PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEL SARTAGODA Y BOCANEGRA, JIMMY BASCUÑA Y LAZARTE, VLCENTE STA. ANA Y GUTIERREZ AND JOHN DOE, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

The Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 36,
Calamba, Laguna convicted all three accused-appellants in its decision* dated November 7, 1990, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the court hereby finds the accused Joel Sartagoda
y Bocanegra, Jimmy Bascoña (sic) y Lazarte and Vicente Sta. Ana y Gutierrez all
guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime of Robbery With Rape, defined and
penalized in Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code; there being two
aggravating circumstances without any mitigating circumstance to offset the
same, hereby sentences each of the said accused to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua with the accessories provided for by the law.

Each of the three accused is ordered to indemnify the offended party
Vilma de Belen the sum of P30,000.00, and each of them shall recognize the
offspring if there be any.

The said accused are likewise ordered to return the personal
properties stolen or pay its equivalent amount of P17,490.00 to Rogelio de
Belen, the lawful owner thereof.

SO ORDERED.”^[1]

The facts of the case may be summarized as follows:

It was the evening of July 2, 1988 while Rogelio de Belen, his
two daughters and his sister Vilma de Belen were sleeping in their house at Calamba, Laguna, when
appellant broke in and woke him up, poking a knife at him. They tied up his hands and made him lie flat
on his stomach and asked for the key to his cabinet. Fearing for his life and that of his companions, he reluctantly
told them where the key was kept.

Just on the other room was Vilma, who heard whispers (kaluskos)
but simply played possum. When the
three saw her on the bed, they approached her. One covered her mouth as another poked a knife at her neck. They threatened to kill her if she should
make an outcry.

They raised her blouse and removed her underwear. They tied both her hands so that she could
offer no resistance. She was at such a
pitiful state when the accused Jimmy Bascuña went on top of her, kissing her on
different parts of her body, while Vicente Sta. Ana held her legs apart. Jimmy finally inserted his sex organ inside
her and satisfied his bestial desire. After Jimmy was over, Vicente took his turn and then Joel. After the three of them had successfully
deflowered Vilma, they left, carrying with them the money and other personal
belongings of the de Belen family.

After the three men left, Rogelio, with his hands and feet still
tied up, tried to get up from the bed and switched the lights on and called to
his neighbors for help. Vilma,
meanwhile, had lost consciousness due to shock.

Meanwhile, Petra Lamire, his sister-in-law who lives right next
to his house responded to his cry for help. She went to their house and untied Rogelio. She saw Vilma with her upper body naked and sobbing so she
covered Vilma with a blanket. Soon
after, his other sister-in-law also arrived. They reported the incident to the Barangay Captain.

They had Vilma examined by Dr. Danilo A. Ramirez at Dr. Jose
Rizal Memorial Hospital at about 10:00 that same morning. He conducted external and internal
examinations. His external examination
showed no physical injuries except that he noted several abrasions at the genital
area. His internal examination showed
fresh lacerations of the hymen at 9:00 and 4:00 positions. The vagina admitted two fingers with ease.

In the present appeal the lone assigned error is:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING
(THAT) THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT HENCE, THEIR ACQUITTAL IS INEVITABLE.

This appeal has no merit.

The accused-appellants fault the trial court of ignoring the
fingerprint examination report submitted by the Crime Laboratory of the PC/INP
Camp Crame which stated that none of the specimen latent fingerprints were
found to be positive. It is their
contention that since their fingerprints were not found in the objects found in
the scene of the crime they cannot be held guilty of the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt.

Although We agree with their opinion that a positive finding of
matching fingerprints has great significance. We cannot stain their theory that from the negative findings in the
fingerprint examination conducted in the course of the investigation in the
instant case, it must be concluded that they could not have been at the scene
of the crime. Negative findings do not
at all times lead to a valid conclusion for there may be logical explanations
for the absence of identifiable latent prints other than their not being present
at the scene of the crime.

