G.R. No. L-35281. September 10, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE TAPALES Y VARGAS AND PEDRO CORAÑEZ Y TATUALLA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit
Criminal Court of Manila, dated April 21, 1972, finding accused-appellants,
Jessie Tapales y Vargas and Pedro Corañez
y Tatualla, guilty of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty offset by the
aggravating circumstances of multiple Rape, use of motor vehicle and nighttime,
and sentencing both said accused to the extreme penalty of death.
The Information filed against the accused charged them with the
crime of Robbery with Homicide and Rape as follows:
“That on or about October 28, 1971, at nighttime purposely
sought to better accomplish their ends, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, conspiring and confederating together with another, whose
identity and whereabouts are still unknown and helping one another, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation to wit: by boarding the taxi being then occupied by Eugenio Calaykay y Baldonado and Diana Ang y Navales while said vehicle was at a stop position at Jones
Bridge, in said City and pointing a balisong knife at
Diana Ang y Navales and a
gun at Eugenio Calaykay y Baldonado, take, steal and carry away against their will
and consent, one (1) men’s wrist watch, “Rado”
brand, gold plated and one (1) brown wallet with cash money of undetermined
amount belonging to said Eugenio Calaykay
y Baldonado, and Mexican money worth P2.00 and one
(1) Parker ball pen valued at P10.00 or a total value of P12.00 belonging to
said Diana Ang y Navales,
to the damage and prejudice of said owners in the aforesaid respective amounts;
that by reason of and on the occasion of the said robbery, the said accused, in
furtherance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of Eugenio Calaykay y Baldonado, by then and
there shooting him twice with the gun and stabbing him with the balisong knife on the chest, thereby inflicting upon him
mortal wounds which were the direct cause of his death thereafter; that by
reason of and on the occasion also of the said robbery, the said accused, in
furtherance of their conspiracy, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
to wit: by threatening to stab and kill
the said Diana Ang y Navales
with said balisong knife and firearm, which they were
holding then at the time, succeed in having sexual intercourse with her, one
after the other, all against her will and consent.
“Contrary to law and with the generic
aggravating circumstances of the use of motor vehicle and employment of craft
in the commission of said offense.”
Upon arraignment, appellants, through their counsel de officio,
manifested their desire to enter a plea of guilty. The trial Court duly informed them of the
gravity of the offense and the imposable penalty therefor
of life imprisonment or death. When
asked by the Court whether they understood the full consequences of a plea of
guilty, both answered affirmatively.
They admitted to the Court that they robbed Eugenio
Calaykay and Diana Ang and
that they killed the former when he shouted, “hold-up”. However, both of them denied having raped
Diana Ang contending that she had consented to have
carnal knowledge with them. The Court
below, citing the case of People vs. Mongado,[1]
where Rape was considered a generic aggravating circumstance to the crime of
Robbery with Homicide, considered appellants to have entered an unconditional
plea of guilty to the offense of Robbery with Homicide,[2]
and proceeded to receive evidence to ascertain not only the existence of rape
but also of attendant modifying circumstances that could affect criminal
liability.
Diana Ang narrated the incident as
follows: On October 27, 1971 at around
11:00 o’clock in the evening, Diana Ang, 20 years
old, married but estranged from her husband, Valentin
Katigdas, was in the company of her boyfriend of six
months, Eugenio Calaykay,
32 years old, single, at the Jai Alai Bamboo Room, Taft Avenue, Manila. After some betting, Eugenio
invited Diana for a snack at the International House at Ongpin,
Binondo. They
left the Jai Alai at around 11:45 P.M. They then hailed a taxicab parked in front of
the Keg Room of Jai Alai. Both sat at the rear of the taxi, Diana
sitting at the left side and Eugenio sitting at the
right side. When they were at the middle
of Jones Bridge,
the driver stopped and said, “Pare, just a while, the right door of the
taxi is open.” He opened and closed the right front door four times. At this juncture, two men alighted from a
taxicab immediately behind. One armed
with a knife, identified by Diana as Pedro Corañez,
approached the taxi from the left and the other, armed with a gun, identified
by Diana as Jessie Tapales, approached the taxicab
from the right. As they entered the
taxicab they said “this is a hold-up, we only need money.” Inside the
taxicab, Jessie Tapales divested Eugenio
of his “Rado” wrist watch, while Pedro Corañez ransacked Diana’s bag and took her
“Parker” ball pen worth P10.00 and Mexican money worth P2.00. While Diana and Eugenio
were being robbed, the taxicab driver continued driving down to the foot of
Jones bridge where he made a “U” turn, proceeded up the bridge, made a right turn
on Bonifacio Drive,
went straight ahead until they reached the Fire Department at Intramuros. At this
point, Eugenio shouted, “hold-up, hold-up”.
