PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO Z. DIZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dizon

The Case

This is People versus Dizon, a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Renato Dizon for robbery with rape under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659. The victim, a twenty-one-year-old engineering student, was held at knifepoint, robbed of her valuables, and then sexually violated in a dark basketball court. The case matters because it is a compact review of several doctrines a bar candidate must command: the appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place, the weight of positive identification against denial and alibi, and the civil liabilities that follow a conviction for rape.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by information before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded. The prosecution presented the victim, the arresting police officer, the police investigator, and the medico-legal officer. The accused offered denial and alibi, uncorroborated by any other witness. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape, attended by two aggravating circumstances, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay actual and moral damages and the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The accused assigned three errors: that he was not positively identified, that cruelty and uninhabited place were wrongly appreciated, and that the conviction for robbery with rape was erroneous.

Facts

On the evening of July 7, 1997, around half past nine, the victim alighted from a bus along EDSA near Roosevelt Avenue in Quezon City. Seconds later the accused called out to her, seized her, pressed a fan knife to her neck, and announced a hold-up. He took her wallet and jewelry and her backpack, warning that he would kill her if he found another wallet inside. He then made her walk with him along EDSA pretending they were a couple, his arm around her and the knife at her side, while he boasted of having killed many people. Whenever they passed a lighted place, she furtively studied his face, resolving that if she escaped she would have him arrested.

They reached a dark and empty basketball court. At knifepoint he ordered her to remove her pants and underwear. He kissed and mashed her breasts, bit her nipple and other parts of her body, and forced her to bend over the hood of a taxi, where he raped her. He then made her fondle and put his penis into her mouth, boasting about his bolitas. He forced her to lie on the ground and raped her again, and whenever she resisted or failed to answer, he banged her head on the hood of the taxi, slammed it against the wall, or slapped her. Finally, making her sit astride him and holding her by the hair, he reached for his knife in the dark. Sensing this, she struggled free, grabbed her pants, and ran to a store, where she reported the rape and asked for help.

A barangay officer accompanied her back to the court, where they recovered her shoes, her underwear, and the accused's black cap. She described her assailant as dark, about five feet three or four inches tall, and tattooed from the waist down. Three days later the barangay reported a suspect matching the description, and she went with policemen to the Munoz market, where the accused worked as a tricycle dispatcher. In the crowd she herself spotted and pointed him out. When he saw her, he drew the same fan knife, but the police disarmed and arrested him.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused was positively identified by the victim as her assailant.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place were properly appreciated against him.
• Whether or not the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, provides:

Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or 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 accused was charged and convicted, and it fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the robbery is accompanied by rape.

Article 2230 of the New Civil Code provides:

Under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.

This is the basis for the award of exemplary damages, since the crime was attended by two aggravating circumstances.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the victim positively identified the accused. That someone had to point out where he was in the crowded market did not destroy identification, because the failure to see is not the same as failure to recognize. She had supplied his description and herself picked him out from the crowd. She recognized him by the mole on his cheek and the tattoos on his body, and above all because she repeatedly gazed at his face whenever they passed a lighted area, memorizing it so that she could have him arrested. The Court also rejected the argument that he could not have undressed while holding her and the knife, and held that her failure to escape was understandable, as she was a terrified captive. Against this positive identification, his denial and alibi could not prevail, since he failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene.

On the second issue, the Court held that cruelty was properly appreciated. The test is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering. Here he subjected her to dehumanizing indignities and physical abuse beyond what the rape required, deliberately augmenting her pain. As for uninhabited place, the Court held that what matters is not the distance of the nearest house but whether there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving help. The basketball court, cloaked by darkness and shielded by high walls, made it certain that no cry for help would be heard.

On the third issue, the Court held that the elements of robbery with rape were proven, and that with two aggravating circumstances the trial court correctly imposed death.

Doctrine

• Robbery with rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, and the presence of aggravating circumstances justifies the higher penalty of death.
• Cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is present when the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for the commission of the crime, or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering.
• Uninhabited place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house but by whether there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving help at the place of commission.
• Alibi cannot prevail over clear and positive identification, and requires proof that the accused was elsewhere and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene.
• Absent any showing of improper motive, the testimony of a prosecution witness is worthy of full faith and credence, and the trial court's assessment of credibility is entitled to the highest respect.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty, and modified the judgment by additionally awarding fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and twenty-five thousand pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: cruelty is present when the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, and uninhabited place turns on the reasonable possibility of the victim receiving help. Examiners use this case for the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place, and for the rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive identification.