PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARIEL LIMBAUAN ALIAS ACIO, ALFREDO LAMAN, LEONOR TAMANG, ELISEO SANCHEZ, ROLANDO TANDAYU, LUCIO AFUNAY AND NESTOR LUGA, ACCUSE…

This is an appeal from the decision^[1] of
the Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Branch 16, Ilagan, Isabela,
in Criminal Case No. 778, entitled
“People of the Philippines vs. Ariel Limbauan alias Acio, Leonor
Tamang, Rolando Tandayu, Lucio Afunay,
and Nestor Luga.” The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:

“Accordingly, accused Ariel Limbauan and Leonor Tamang are
each sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and
to pay Elisa Austria civil indemnity solidarily in the amount of P50,000.00.

“The imposable penalty for robbery in band as against Luga,
Tandayu, and Afunay is Prision
correcional, maximum to prision
mayor, medium (Art.
294, par. 5). However, there being no aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period.

“Accused Lucio Afunay, Nestor Luga and Rolando Tandayu are
eached [sic] sentenced to suffer a prison term of Four (4) years, two (2)
months as minimum to ten (10) years as maximum after applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, and to indemnify solidarily with Ariel Limbauan, and Leonor
Tamang, the victim Marcela Bacani in the amount of P7,000.00.

“With Costs.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

The accused were charged with the crime of robbery with rape in
the following information:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses ARIEL LIMBAUAN
alias ACIO, ALFREDO LAMAN, LEONOR TAMANG, ELISEO SANCHEZ, ROLANDO TANDAYU,
LUCIO AFUNAY and NESTOR LUGA of the crime
of ROBBERY WITH RAPE, provided for and penalized under Article 294, paragraph
2, in connection with Articles 296 [sic] of the Revised Penal Code, committed
as follows:

‘That on or about the 14th day of December, 1986, in the
Municipality of Delfin Albano, province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, all armed with
assorted firearms, conspiring and confederating together and all helping one
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent
of gain and by means of force and intimidation against persons, take, steal and
carry away cash money in the amount of P3,000.00; one (1) cassette brand AIWA
valued at P2,500.00; instimatic [sic] camera valued at P300.00 and jewelries
[sic] and assorted goods/items valued at P6,550.00 all belonging to Marcela G.
Bacani and Armalite M16 Rifle valued at P12,000.00 belonging to Primitivo C. Rodriguez, a member of the Integrated
National Police, to the damage and prejudice of said Marcela G. Bacani in the
total amount of P12,350.00 and to Primitivo C. Rodriguez in the amount of
P12,000.00; that on the occasion of said robbery, the herein accused, Ariel
Limbauan with the aide [sic] of Leonor Tamang, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge with Elisa Austria against
her will and consent.’

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[3]

Upon arraignment, Ariel Limbauan entered a plea of guilty; the
rest of the accused pleaded not guilty. In the course of the trial, the case against accused Alfonso Laman and
Eliseo Sanchez was dismissed on 29 June 1988 on motion of the prosecution in
view of the demise of the said accused as shown in their death certificates.^[4]
After the trial of the case, the trial court rendered the now appealed decision
of 26 March 1991.

From the judgment of conviction, only accused Leonor Tamang has
appealed, alleging that:

“THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT LEONOR TAMANG OF THE COMPLEX
CRIME OF ROBBERY IN BAND WITH RAPE INSTEAD OF ROBBERY IN BAND ONLY.”

Appellant submits that he is guilty of robbery in band but not of
the complex crime of robbery with rape as charged. He maintains that the mere fact that he brought Elisa Austria
downstairs and upon reaching the ground floor of the house, Ariel Limbauan took
hold of Elisa and forced her to go with him outside said house of Marcela
Bacani, where Limbauan raped her, does not prove that he (appellant) conspired
with Limbauan in the rape of Elisa Austria.