Only latent fingerprints found on smooth surface are useful for
purposes of comparison in a crime laboratory because prints left on rough
surfaces result in dotted lines or broken lines instead of complete and
continuous lines. Such kind of specimen
cannot be relied upon in a fingerprint examination. The latent fingerprints are actually oily substances adhering to
the surfaces of objects that come in contact with the fingers. By their very nature, oily substances easily
spread such that when the fingers slide against the surface they touch, no
identifiable latent print is left, only smudges instead. Not all police investigators are aware of
the nature of latent fingerprints so as to be guided accordingly in deciding
which objects to submit for fingerprint lifting and examination. Noting the interplay of many circumstances
involved in the successful lifting and identification of proper latent
fingerprints in a particular crime scene, the absence of one does not immediately
eliminate the possibility that the accused-appellants could have been at the
scene of the crime. They may be there
yet they had no left any identifiable latent fingerprint. Besides, in the case at bar, only ten latent
fingerprints are involved. The findings
in this particular fingerprint examination are not sufficient to cast even just
a reasonable doubt in their finding of guilt for the crime charged.

The accused-appellants likewise contend that the police line-up
has been irregularly conducted revealing suggestibility to their
prejudice. They accused Pat. Reyes of
coaching complainant Vilma de Belen when she identified her three
assailants. They claim that it was Pat.
Reyes fault that “they were not allowed to select their positions at the
line-up; that they were not placed in line under a numeral against a wall
marked to indicate their respective height in feet and inches; that there was
no record made of their descriptions and physical characteristics; that the
witness/victim was not out of view of the three (3) accused lined-up for
identification purposes”.^[2]

We find these claims of irregularities of little if not, of no
significance at all when considered in the light of the natural desire in the
victim to seek retribution not simply from anybody who may be put before her
but from the very same offenders
who actually did violence against her. It would be most illogical for an outraged victim to direct her anger
against anyone other than her three offenders. We cannot accept the accused-appellants’ claim that it was on Pat.
Reyes’ suggestion that the victim pointed to the accused-appellants as her
assailants. No amount of coaching will
be sufficient to counter the natural outrage of a rape victim against her
abuser when said abuser is presented before her in a police line-up. The outrage displayed by the rape victim was
a spontaneous reaction. She identified
her assailants because of no other reason except to let people know who hurt
her.

Whether or not there was a previous police line-up, the fact is
that they were positively identified at the trial. There is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a
proper identification.^[3] The
complainant’s recognition of the accused-appellants as her attackers cannot be
doubted for she had during the carnal acts ample opportunity to see the faces
of the men who ravaged her. It is the
most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the
looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime
was committed. Most often the face of
the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which
cannot easily be erased from their memory.^[4]

The accused-appellants further claim that “the Medical
findings of Dr. Danilo Ramirez concludes that the alleged victim of rape, Vilma
de Belen must have had sexual experienced (sic) five (5) to six (6) days before
the alleged incident happened on July 2, 1988 at about 3 to 4 o’clock in the
morning”^[5]. There is no truth to this claim. In fact, there was no categorical or
positive assertion on the part of Dr. Ramirez that the sexual intercourse with
Vilma was committed on the very date when the alleged “robbery with rape”
took place on July 2, 1988.

This is a clear distortion of the testimony of Dr. Ramirez who on
cross-examination testified as follows:

“ATTY. MAIQUEZ:

Q:      You cannot also determine when was the
first and was the last intercourse as per your examination?

FISCAL:     Objection,
witness is incompetent.

COURT:    Witness
may answer.

A:   The findings suggest that because of hymenal
laceration the injuries was (sic) recent not more than one week sir.

Q:  When you say it is not more than one week,
could it be 6 or 5 days?

A:   Possible, sir.

Q:  When you say it is possible that the victim
could have experienced sexual intercourse 6 to 5 days that was indicated in
your examination marked as Exh. A, can you determine as per your finding?

A:   Well, yes, sir, I placed fresh hymenal
laceration because laceration will determine whether it is fresh or old because
of the characteristic (sic) of the laceration, sir.

Q:  At the time you examined the patient in your
medical opinion it could have been 5 or
6 days had elapsed?

A:   Yes, sir.

ATTY.
MAIQUEZ: That will be all.”^[6]

The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion to seek
clarification in witness’ testimony proceeded as follows:

“COURT:

Q: Doctor, in your findings you noted that
there was an abrasion?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: Is that more than one abrasion?

A: I found 3 mm., your Honor.

WITNESS
(continuing):

–
and on the lower opening of the vagina on the right side, that is the only
place, sir.

