PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO SUYU @ RUDY, WILLY SUYU, FRANCIS CAINGLET AND ROMMEL MACARUBBO @ ROMMEL BARIUAN, APPELLANTS.

People versus Suyu

The Case

People versus Suyu is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Rodolfo Suyu, Willy Suyu, Francis Cainglet, and Rommel Macarubbo for the complex crime of robbery with rape committed against a young student and her boyfriend one evening in Tuguegarao City. The accused denied the charge, raised alibi and denial, and attacked the credibility of the complaining witness and the admissibility of one accused's extrajudicial confession. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the rules on the crediting of a rape victim's testimony, the significance of an initial delay in disclosing sexual abuse, the treatment of an extrajudicial confession offered against its maker, and the proper penalty where the offender was a minor at the time of the crime.

Procedural History

An Information for robbery with rape was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City. All four accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty at arraignment. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on the tenth of February 2003, finding all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to pay jointly and severally the value of the jewelry and cash taken, and to indemnify the victim in the amount of 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity.

The accused appealed. After the parties filed their briefs, the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the case to the Court of Appeals in light of its ruling in People versus Mateo. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, with the modification that as to the accused Rommel Macarubbo, who was a minor at the time of the crime, it imposed an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, in its medium period, as maximum. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal, with the appellants assigning errors against the crediting of the complainant's testimony, the finding of guilt, and the admission of Macarubbo's extrajudicial confession.

Facts

At around seven fifteen in the evening of the thirteenth of January 1996, Clarissa Angeles, a third-year student, was with her boyfriend William Ferrer inside a pick-up truck parked in a vacant lot near the Commission on Audit and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Rommel Macarubbo appeared in front of the truck, pointed a gun, and announced a holdup, warning that they would be shot if the engine were started. Willy Suyu entered the truck and took Ferrer's wallet containing about 150 pesos, while Francis Cainglet took Clarissa's jewelry valued at around 2,500 pesos and cash of about 10 pesos. Willy Suyu clubbed Ferrer and dragged him out, but Ferrer escaped and went to the police station to report the incident.

The three then dragged Clarissa to a hilly place, where Cainglet poked a fan knife at her. Rodolfo Suyu, the half-brother of Willy Suyu, came out of a house and said he would be the first. He embraced and kissed her and fondled her breast. She struggled, seized his knife, kicked his groin, and tried to run, but she was caught by the hair and punched twice in the stomach. She pleaded with the three others for help, but they did nothing. Rodolfo Suyu then passed her to Cainglet, who kissed her until she bit his tongue so hard that it bled. When a beam of light appeared, Cainglet and Rodolfo Suyu brought her to the top of a hill near the Capitol, with Willy Suyu and Macarubbo serving as lookouts. There Rodolfo Suyu removed her pants and undergarments, inserted two fingers, remarked that she was still a virgin, and then inserted his penis into her vagina. He then told Cainglet that he would be next, and Cainglet was able to insert half an inch of his penis into her vagina while Rodolfo Suyu held her hands.

After she pleaded for mercy and promised not to report them, she was allowed to leave. Blood-stained and covered in mud, she fled to a house and was taken to the Cagayan Valley Regional Hospital, where the nurses merely examined her bruises. At the police station she saw her boyfriend and, ashamed to admit in front of him that she had been abused, declared that there was merely an attempt to rape her. On the seventeenth of January 1996 she submitted to a physical and gynecological examination, and the examining physician found hematoma and contusions and an old healed laceration of the hymen. On the nineteenth of January 1996 she signed and filed a criminal complaint for robbery and rape, and she later gave supplemental statements. Macarubbo, who was born on the twenty-fourth of August 1978 and was then still a minor, was released on recognizance, and on the second of April 1996 he signed a sworn statement in the form of questions and answers before a municipal judge, confessing his participation and implicating the three others. The accused denied the charge and interposed alibi and denial, and Macarubbo claimed he was in San Pablo, Isabela when the crime took place.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimony of the private complainant, Clarissa Angeles.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not declaring inadmissible the extrajudicial confession of the accused Rommel Macarubbo.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as the decision treats it, defines robbery with rape and fixes its penalty, and it bears on the case because the appellants were convicted of that complex crime:

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.

Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, on the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, bears on the case because Macarubbo was a minor at the time of the crime, which is why the Court of Appeals lowered his penalty:

Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed: 1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempt from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed. 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.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case. The trial court found Clarissa's testimony consistent, believable, and credible, and the Court of Appeals found it clear and sincere, remaining steadfast under grueling cross-examination by three separate counsels. The Court stressed that the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. On the delay in disclosure, the Court held that it is not uncommon for a rape victim right after her ordeal to remain silent about what really transpired, and that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge, rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. Clarissa explained her initial reluctance by saying she was then trembling with fear and ashamed before the policemen and in front of her boyfriend.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court gave credence and probative weight to Clarissa's testimony and rejected the defenses of denial and alibi, which it found full of inconsistencies and not in accord with human experience, and it found that the four accused conspired in the robbery with rape. The Court likewise upheld the modification in favor of Macarubbo, who was a minor at the time of the crime, so that the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law was imposed on him in the proper period.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting Macarubbo's extrajudicial confession only as part of the testimony of the police officer who presented it, because the prosecution failed to present the municipal judge before whom the confession was sworn. The confession was not admitted as independent evidence of the crime against the other accused.

Doctrine

First, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case.

Second, in rape cases the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. When the testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by rigorous cross-examination, and unflawed by any serious inconsistency or contradiction, it must be given full faith and credit.

Third, delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge, and it renders the charge doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.

Fourth, under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, robbery is complexed with rape when rape is committed by reason or on occasion of the robbery, and the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Under Article 68, an offender over fifteen and under eighteen years of age at the time of the crime is entitled to the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, imposed in the proper period.

Fifth, an extrajudicial confession requires proof of the circumstances of its execution, and where the prosecution fails to present the judge before whom it was sworn, it cannot stand as independent evidence of the crime.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the conviction of all four accused for robbery with rape, with the modification that Rommel Macarubbo, being a minor at the time of the crime, was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor, in its medium period, as minimum, to fifteen years of reclusion temporal, in its medium period, as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a rape victim may be convicted on her lone testimony if it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature, and her delay in disclosing the rape does not by itself make the charge doubtful. Examiners like to use this case on the crediting of a victim's testimony despite initial nondisclosure, on the complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294, and on the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68.