PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGAR EVANGELIO Y GALLO, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, ATILANO AGATON Y OBICO, AND NOEL MALPAS Y GARCIA, ACCUSED. JOSEPH EVANGELIO, ACCUSE…

People versus Evangelio

The Case

People versus Evangelio is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Joseph Evangelio and three others for the special complex crime of robbery with rape, committed in the home of a family in Tacloban City. The accused were charged with entering the house armed with a handgun and knives, tying and blindfolding the members of the household, taking jewelry and valuables worth more than three hundred thousand pesos, and raping a seventeen-year-old househelper on the occasion of the robbery. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court treats the defenses of denial and alibi against positive identification, it explains how rape may be proved by circumstantial evidence when the victim was unconscious, and it states the rule that once conspiracy in a robbery is established, every conspirator is equally liable for a rape committed by any of them on the occasion of that robbery.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 7, after trial, found Joseph Evangelio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape and sentenced him to death, ordering him to pay actual and moral damages to the spouses whose property was taken, civil indemnity and moral damages to the rape victim, and damages to another occupant of the house. On appeal, the case was initially forwarded to the Supreme Court, but pursuant to the Court's ruling in People versus Mateo, it was transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification: because the death penalty had been abolished by Republic Act Number 9346, it imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, it declined to appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry, and it deleted the awards of damages in favor of one occupant because they were not alleged in the Information. Evangelio then appealed to the Supreme Court through the Public Attorney's Office, assigning as error the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, commission by a band, dwelling, and unlawful entry.

Facts

On the evening of October 3, 2001, at about six thirty in the evening, while a seventeen-year-old househelper was cooking in the kitchen of the house of the spouses in Tacloban City, four men barged inside through the open kitchen door. One was armed with a handgun and the other three with knives. They warned her to keep quiet and brought her to the living room, where they herded the other members of the household, bound their hands and feet, and placed masking tape over their eyes. With her eyes partially covered, the househelper was brought by the appellant inside the comfort room, where he and one of the robbers stripped off her clothes. She resisted and fought back, but they slammed her head twice against the concrete wall until she lost consciousness. When she regained her senses, the robbers were gone, her shorts and panty were strewn beside her, and she felt pain in her knees, head, stomach, and vagina, which was bleeding.

The other occupants testified that they recognized the intruders. One witness identified the appellant and another accused as persons familiar to her because they had previously stayed in her barangay, and she identified the leader of the group as a friend of her husband who had worked for him. The owner of the house came home at about seven in the evening and saw the four accused inside; he too recognized the leader as a former laborer who had worked on the construction of the extension of his house, and he identified the appellant in open court as one of those who tied him. The robbers left through the kitchen door carrying two traveling bags and the jewelry box of the wife, and an inventory of the stolen valuables amounted to three hundred thirty-six thousand pesos, more or less. Some of the stolen items were later recovered from the house of the leader.

The following day, the househelper was examined by a medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, who found deep healing lacerations and shallow healed lacerations, concluded that she was in a non-virgin state physically, and stated that the findings were compatible with recent loss of virginity and recent sexual intercourse. The appellant's defense was bare denial and alibi: he claimed that at the time of the incident he was sleeping in his house in Diit, Tacloban City, with his mother and sisters, but he presented no other witness, and he himself testified that Diit is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City.

Issues

• Whether or not the appellant's denial and alibi can prevail over the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the crime of robbery with rape was proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the element of rape, when the victim was unconscious during the sexual act and the case rests on circumstantial evidence.
• Whether or not conspiracy was established among the four accused, such that the appellant is equally liable for the rape committed on the occasion of the robbery.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry may be appreciated against the appellant.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, 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: 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 that defines the special complex crime and fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the robbery is accompanied by rape.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it.

This is the basis for holding the appellant equally culpable for the rape committed by any of his co-conspirators on the occasion of the robbery.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that denial and alibi cannot prevail over the categorical statements of prosecution witnesses who positively identified the appellant and who were not shown to have any ill motive to testify against him. The Court stressed that alibi must be supported by proof that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime, and here the appellant himself admitted that Diit is only a one-hour ride from Tacloban City, so there was at least a chance for him to be present. The Court also noted that the appellant's mother and sisters, who could have corroborated his alibi, were never placed on the witness stand.

On the second issue, the Court held that all the elements of robbery with rape were established: the taking of personal property belonging to another, with violence and intimidation, and with intent to gain, which is presumed from the unlawful taking. As to the rape, although the victim did not witness the act because she was unconscious, the Court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient, because there was more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences were drawn were proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produced a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Court listed the circumstances: the appellant and another robber brought the victim inside the comfort room, stripped her, banged her head against the wall when she resisted, and when she regained consciousness her shorts and panty were strewn beside her and her vagina was bleeding. The Court added that the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and that a medical examination is merely corroborative and not indispensable.

On the third issue, the Court held that conspiracy was shown by the coordinated acts of the four men from the moment they entered the residence until they left carrying the loot, and that once conspiracy is established in a robbery, all the conspirators are equally culpable for the rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless one proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing it. No such proof was shown.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that nighttime and unlawful entry could not be appreciated, because aggravating circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the Information, and the Information here merely stated that the crime took place on or about October 3, 2001, without specifying the time. The Court also noted that the phrase "forcibly enter the inhabited house" does not amount to the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry, since the evidence showed that the accused entered freely through the open kitchen door.

Doctrine

First, alibi and denial are negative and self-serving evidence that cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses with no ill motive to testify; for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene.

Second, rape may be proved by circumstantial evidence when the victim was unconscious during the act, provided there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are drawn are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape, and a medical certificate is merely corroborative.

Third, once conspiracy in a robbery is established, every conspirator is equally liable for the rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless he proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing it. This flows from Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines conspiracy as an agreement concerning a felony and a decision to commit it.

Fourth, aggravating circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the Information; otherwise they cannot be appreciated even if proved during trial. Nighttime is not appreciated unless it was deliberately sought to prevent recognition or to ensure escape, and the phrase "forcibly enter the inhabited house" does not by itself amount to unlawful entry.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Joseph Evangelio for robbery with rape and imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, with the damages as modified by the Court of Appeals.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that once conspiracy in a robbery is established, all the conspirators are equally liable for the rape committed by any of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless one proves that he endeavored to prevent it. Examiners like to use this case to test circumstantial evidence in rape where the victim was unconscious, the weakness of alibi and denial against positive identification, and the rule that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information.