Instantly, Eugenio was stabbed by Corañez and shot by Tapales. A commotion ensued inside the taxicab
prompting the driver to tell Eugenio, “pare, tumalon ka na lamang.” Diana then
grappled with Corañez for the possession of the knife
while Eugenio, already wounded, squeezed himself out
of the right window. Eugenio
fell in the middle of Del Pan bridge. With Diana still inside the taxicab, Tapales ordered the driver to proceed to Quezon City. Tapales then pulled
down Diana’s pants and panty, mashed her breasts and inserted his fingers into
her private parts. While Tapales was abusing Diana, Corañez
was also kissing her, his right hand around Diana’s shoulders and his left hand
poking a knife at her left side. Scared
and trembling, Diana pleaded that she be spared as she was pregnant but said
pleas were in vain. On the way to Quezon City, Diana noticed that
they took the Tondo, Balintawak
and Highway route. Tapales
introduced himself as “Fernando” and Corañez
as “Johnny”. Before reaching Quezon City, Corañez
suggested to Tapales that they proceed to the place
of Tapales‘ “kapatid”
at Kamuning which, however, was objected to by Tapales. Tapales opted to look for a vacant lot in Quezon City. When they found one, they ordered the driver
to stop. Diana was ordered to alight,
followed by Corañez.
After apparently taking instructions from Tapales,
the driver left the place. About six
meters from where they alighted, Corañez forced Diana
to lie on the wet cogon grass. Tapales then placed his jacket on the grass where Diana was
made to lie down. There and then Corañez and Tapales took turns in
raping her. Although Diana admitted that
Tapales and Corañez did not
make use of their weapons when they reached the vacant lot, she claimed that
she submitted to their bestial acts as she was too weak and terribly scared to
resist the appellants. After that, Diana
asked appellants to get another taxicab but Tapales
told her that the taxi they took would return, as in fact, it did. The three of them boarded the taxi and they
cruised around the other street. Diana
was finally dropped off behind the Carbungco
restaurant. Before alighting from the
taxi, appellants gave Diana P8.00 and threatened to kill her if she reported
the matter to the police. Despite the
threats, Diana told the people around of her dreadful experience. One took pity on her and took her to a
policeman in a restaurant near the Center Theatre. The policeman instructed them to proceed to
Precinct 8 where she reported the incident to Pat. Libao. An Advance Information or Alarm Report[3]
was forthrightly issued. While in the
precinct, Diana saw the shoes of Eugenio. Later, Diana was taken by the police to the
morgue where she identified the dead body of Eugenio. The next morning Diana was physically
examined by one Dr. Lucero at Precinct 2.[4]
After some sleuthing, the police apprehended appellants, but the
two taxicab drivers remained at large.
Appellants admitted culpability in their sworn statements.[5]
In open Court, Jessie Tapales declared
that he was invited by Pedro Corañez to commit
Robbery and admitted the commission of that crime as well as Homicide and Rape.[6]
For his part, Pedro Corañez, while admitting the
commission of Robbery with Homicide, denied having raped Diana Ang contending that it was she who suggested that they look
for a vacant lot. Pedro Corañez even testified that he was constrained to have
carnal knowledge with Diana Ang despite the fact
that the place was stinking with human excreta.
