THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OPINIADO DOLAR Y EVALLA AND REYNALDO MONTALBO Y GUTIERREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

In an Information,^[1] dated
October 27, 1987, accused REYNALDO MONTALBO and OPINIADO DOLAR were charged
with ROBBERY WITH RAPE, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about October 24 1987, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent of (sic) gain and by means of force, violence and
intimidation, to wit: by then and there
poking a knife at
Danilo Permison y Rosalin and Leny Reli y Santualia, threatening them with
death should they make an outcry and thereafter striking the former with the
knife, hitting him on the left hand, take steal and carry away one wallet containing cash money
of P270.00 and one Citizen wristwatch worth P880.00, belonging to said Danilo
Permison y Rosalin and cash money of P20.00, belonging to Leny Reli y
Santualia, all in the total amount of P1,170.00, against their will, to the
damage and prejudice of said owners in the said sum of P1,170.00 Philippine Currency; that on said occasion, the said robbery
was accompanied by rape in that said Opiniado Dolar y Evalla in pursuance of
their conspiracy with each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by then and there poking the knife at the
neck of said Leny Reli y Santualia, succeed(ed) in having carnal knowledge of
her, against her will and consent. (emphasis ours)

“Contrary to
law.”

Upon their arraignment on December 11, 1987, the accused pleaded
not guilty^[2]
and underwent trial.

The prosecution’s evidence show that at around eight thirty in
the evening of October 24, 1987, Danilo Permison and his nineteen year-old
girlfriend, Leny Reli, were walking along Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila. From Anda Circle, they headed towards the
Philippine Coast Guard headquarters. Across the Bonifacio Drive was the lighted NAPOCOR building. Suddenly, Reynaldo Montalbo and Opiniado
Dolar darted from a dark portion
of the area. Sensing danger, Danilo and
Leny evaded the two. However, it was
too late. Dolar collared and poked a
fan knife (balisong) on
Danilo. Montalbo, on the other hand,
poked a fan knife on Leny. Both accused warned them: “Huwag (kayong) sisigaw at baka papatayin namin kayo.” (Don’t
shout or we will kill you).^[3]

Danilo and Leny were dragged to the darker portion of the
area. The hold-uppers, again,
threatened to kill them should they refuse to give their money and
jewelry. They obeyed. As Danilo was getting the wallet from his pocket,
accused Dolar lunged at him saying:
“Ang bagal mo,“ injuring the left thumb of
Danilo in the process. Irritated, Dolar
pinned down Danilo on the ground with his face down. He took Danilo’s wallet, containing cash in the sum of P270.00,
and his Citizen watch worth P880.00. Leny was also made to lie on the
ground. A twenty peso bill was taken
from her by Montalbo. Thereafter,
Danilo and Leny were ordered to lie on the ground with their face up.^[4]

After Danilo and Leny were divested of their money and jewelry,
accused Montalbo fled towards the squatters’ area nearby, leaving behind
Dolar. Apparently, Dolar had other
sinister intent in mind. He sat on
Danilo’s belly and, with the fan knife poked on Danilo’s chest, warned: “Huwag kang kikilos, ibabaon ko
ito.”^[5]

Dolar ordered Leny to come nearer. She obliged. He asked her
to kiss him and threatened to kill Danilo if she refuse to do so. Fearful for the life of her boyfriend, she
closed her eyes and allowed accused Dolar to kiss her on the lips. Dolar pressed her down on the ground beside
Danilo. With his left hand, he
unbuttoned, unzipped and pulled down Leny’s maong pants. Thereafter, he removed her panty. He did all these while the knife, which he held with his right hand, was
poked on Danilo’s chest. Danilo helplessly watched as Dolar was
touching and biting Leny’s private part. His lust still unsatisfied, Dolar lowered his pants and brief to his
knees, pointed the knife at Leny’s throat and then went on top of her. Dolar cautioned Danilo not to move,
otherwise, he would kill Leny. Danilo
waited for his chance to escape. Finally, when accused kneeled to satisfy his lust, Danilo immediately
stood up and ran towards the NAPOCOR building for help.^[6] While
Danilo was gone, Dolar continued ravishing Leny. Soon after, he fled towards the squatters’ area.

After her rapist had left, Leny stood up and put on her panty and
pants. She was crying as she proceeded
towards the NAPOCOR building. With the
help of the security guards on duty, the policemen were informed of the
incident.

