PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERIC MENDOZA AND ANGELITO BALAGTAS, ACCUSED, ERIC MENDOZA,  ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Mendoza

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Eric Mendoza and Angelito Balagtas for entering the house of Andrelita Sto. Domingo at knife point, robbing her of cash and jewelry, and raping her on the same occasion. Only Mendoza appealed, and he argued that because he did not himself commit the rape, he should answer only for robbery. The case matters because it fixes the rule on conspiracy in robbery with rape: the conspiracy to rob is all that need be proven, and every conspirator is a principal in the complex crime unless he proves that he tried to prevent the rape.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Third Judicial Region, Branch 14, Malolos, tried the two accused and, in a decision dated May 18, 1995, found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape. The trial court imposed reclusion perpetua and ordered them to pay the victim 12,000 pesos as actual damages and 100,000 pesos as moral damages, plus costs. Only Eric Mendoza filed a notice of appeal; as to Angelito Balagtas, the judgment became final and executory. The appeal was elevated to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to credit Mendoza with the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

Facts

In the evening of August 22, 1991, Andrelita Sto. Domingo retired to the bedroom of her bungalow-type house in Tumana, Santa Maria, Bulacan, together with her three children, while their maid slept in the basement. The bedroom lights and the bathroom lights were on. The bathroom had a window without iron grills, opening onto the roof of the terrace. She woke up when she felt her thighs being rubbed, and saw two men in black jackets with their faces covered with handkerchiefs. The medium-built man poked a six-inch knife at her neck and ordered her to open the vault. The two took 2,000 pesos in cash and jewelry worth 12,000 pesos.

At the medium-built man's orders, the small man untied the curtain band and handed it over. In doing so his handkerchief loosened, and the victim recognized him as Eric Mendoza, who used to work in her uncle's steel factory. After her hands were tied and she was gagged, the two carried her to the bathroom. The medium-built man sent Mendoza out through the window to stand guard on the terrace roof. Alone with the victim, the medium-built man removed his covering, raised her shirt, and, with the knife still at her neck, raped her on the bathroom floor. Mendoza peeped through the window and watched. The rapist then threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone, and joined Mendoza on the roof.

The next morning the husband arrived and learned of the incident. They reported it to the barangay chairman that same day, and to the Santa Maria police on August 25, 1991, deliberately leaving out the rape to avoid embarrassment. On August 27, 1991, the victim was examined by a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, and on August 31, 1991, the rape was reported to the police. Mendoza's father later presented him to the barangay chairman, and at a confrontation Mendoza admitted pointing out the victim's house to Balagtas as a possible object of robbery. Both accused raised alibi, and Mendoza claimed he was mauled into confessing.

Issues

• Whether or not conspiracy existed in the commission of the crime of robbery with rape.
• Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellant Eric Mendoza was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated in his favor.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Article 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: x x x 2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 or article 263 shall have been inflicted: Provided, however, That when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

This is the provision that defines and punishes the special complex crime of which Mendoza was convicted.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. x x x 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed but always in the proper period.

This is the privileged mitigating circumstance that lowered Mendoza's penalty, since he was seventeen years old when the crime was committed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that conspiracy was established. The victim's testimony was forthright, consistent, and credible, and it was corroborated by the barangay chairman and by a neighbor who saw Mendoza pointing out the window without iron grills to his companion. The Court held that relationship to the victim is not a ground to reject a witness absent a showing of evil motive, and no such showing was made.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the alibi because Mendoza's relatives were never presented, and because his own residence was in the same area as the victim's, so it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene. The claim of mauling was unsupported, and in any event his participation was proven independently of any confession. The non-recovery of the stolen items did not diminish his guilt.

On the charge that he should answer only for robbery, the Court ruled that robbery with rape is a special complex crime, and that the conspiracy to rob is all that need be proven to punish all the conspirators as principals. The Court held that for Mendoza to be convicted only of robbery, he must prove not only that he himself did not abuse the victim but that he tried to prevent the rape. He did neither; he stood guard and watched.

On the third issue, the Court resolved conflicting evidence of Mendoza's birth date in his favor, found that he was born on June 30, 1974, and was thus seventeen years old at the time of the crime. Applying Article 68, the penalty next lower than reclusion perpetua to death is reclusion temporal. With the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and abuse of superior strength, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.

Doctrine

In robbery with rape, the conspiracy to rob is all that need be proven to hold all the conspirators liable as principals in the complex crime. The rape may be committed by only one of them, but all are convicted of robbery with rape, because the law does not require that the rape be committed before, during, or after the robbery; it is enough that the robbery was accompanied by rape. An accused who took no part in the rape may escape liability for it only by proving that he endeavored to prevent it. Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance that lowers the penalty by one degree, and the burden of proving it rests on the accused.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Eric Mendoza for robbery with rape and his liability for damages, but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor in its maximum period to 18 years, 2 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its maximum period.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the conspiracy to rob is all that need be proven, and every conspirator is a principal in robbery with rape unless he proves he tried to prevent the rape. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy in special complex crimes and the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68.