COURT:

Q:
   Aside from that injury or rater (sic)
that portion there is no other injury which you found?

A:     None, your Honor.

Q:    Because laceration stated in your
medicolegal certificate that there was fresh hymenal laceration noted at 9 and
4 o’clock on the face of the clock?

A:     Yes, your Honor.

Q:    Do we gather it right when you stated in
your medicolegal certificate fresh it is not yet healed?

A:     Yes, your Honor.

Q:    From that finding of yours regarding the
existence of fresh hymenal
laceration you said that it least one or 2 days had elapsed before you have
conducted the physical examination?

A:     Yes, your Honor.

Q:    In other words from one to 5 days?

A:     Yes, your Honor.

COURT:

Q:    But it is possible that it could be more
than one or two days?

WITNESS:

A:     Yes, your Honor.”^[7]

It is evident that Dr. Ramirez never categoricaIly concluded that
the sexual intercourse causing the fresh hymenal lacerations took place five to
six days before the date of her
examination. The accused-appellants’
claim that the sexual intercourse took place on June 26 or 27, 1988 is
conjectural and without factual basis.

The claim of accused-appellants that the prosecution failed to present rebuttal evidence to refute the averments of Joel Sartagoda
that they tried in vain to persuade him to admit the charge against him and to
implicate his two (2) co-accused did not deserve the attention of the trial
court nor does it deserve Ours, being per se unacceptable and
unbelievable in the light of human experience.

Finally, they claim that the fact that Vicente Sta. Ana and Jimmy
Bascuña did not flee, even when they had all the opportunities to do so, prove
their innocence. When they were allowed
to go home after Vilma failed to identify them during the first confrontation
at the police station, they stayed home and did not flee until they were again
required to appear at the police station for the second time. The accused-appellants in effect posit that
if flight is an indication of guilt, non-flight or the decision not to flee,
having the opportunity to do so, is a sign of innocence.

We do not agree. Although
it is settled that unexplained flight indicates guilt, it does not necessarily
follow that absence thereof proves innocence, specially so when there is
overwhelming evidence to establish their guilt.

This Court finds no reversible error having been committed by the
trial court in convicting the three accused-appellants for the crime of robbery
with multiple rape under Article 294 par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. We affirm its findings of fact which are
firmly grounded on the evidence presented at the trial. We reiterate our ruling thus:

“There is need to stress anew that this Court has long been
committed to the principle that the determination by a trial judge who could
weigh and appraise the testimony as to the facts duly proved entitled to the
highest respect, unless it could be shown that he ignored or disregarded
circumstances of weight or influence sufficient to call for a different
finding.”^[8]

We are for the affirmance of the conviction of the three
accused-appellants. With regard to the
indemnity to Vilma de Belen for multiple rape, there having been evidence of
conspiracy, the act of one being the act of all, each must be liable for all
the three rapes committed, they must be held solidarily liable^[9]
for said indemnity which the trial court fixed at P30,000.00 for each offender
of a total of P90,000.00.^[10]

However, this Court cannot uphold the trial court’s ruling
ordering each of the accused to “recognize the offspring if there be
any”. In multiple rape, not one
maybe required to recognized the offspring of the offended woman. In a case^[11]
where three persons, one after another, raped a woman neither of the accused
was ordered to recognize the offspring simply because it was impossible to
determine the paternity thereof.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellants are held jointly and
severally liable to indemnify Vilma de Belen for multiple rape in the amount of
P90,000.00, and that none of the accused is required to recognize the
offspring.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Judge Justo M. Sultan.

^[1]
Records, pp. 353-354.

^[2]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 23.

^[3]
People vs. Salguero, et al., 198 SCRA 357 (1991).

^[4]
People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235 (1961).

^[5]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 25.

^[6]
TSN, October 18, 1988, pp. 13-14.

^[7]
Ibid., pp. 14-16.

^[8]
People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259; 267 (1973); citing People vs.
Angcap, 43 SCRA 437 (1972).

^[9]
See: People vs. Selfaison, supra.

^[10]
In People vs. Calixtro, 193 SCRA 303 (1991), the Court ordered
the accused to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P30,000.00 for each
of the three rapes committed for a total of P90,000.00.

^[11]
People vs. De Leon, et al., G.R. No. L-2094, April 20, 1950.