On cross examination, Pedro Corañez admitted
that he and Jessie Tapales conspired with two taxi
drivers known as Pintong (driver of the taxi taken by
the victims), and Bruno Borja (driver of the taxi
used by appellants in following the taxi of the victims) in the commission of
robbery.[7]
The trial Court gave full credence to the spontaneous and
straight-forward testimony of Diana Ang, and held:
“The Court cannot subscribe to the claim of the accused that
Diana Ang voluntarily agreed to have carnal knowledge
with them and was even the one who invited them. It is indeed highly inconceivable how Diana Ang, who was already robbed and who, by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery her boyfriend died would still have the sexual
urge. x x x “
On April 21, 1972,
the trial Court handed down its Decision, the decretal
portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, both accused are hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide and there
being proved the aggravating circumstances of multiple rapes, the use of motor
vehicle and nighttime offset only by the mitigating circumstance of their plea
of guilty, the court sentences each one of them to DEATH; to jointly and
severally indemnify the heirs of the victim Eugenio Calaykay the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of the latter;
the sum of P10,000.00 for moral damages;
the sum of P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; and to return to the heirs of victim
Calaykay the Rado watch and
the black wallet with cash taken from Calaykay.
“The Court further orders the said accused to jointly and severally indemnify the victim
Diana Ang, the sum of P12,000.00
for moral damages; the sum of P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; and to return
to her the cash and articles taken from her or to jointly and severally
indemnify her in the amount of P12.00 representing the value therefor if they fail to do so and to pay the costs.”
Hence, this mandatory review.
Appellants, through counsel de officio ascribe the
following errors to the trial Court, to wit:
“I. THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING RAPE AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE;
“II. THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN CONSIDERING NIGHTTIME AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS
CASE;
“III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING APPELLANTS TO
DEATH.”
We find the errors assigned bereft of merit.
1. This Court has consistently held that the legal definition of
the crime committed herein is Robbery with Homicide, with Rape being considered
an aggravating circumstance.
“It is the uniform jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that
where the crime charged is robbery with homicide and rape, the legal
definition of the crime is robbery with homicide punishable under paragraph 1,
Article 294 of the Penal Code; and the rape committed on the occasion of that
crime is considered an aggravating circumstance (People vs. Ganal,
85 Phil. 743, 751; People vs. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136,
142; and People vs. Tarrayo, 27 SCRA 953 (1969). See also:
People vs. Carillo, 85 Phil. 611, 635). Instead of ignominy, therefore, it is the
rape itself that aggravates (People vs. Mongado, 28
SCRA 642, 651-652, (1969)).
The defense argues, however, that the foregoing doctrine should
be re-examined and abandoned considering that there is no law that makes Rape
an aggravating circumstance nor one that classifies it as a generic
aggravating circumstance.[8]
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“Art. 294. Robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons – Penalties. – Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any
person shall suffer:
“1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
x x x x”
Indeed, the special complex crime contemplated in the foregoing
provision does not include Rape.
However, there can be no question, and this appellant admits in his
Brief, that Rape committed on the occasion of Robbery with Homicide increases
the moral evil of the crime. Moreover,
it is incorrect to state that there is no law which considers Rape as an
aggravating circumstance simply because it is not specifically enumerated in
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code as an aggravating circumstance. As enunciated in the case of People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 623, (1949),
“x x
x Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and
other bans of cruelties are condemned and their perpetration will be regarded
as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of deliberately augmenting
unnecessary wrongs to the main criminal objective, under paragraphs 17 and 21
of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
x x“
Said paragraphs read thus:
“Art. 14. Aggravating
circumstances. – The following are
aggravating circumstances:
“xxx
“17.
That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
“xxx
“21.
That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commission.”