That same evening, policemen from the Western Police District
conducted a saturation drive in the squatters’ area. More or less, fifteen (15) men, including accused Opiniado Dolar
and Reynaldo Montalbo, were gathered by the policemen and brought to Precint
No. 5 of the Western Police District in Manila. A police line-up was formed. Without hesitation, Danilo and Leny identified accused Reynaldo Montalbo
and Opiniado Dolar as the culprits. Thereafter, the sworn statements of Danilo Permison, Leny Reli and one
Miriam Castro, alleged owner of the house where accused were found hiding, were
taken. It was then twelve thirty in the
morning of October 25, 1987.

The defense was anchored on alibi. Reynaldo Montalbo, a truck helper and resident of 20th Street,
Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila, averred that on October 24, 1987, he
reported for work from one o’clock until five o’clock in the afternoon. At around six o’clock in the evening, he
went home. He was resting on his rented
room, owned by the father of Miriam Castro, when the policemen arrived at eight
thirty in the evening that same day. The policemen gathered fifteen (15) men from the 20th Street. Subsequently, he and several other men were
taken to Precint No. 5. At the station,
a police line-up, consisting of fifteen (15) men, including himself and Dolar
whom he saw for the first time, was formed. Danilo and Leny identified him and Dolar from the line-up. He alleged that Leny was merely coached by
Danilo to get even.

For his part, Opiniado Dolar asserted that at around five o’clock
in the afternoon of October 24, 1987, he paid a visit to his friend, Reynaldo
Improgo Dumarao, at the latter’s residence at 20th Street, Port Area,
Manila. They talked until nine o’clock
in the evening. The policemen then
arrived and ordered them to step out of the house. Fifteen (15) men, including himself and Dumarao, were brought to
the police station. He denied knowing
Reynaldo Montalbo. He and Montalbo
were, thereafter, identified from the police line-up by Danilo Permison.

Defense witness Reynaldo Improgo Dumarao corroborated the
testimony of his friend, Opiniado Dolar, that the latter visited him between
four thirty and five o’clock in the afternoon of October 24, 1987. It was alleged that on October 24, 1987,
Dolar had just arrived in Manila, from their hometown Bacolod. They engaged in conversation. At around nine o’clock in the evening, the
policemen came. The policemen brought
fifteen (15) men to the precint. After
Dolar and Montalbo were identified from the police line-up, they (accused Dolar
and Montalbo) were jailed.

In its Decision, dated August 15, 1989, the trial court found
accused Dolar and Montalbo guilty as charged of robbery. The trial court, however, ruled that there
was no conspiracy to commit the crime of rape. The dispositive portion of trial court’s decision, reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Prosecution having proven beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of the accused Opiniado Dolar y Evalla of the crime of robbery
with rape, sentences him to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment; to pay
Danilo Permison the sum of One Thousand one Hundred Fifty (P1,150.00) as
damages, and to pay Leny Reli the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as
damages.

“Accused Reynaldo Montalbo y Gutierrez is likewise found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt not of the crime of robbery with rape, but only
a simple robbery, and sentences him to suffer the penalty of FOUR (4) YEARS,
TWO (2) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY to SIX (6) YEARS IMPRISONMENT; to pay Leny the
sum of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos as damages, he is entitled to the full
term he was under detention.

“SO ORDERED.”

Accused Reynaldo Montalbo did not appeal from the foregoing
judgment. On February 1, 1990, he was
granted a six-year probation by the trial court.

For his part, Opiniado Dolar appealed, raising this error:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OPINIADO DOLAR GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF
ROBBERY WITH RAPE.”

We affirm the judgment of conviction.

We are aware of the trial court’s difficult task of weighing the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis
the testimony of defense witnesses, particularly in rape cases. The issue, thus, boils down to the
credibility of witnesses.

In the case at bench, two (2) prosecution witnesses, Danilo
Permison and Leny Rely, positively identified accused-appellant Dolar as the
hold-upper and the rapist. Danilo
Permison testified as follows:

“FISCAL DELOS REYES;

“Q:  Mr.
Danilo Permison, on October 24, 1987, on or about 8:80 in the evening, will you
tell us where you were then?

“DANILO PERMISON:

“A:   I
was walking towards the headquarters of the Philippine Coast Guard together
with Leny Reli.

“x x x                    x x x                 x x x

“Q:  While
you were walking with Leny, your girlfriend xxx, was there any unusual incident
that happened?

“A:   While (we were) walking, we met two (2) men.

“Q:  What happened after meeting these two men?

“x
x x                    x x x                 x x x

“A:   We
evaded them, because I noticed that they had bad intention.

“Q:  What
else happened after you are trying to evade them?

“A:   After
we evade (sic) them, I was collared and a bladed weapon was poked on my waist.

“x
x x                    x x x                 x x x

“Q:  These
two men that you met that evening, will you be able to recognize
them if you see them again?

“A:  Yes, sir.

“Q:  If they are in this court room right now, will
you kindly point them out?

“INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to xxx Opiniado Dolar and
Reynaldo Montalbo.

“Q:  Which
of these two men that you pointed before this Court collared you?

“INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to a person who answers in the name of Opiniado Dolar.

“Q:  Which
of these two persons pointed out poked a Batangas
Knife at your breast?

“A:   That same person Opiniado Dolar.

“x
x x                    x x x                x
x x

“Q:  What else happened if any after you and your
companion were poked with a knife with these two people?

“A:   I was told not to shout.

“x
x x                    x x x                 x x x

“Q:  What
else happened after they told you not to shout.

“A:   They told us to produce our money and
jewelries (sic), otherwise they will kill us.

“Q:  What did you do then after you were told to
bring out your money and jewelries, otherwise they will kill you?

“A:   Having dragged on me, I cannot do anything
and we are (sic) made to lie down face down and took our money.

“Q:  How much money was taken from you?

“A:  P270.00.

“Q:  How about jewelries (sic), were there any
jewelries taken from you?

“A:  One Citizen wristwatch.

“x x x                    x x x                 x
x x

“Q:  How much is the value of your wristwatch?

“A:  P880.00.

“Q:  Who among these two accused took your wallet?

“A:  Opiniado Dolar was the one who took my wallet
and then turned it over to Montalbo.

“Q:  How about your wristwatch, who took it from
you?

“A:  He was the one also.

“x x x                    x x x                 x
x x.

(TSN,
April 21, 1988, pp. 3-5).

Leny Reli corroborated the testimony of her boyfriend. She further testified that accused Reynaldo
Montalbo, took her money in the amount of twenty pesos (P20.00). Thereafter, accused Montalbo fled to the
squatters’ area.

Leny vividly recalled how she was violated by accused-appellant
in the presence of her boyfriend. She
testified:

“FISCAL:

“Q:   Miss
Reli, this morning, you testified that after one of the accused (took) your
money he scampered away and thereafter, the other accused who was seated on top
of the belly of Danilo Permison ordered you to come closer to him, did you
follow the order of the accused?

“COURT:

He already said that.

“Q:   When
you come close to that accused seated on top of the belly of your boyfriend
about you, what happened when you came close to him?

“A:   He
ordered me to kiss him.

“Q:  Did you follow his order to kiss him?

“A:   Yes, sir.

“x x x                    x x x                 x
x x

“Q:  How
many times did you kiss him?

“A:   He was the one who kissed me, I just closed my
eyes.

“Q:  After the accused kissed you, what happened
next?

“A:   He removed my pants, sir.

“x x x                    x x x                 x
x x

“Q:  When the zipper of your pants was pulled down,
what happened?

“A:   He
also removed the panty, sir.

“Q:  What was your position when the button, when
your pants was unbuttoned and the zipper was pulled down?

“A:   I
was lying, sir.

“Q:  How come you were lying on the ground when
your pants and panty was (sic) removed?

“A:   I was made to lie down, sir.

“Q:  How?

“A:   I
was pressed to lie down, sir.

“Q:  What was the position of the accused when you
were pressed and ordered to lie down?

“A:   He
was still on top of my boyfriend Danilo Permison and his knife was still poked
at him.

“x x x                    x x x                
x x x

“Q:  After
you were ordered to come nearer to the accused, what happened next?

“A:   He
begun kissing my private parts, sir, and he inserted his finger in my private
parts.

“x
x x                    x x x                 x x x

“Q:  After
the accused Dolar did this, xxx, what else happened?

“A:   He
removed his pants and then rode on top of me.

“x x x                   x x x                 x x x

“Q:  Where
was your boyfriend Danilo Permison while accused Dolar inserted his private
parts into yours xxx?

“A:   He
ran towards Napocor building to ask (for) help.

“Q:  You mean, you were left behind?

“A:   Yes, sir,

“Q:   When your companion Danilo left and went to
Napocor building, was it after accused had already inserted his private parts
into yours or was it before?

“x x x                    x x x                 x
x x

“A:   He
was in the process of entering his private parts into mine when my boyfriend Danilo
Permison ran towards Napocor.”

(TSN,
July 28, 1988, pp. 10-14)

We agree with the trial court’s finding that Danilo and Leny told
the truth when they testified in open court. Their testimonies are not only consistent in all material aspects, they
are also replete with minutiae of the incident.

There is no cogent reason for us to depart from the established
doctrine that the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of
witnesses deserve great respect since it had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testified on the witness stand and,
therefore, it could discern if the witnesses had told the truth or not.^[7]

Accused-appellant contends that it was not possible for Danilo
and Leny to recognize the culprits since the place of incident was dark. He further alleges that Bonifacio Drive is
not a busy street, particularly at night, and very few cars pass by to
illuminate the area. This argument is
untenable.

We note that the Napocor building, some thirty meters from the
place of incident, was lighted at the time Danilo and Leny were held up. Accused-appellant was seen at close range by
Danilo and Leny before they were dragged. Further, Danilo and Leny testified that the light from the passing
vehicles illuminated the area, thus, they managed to recognize the
culprits. The identification of
accused-appellant, a few hours after the incident, bolstered the allegations of
Danilo and Leny on Dolar’s participation in the crime. Judging from their testimonies in open court,
Danilo and Leny had retained their senses despite the horrible experience they
had gone through. Thus, we held:
“It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to
strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in
which the crime was committed. Most
often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting
impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory.”^[8]

We examined the evidence for accused-appellant which consist of
his testimony and that of his childhood friend, Reynaldo Dumarao.

Reynaldo Dumarao claimed that he was with accused-appellant on
the date and time of commission of the offense. He testified:

“ATTY. CAWED:

“Q:  Now,
where is Opiniado Dolar staying on October 24, 1987, if you know?

“A:   I
do not know where he lives, but he came from Bacolod on October 24, 1987.

“Q:  You
said that the accused Opiniado Dolar arrived from Bacolod on October 24, 1987,
what time did he arrive then?

“A:   About
4:30 to 5:30 in the afternoon.

“Q:   Would you know where the accused was between
8:00 and 9:00 o’clock in the evening of October 24, 1987, the whereabouts of
Opiniado Dolar?

“A:  He is in my house, he just came from the province and we were
conversing.

“Q:   Now, when Opiniado Dolar arrived on October
14, 1987, at about 4:30 in the afternoon, would you remember if he went out of
your house on that particular date?

“A:   No,
sir.”

(TSN, May 11, 1989, pp. 4-5).

The defense would like to impress the court that
accused-appellant did not commit the offense charged since he had just arrived
from Bacolod on the date and time in question. We are not persuaded.

The testimony of defense witness Reynaldo Dumarao was
contradicted by accused-appellant on cross-examination. Accused-appellant testified:

“FISCAL:

“Q:  Now, xxx you mentioned a certain address as
4044-A Asteroid, Sun Valley, Paranaque, what is that address that you gave?

“A:   That
is the house of my wife.

“Q:  Are you telling the Court that before the
resident (sic) took place on October 24, 1987, you were living with your family
in Sun Valley?

“A:  Yes, sir.

“x
x x                    x x x                 x x x

“Q:  Are you telling the Court that you have been
living in that place for about a year before October 24, 1987.

“A:   I
go there.

“Q:  When (sic) you mean to say that you have been
living there less than a year?

“A:  Yes, sir.

“Q:  Would you say that you have been living there
for about six (6) months?

“A:  More than a month.

“Q:  And therefore, you (sic) on the night of
October 24, 1987, you are just paying a visit to your friend?

“A:   Yes,
sir.

“Q:  And that was the exact time when you were
apprehended by the police?

“A:   Yes,
sir.”

(TSN, May 11, 1989, pp. 20-21).

Alibi is a weak defense, particularly, when it is not physically
impossible for accused to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission.^[9]
In the case at bench, accused-appellant was at his friend’s house, some eight
meters away from the place of the incident. He was arrested at nine o’clock, or thirty minutes after the robbery and
rape had been committed. It was, thus,
not impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

All things considered, we hold that Opiniado Dolar is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape. We note, however, that the trial court erred
in sentencing him to life imprisonment. The penalty for Robbery with Rape, pursuant to Article 294 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code, is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is
not synonymous with life imprisonment as the former entails imprisonment for at
least thirty (30) years and carries with it accessory penalties, whereas, the
latter has no definite duration and does not carry any accessory penalty.^[10]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Opiniado Dolar is meted the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Considering
the perversity of the accused-appellant, the civil indemnity in favor of Leny
Reli is increased to forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00).^[11]
Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Original Records, p.
1

^[2]
Original Records, pp. 7-8.

^[3]
Exhibits “A” and “B”.

^[4]
Exhibits “A” and “B”.

^[5]
Ibid.

^[6]
TSN, April 21, 1988, pp. 6-9; July 28, 1988, pp. 10­-14.

^[7]
People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 102409-10, December 21, 1992, 216 SCRA
754, 759-770.

^[8]
People vs. Sartagoda, G.R. No. 97525, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 251, 257.

^[9]
People vs. Villagracia, G.R. No. 94471, March 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 212.

^[10]
People vs. Estrella, 92506-07, April 28, 1993, 221 SCRA 543, 548.

^[11]
People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 101844, November 18, 1991, 203 SCRA 682.