PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ANTONIO LLAMERA Y ATIENZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Llamera

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Antonio Llamera y Atienza, together with several co-accused, for the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals. The case matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it restates the guiding principles on out-of-court photographic identification, it confirms that a defective out-of-court identification may be cured by a positive identification in open court, and it lays down the elements of robbery with rape together with the correct penalty and the proper award of damages under prevailing jurisprudence.

Procedural History

The accused-appellant and four co-accused were charged by Information with robbery with rape. Upon arraignment, all pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Camarines Sur found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape, committed by a band, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. His co-accused were convicted only of robbery, and all of them were acquitted of the separate charge of carnapping.

Aggrieved, the accused-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction, modifying only the award of damages by adding moral damages in favor of the victim and imposing legal interest on all damages from the finality of the decision. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court resolved it in this decision.

Facts

On the morning of 28 March 2000, at around six thirty in the morning, three armed men entered the house of BBB. BBB and his nephew CCC were in the living room when the men barged in. Edwin Sical carried an armalite rifle, Alvin Adayo a forty-five caliber pistol, and the accused-appellant a thirty-eight caliber pistol. Edwin threatened BBB with the armalite and ordered AAA, BBB's niece, to go down and lie on the floor with her uncle. When BBB refused to produce money and guns, Edwin struck him twice on the head with the rifle.

Edwin and Alvin then ransacked the office and the rooms, taking money, jewelry, and a shotgun. Meanwhile, AAA and CCC ran to the kitchen, where they found the accused-appellant guarding DDD, BBB's wife, and the family's laborers. The accused-appellant mocked one of the workers, EEE, making him stand, sit, and lie down repeatedly at gunpoint, and then struck him on the head with a gun.

The accused-appellant then dragged AAA into her uncle's office. Inside, he touched her breast, forced her to unbutton her pants, and inserted his left hand into her pants, using his middle finger to penetrate her vagina. He told her to remove her pants and underwear and to sit on the table with her legs spread. Edwin knocked on the door, became infuriated upon discovering AAA inside with the accused-appellant, and allowed her to leave. The malefactors escaped using BBB's car, and BBB was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellant for robbery with rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the out-of-court identification of the accused-appellant through photographs was valid and free from impermissible suggestion.
• Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for rape when he claims he merely touched the victim's genitalia without inserting his finger.
• Whether or not the penalty and the award of damages were correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 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 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 provision supplies the penalty for robbery with rape and is the basis for the Court's computation of the imposable penalty in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down two guiding principles for a valid out-of-court identification: first, a series of photographs must be shown and not merely that of the suspect; and second, when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect. The accused-appellant failed to prove any act on the part of the police officers indicating that he was singled out. CCC testified that several photographs were shown to him and that he readily recognized the accused-appellant and his co-accused among them.

On the second issue, the Court held that even a defective out-of-court identification may be cured by a subsequent in-court identification. CCC was unequivocal during trial when asked to identify the assailants, and AAA, who was alone with the accused-appellant for several minutes, positively identified him in court. The Court stressed that the identifications were made by credible witnesses who clearly saw the accused-appellant during the incident.

On the third issue, the Court enumerated the elements of robbery with rape: first, the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; second, the property taken belongs to another; third, the taking is characterized by intent to gain, or animus lucrandi; and fourth, the robbery is accompanied by rape. The Court held that intent to gain is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking of things. As to the last element, the accused-appellant did not even deny that he assaulted AAA; he merely asserted that he touched her genitalia without inserting his finger. The trial court established that he had inserted his finger into her genitalia. The Court thus rejected his contention as a desperate attempt to deny the sexual assault.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that robbery with rape is a special complex crime punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the robbery is accompanied by rape. In view of the passage of Republic Act Number 9346, prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the trial court and the appellate court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court, however, modified the award of damages pursuant to the ruling in People versus Jugueta, ordering the accused-appellant to pay the victim one hundred thousand pesos as civil indemnity, one hundred thousand pesos as moral damages, and one hundred thousand pesos as exemplary damages.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain the following rules. First, for an out-of-court identification through photographs to be valid, a series of photographs must be shown and not merely that of the suspect, and the arrangement and display of the pictures must not suggest which one pertains to the suspect. Second, a defective out-of-court identification may be cured by a subsequent positive identification in open court. Third, the elements of robbery with rape are: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons; the property taken belongs to another; the taking is characterized by intent to gain; and the robbery is accompanied by rape. Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of things. Fourth, robbery with rape is a special complex crime punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, with reclusion perpetua to death, but the death penalty may not be imposed because of Republic Act Number 9346, so the penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Fifth, the damages must follow the ruling in People versus Jugueta.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with modification, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and ordering him to pay the victim one hundred thousand pesos as civil indemnity, one hundred thousand pesos as moral damages, and one hundred thousand pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a defective out-of-court identification is cured by a positive in-court identification, and that robbery with rape carries reclusion perpetua to death under Article 294, reduced to reclusion perpetua without parole by Republic Act Number 9346. Examiners like to use this case on the validity of photographic identification and on the elements and penalty of robbery with rape.