This Court’s consistent ruling, therefore, which holds that when
Rape and Homicide co-exist in the commission of Robbery, it is paragraph 1 of
Article 294 which applies, the Rape to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance (People vs. Ganal, et al., 85 Phil. 743
(1950); People vs. Carillo, 85 Phil. 611 (1950);
People vs. Bacsa, 104 Phil. 136 (1958); People vs. Tarrayo, 27 SCRA 953 (1969); People vs. Mongado,
28 SCRA 643 (1969)), should be upheld, for a settled judicial construction put
upon a statute has almost the same authority as the statute itself, and this
Court will not disregard or overrule it except for the most cogent reasons.[9]
Alternatively, appellants contend that even if the ruling that
Rape is an aggravating circumstance in Robbery with Homicide be upheld, the
crime of Rape herein should be considered, by time and distance, as a separate
and distinct offense from that of Robbery with Homicide because while the
Robbery was committed at Jones Bridge, the Homicide in Intramuros,
both in Manila, the Rape was committed in Quezon
City.[10]
While there may have been an appreciable interval of time between
the robbery and the killing, on the one hand, and the rape, on the other, there
can be no question but that there was a direct relation, an intimate connection
between them such that it can be stated, without fear of contradiction, that it
was by reason or on occasion of the Robbery that Homicide and Rape were
committed.[11]
2. Appellants’ contention that the trial Court erred in
considering nighttime as an aggravating circumstance is neither well
taken. The crime was committed between
the hour of 11:45 P.M., and 1:00 A.M.
As early as 6:00 P.M. of October 27,1971,
both accused had already planned the robbery.
It is evident that they purposely sought nighttime and took advantage of
it to facilitate the commission of the offense and to avoid discovery.[12]
In fact, when the victim Eugenio Calaykay
shouted “hold-up, hold-up”, no one responded to his call because of
the lateness of the night. When he
forced himself out of the taxi and fell on Del Pan
Bridge, no one saw or noticed
it. Again, because of the wee hours of
the morning, appellants were able to cruise around leisurely from Manila
to Quezon City
looking for a vacant lot. In the
meantime, both appellants, taking advantage of the darkness of night inside the
taxicab, were able, with impunity, to take liberties with the person of Diana Ang.
“In itself nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance, and
becomes one only where it is specially sought by the offender or taken
advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to avoid discovery
and thus minimize the risk of capture”[13]
3. Considering, therefore, that the commission of Robbery with
Homicide was attended by the circumstances of multiple rape, use of motor
vehicle, and nighttime, in aggravation, which overwhelmingly offset the lone
circumstance of plea of guilty, in mitigation, the accused-appellants, by the
law, must be meted out the extreme penalty of death.[14]
WHEREFORE, finding no error in the judgment automatically
elevated to this Court for review, the same is hereby affirmed.
Costs against accused-appellants, Jessie Tapales y Vargas and Pedro Corañez
y Tatualla.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Barredo and Aquino,
JJ., in the result.
Fernando, C.J., no part.
Makasiar and Santos, JJ., on leave.
[1]
28 SCRA 642 (1969).
[2]
T.s.n., pp. 8-10, April 7, 1972.
[3]
Exhibit “C”, p.12, Folder of Exhibits.
[4]
T.s.n., pp. 11-23, April 7, 1972.
[5]
Exhibits “B” & “D”.
[6]
T.s.n., p. 31, April
7, 1972.
[7]
T.s.n., pp. 32-34, April 7, 1972.
[8]
Pp. 7-8, Appellant’s Brief.
[9]
Gonzaga, Statutes and their Construction, 1958 ed.,
p. 71.
[10]
Pp. 9-10, Appellant’s Brief.
[11]
see People vs. Hernandez, 46 Phil. 48 (1924);
People vs. Libre, et al., 93 Phil. 5 (1953).
[12]
Article 14(6), Revised Penal Code.
[13]
People vs. Flores, 40 SCRA 230 (1971); People vs.
Sumayo, 70 SCRA 488 (1976).
[14]
Article 294 (1) in relation to Art. 63,
Revised Penal Code.