further directed to pay [AAA] the amounts of PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity, PhP75,000.00 as moral damages and PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all the damages awarded in this case from date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.14cralawlawlibraryOn appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, but increased the award of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 each,15 in view of the guidelines laid down in People v. Jugueta.16
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.18In his brief, appellant averred that his plea of guilt merely involved his intention to rob the house of spouses BBB and CCC, but did not extend to successfully taking the properties therein. He alleges that other than the self-serving declaration of the spouses that personal prope1iies were taken from them, there is no other evidence that could support such claim.19 In his testimony, he stated that they were not able to take anything because somebody suddenly came to the house.20
There was also no testimony to the effect that appellant saw AAA being brought to the comfort room or being stripped of her clothing-this despite AAA's testimony that she could still see because Joseph and Noel were not able to fully cover her eyes.28 Otherwise, appellant would have had the opportunity to attempt to prevent the rape.
PROS. MACALALAG: We would like to adopt the direct examination, the re-direct examination that is found in the record, your honor and we will just ask the witness [AAA] to identify the accused in this case Edgar Evangelio and Atilano Agaton. COURT: The Court takes note of the manifestation of the prosecutor and inasmuch as the testimony of this witness is intact, the Court will allow questions only on the identification of the two accused. xxxx COURT: Q Of the two accused here, who of them raped you? A (no answer) PROS. MACALALAG: Your honor, she lost her consciousness at the time she was raped and she was only able to find out that she was raped when she woke up without a panty. COURT: Q Who brought you to this bedroom in the house of the [spouses BBB and CCC] before you were raped? A I could not identify who because I was blindfolded. Q Could you not recall any voice which you could identify among those inside the courtroom? A Yes, your honor. Q Who? A The voice of Atilano Agaton.27
This is in consonance with our finding in Evangelio that while some robbers went upstairs and proceeded to ransack the house, the others brought AAA into the comfort room and sexually abused her, then they left the house together carrying the loot. Considering that the rape occurred at the first floor while the ransacking occurred at the second floor, there is reasonable doubt that appellant was aware of what was going on downstairs, especially because AAA's shouts came afterwards.
Q How many storey is that house? A It is elevated house and there is one room upstair[s]. xxxx Q While you were there at the bedroom with masking tape all over your head have [you] noticed anything that transpired? A I heard Edgar Evangelio asking my nieces where did your father keep the jewelries and firearm. Q Did your nieces answered? A My niece replied it is upstairs. Q What happened next? A Edgar said come with me. Q And after that what happened next? A I heard that my niece was brought upstairs since she was holding on my left arm and heard the footsteps. Q About the other members of the household were you able to know what happened to them? A I can only [hear] the noises afterwards [AAA] shouted calling my name.29
While appellant's mere denial that he was aware of the rape during the robbery is inherently weak, it is not bankrupt of weight since the same was confirmed on cross-examination and, more importantly, since the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of showing by positive proof that he was aware.
Q Now you are denying of a rape incident, so when you said you are denying of rape in the house of [the spouses BBB and CCC], do you mean to say that there was actually a rape incident that took place but you just did not participate in that rape incident? A Nothing happened. Q You mean to say that you were not able to see an incident of rape in the house of the [spouses BBB and CCC]? A I did not. Q But you were informed that there was a fact of rape incident that transpired on that day?A I never heard, I only heard about that here during the hearing. xxxx COURT: From the court. xxxx Q You said that you did not rape [AAA]? A I did not. Q Before the incident did you already know [AAA]? A I do not know her. Q When for the first time did you come to know her? A Here, during the hearing.30
But not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a hangman's noose in the face of a witness positively swearing, "I saw him do it."? Most judges believe that such assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet?Thus, if found credible, the defenses of denial and alibi may, and should, be considered complete and legitimate defenses. The burden of proof does not shift by the mere invocation of said defenses; the presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused.
There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from a witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not automatically cancel out the accused's claim that he did not do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally, "He did it!" without blinking an eye.32
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 5-19. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Alfredo D. Ampuan.
2 CA rollo, pp. 44-69.
3 672 Phil. 229 (2011).
4 Records, pp. 280-281.
5Id. at 4-6.
6 The identity of the victim or any information to establish or compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household members, shall be withheld pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610, "An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, and for Other Purposes"; Republic Act No. 9262, "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for Other Purposes"; Section 40 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, known as the "Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children," effective November 5, 2004; People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 709 (2006); and Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017, Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances.
7 Records, pp. 4-6.
8 CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
9Id. at 50.
10Id. at 51-52.
11Id. 102.
12 Records, p. 454.
13Id. at 456.
14 CA rollo, pp. 68-69.
15Rollo, p. 18.
16 783 Phil. 806 (2016).
17Rollo, p. 112.
18 CA rollo, p. 37.
19Id. at 39.
20Rollo, p. 10.
21 CA rollo, p. 39.
22People v. Evangelio, et al., 672 Phil. 229, 243 (2011).
23Rollo, p. 106.
24Id. at 66.
25Galan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017, 842 SCRA 602, 618.
26 CA rollo, p. 50.
27 TSN, pp. 416-417.
28 Records, p. 120.
29Id. at 71-72.
30 TSN, pp. 515-520.
31 652 Phil. 512 (2010).
32Id. at 581.
33People v. Suyu, 530 Phil. 569, 596 (2006); citation omitted.
34 37 Phil. 951 (1918).
35 378 Phil. 828 (1999).
36 315 Phil. 278 (1995).
37People v. Latag, 465 Phil. 683, 695 (2004).
38People v. Osianas, et al., 588 Phil. 615, 635-636 (2008); and People v. Rodas, 558 Phil. 305, 323 (2007).
39People v. Gerry Agramon, G.R. No. 212156, June 20, 2018.
40 666 Phil. 484 (2011).
41 330 Phil. 79 (1996).
42 354 Phil. 177 (1998).
43 813 Phil. 240 (2017).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary