PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEPITO TEJERO Y CARANZO, ANTONIO MARCOS Y OBO, EDGAR DEL MONTE Y ALEYA, SONNY CARANZO, JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, ACCUSED, ANTONI…

Marcos versus People

The Case

This is the case of People of the Philippines versus Pepito Tejero, Antonio Marcos and others, decided by the Supreme Court en banc in June 1999 on automatic review of a death sentence. The accused Antonio Marcos was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna of the special complex crime of robbery with rape, committed when he and his companions, armed with handguns, robbed the household of the Orodio family and the junk shop, and on the occasion of that robbery, raped Magdalena Ventura. The case matters for the bar because it gathers in one decision the rules on alibi, on the failure of a rape victim to shout or resist, on the suppression of evidence, and on the correct penalty for robbery with rape under the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act Number 7659.

Procedural History

An information for robbery with rape was filed against Antonio Marcos, Sonny Caranzo, Pepito Tejero, Edgar del Monte and two unnamed persons. All the accused except Caranzo, who remained at large, pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, rendered its decision in March 1997, convicting Antonio Marcos of robbery with rape and sentencing him to death, and convicting Pepito Tejero and Edgar del Monte of simple robbery and sentencing them to an indeterminate penalty. The case then went to the Supreme Court on automatic review, insofar as it concerned the imposition of the death penalty on Antonio Marcos.

Facts

On the night of March 12, 1996, at about eleven o'clock, four armed men entered the residence of Arnold and Aileen Orodio in San Pedro, Laguna, through a back door left open by Anthony Abino. They ransacked the house and took cash and jewelry. Antonio Marcos and Sonny Caranzo then proceeded to the nearby office and residence of Magdalena Ventura within the same compound, and robbed her and Arnold of cash and jewelry belonging to them and to the Orodio Junk Shop.

On the occasion of that robbery, Caranzo dragged Magdalena into a room, pointed a gun at her, and raped her. Marcos then entered the same room, also pointed a gun at her temple, and raped her as well, telling her to keep quiet so that she would not be hurt. Magdalena had undergone a spinal operation seven months earlier and was still recovering. Aileen and Arnold were in the adjacent room, guarded at gunpoint.

The victims were then tied and herded into the master's bedroom, where Pepito Tejero and Edgar del Monte guarded them. The robbers loaded the loot into the victims' van and escaped. Magdalena reported the matter, was examined by Dr. Maximo Reyes of the National Bureau of Investigation, who found a fresh abrasion on the vestibule of her hymen that only a fully erect penis could cause. Marcos, Tejero and del Monte were arrested and identified by the victims at the police station. In their defense, all three denied the charges and interposed alibi and denial.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused Antonio Marcos for robbery with rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite his defense of alibi and denial.
• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to present Dazzle, a child mentioned in Magdalena's sworn statement, gave rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.
• Whether or not the failure of Magdalena to shout for help or physically resist negated the element of force and intimidation in the rape.
• Whether or not the identification of the accused at the police station was improperly induced by the police.
• Whether or not the information was defective because it charged six persons when the witnesses declared that there were only four malefactors.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act Number 7659, defines and penalizes robbery with rape:

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: 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; or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.

This is the provision under which the trial court convicted Marcos of robbery with rape and imposed the death penalty, and which the Supreme Court applied in affirming the conviction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, easy to contrive and difficult to prove, and a positive identification by an eyewitness prevails over it. Here, not one but three eyewitnesses identified Marcos. For alibi to prosper, the accused must show not only that he was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene; since the crime was committed in the same municipality where his house stood, such impossibility was not shown. His denial could not prevail over Magdalena's categorical testimony, absent any proof of improper motive on her part.

On the second issue, the Court held that the prosecution has discretion to decide whom to call as a witness, and its failure to present Dazzle did not give rise to the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, because the evidence was merely corroborative or cumulative and was not shown to have been willfully suppressed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure of a victim to physically resist does not negate rape when intimidation is exercised and the victim submits against her will out of fear for her life and personal safety. Magdalena could not have shouted for help because Marcos was pointing a gun at her temple, she was recovering from a spinal operation, and she knew that Aileen and Arnold were being guarded at gunpoint in the adjacent room.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the claim that the police induced the identification, there being no evidence of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.

On the fifth issue, the Court found no defect in the information, as the evidence established the participation of the accused in the crime charged.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, alibi is the weakest of all defenses; it prospers only when the accused proves that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, and a positive identification by an eyewitness prevails over it. Second, the failure of a rape victim to shout or physically resist does not negate rape when intimidation is exercised upon her and she submits against her will out of fear for her life and personal safety. Third, the prosecution has discretion in choosing its witnesses, and the failure to present a witness does not raise the presumption of suppressed evidence unless the evidence is material and its suppression is shown to be willful. Fourth, when by reason or on occasion of a robbery the crime of rape is committed, the offender is guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of Antonio Marcos for robbery with rape and the death penalty imposed upon him, with the civil indemnity and damages awarded to the victims.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi is the weakest of all defenses, and a positive identification by an eyewitness prevails over it. Examiners use this case to test the elements of robbery with rape under Article 294, the standards for alibi, and the rule that a rape victim's failure to shout or resist does not negate rape when intimidation is present.