Appellant claims that his purpose in forcing Elisa to go
downstairs was for her to join the others on the ground floor but not to turn
her over to Limbauan. In support of his
claim, appellant refers to the testimony of Marcela Bacani who, on
cross-examination, declared that Elisa was beside her when Limbauan forcibly
brought Elisa outside the house to rape her. This assertion of appellant clearly lacks merit.

During the testimony of Elisa Austria, she referred to one Renzi
Bacani, daughter of Marcela Bacani, who was inside the room where she (Elisa)
was sleeping. When appellant entered the room, he could not have missed seeing
Renzi together with Elisa inside the room.^[5] If, as appellant claims, his purpose in
forcing Elisa Austria to go downstairs was for her to join the others on the
ground floor, why did he pick on Elisa only and leave Renzi inside the room
upstairs?

Upon reaching the living room on the ground floor, appellant
handed Elisa Austria over to Ariel Limbauan who forcibly took her outside the
house and brought her to the banana grove to rape her. Elisa’s testimony, both during direct and
cross examinations, shows how appellant forced her out of the room and handed
her over to Ariel Limbauan.

“xxx xxx xxx

“Q   Now,
you said, now, why did Leonor Tamang took [sic] you from the room. . . I
reform. . . How did Leonor Tamang took in [sic] the room?

“A    He
pointed a gun and took hold of
my right shoulder and brought me outside the room, sir.

“Q   Where
did he bring [sic] when he took you out of the room?

“A    He
brought me to the living room, sir.”^[6]

xxx xxx xxx

“Q   Now
when you were in the Sala of the house of Mrs. Bacani what did Leonor Tamang
and his companion do?

A     Leonor
Tamang passed me to Ariel Limbauan, sir.

Q    If that Ariel Limbauan is in court
were you able [sic] to point at him?

A     Yes,
sir.

Q    Will [sic] point to him?

A     That
man, sir, wearing white T-shirt.”^[7]

xxx xxx xxx

“Q   Now,
Miss Austria you stated that this Leonor Tamang forcibly took you and brought
you down thereafter passed you to Ariel Limbauan is it not?

“A    Yes,
sir.

“Q   You
mean to say he passed you like a ball?

“A    Yes,
sir.

“Q   To
the waiting arms of Ariel Limbauan?

“A    No,
he gave me to Ariel Limbauan, sir.

“Q   He
passed your hands towards Ariel Limbauan?

“A   Leonor Tamang brought me down and Ariel
Limbauan was at the door at the house and when we were there he gave me to
Ariel Limbauan, sir.” ^[8]

Moreover, the statement (Exh. “E”) given by Elisa
Austria before the investigating officer on 15 December 1986, a few hours after
the incident happened, states unequivocably the participation of appellant in
the commission of the felony.

“Q   Who
is this Ariel Limbauan?

“A    He
is the very person who forced and intimidate [sic] me with the use of long fire arms [sic] to have a sexsual
[sic] intercourse, sir.”

“Q   How
about this Eleanor Tamang?

“A    He
was the one appeared [sic] and beligerently inquired me [sic] to stand inside
the bed room [sic] upstair [sic] where I’m sleeping and thereafter dragged and
brought me downs stair [sic].

“Q   When
and where [sic] the incident happen if any?

“A    At
the banana plantation of Mrs. Marcela Bacani at Barangay Ragan Sur, Delfin
Albano, Isabela, on December 14, 1986 at around 3:30 o’clock A.M. Sir.

“Q   How
did the incident happen?

“A    While
I’m sleeping in the bedroom upstair [sic] at the house of Marcela Bacani at
said place when suddenly Eleanor Tamang appeared and pointed towards me a short
gun, beligerentlly [sic] inquire me [sic] to stand up at this point dragged me
down stair [sic], and when we are [sic] already downstair Ariel Limbauan took
and forcibly brought me to the banana plantation.

“Q   What
did you do when Ariel Limbauan forcibly took and brought you to the banana
plantation?

“A    I
tried my best to struggle to evade my self [sic] from the incident instead said
Ariel Limbauan pointed and poked me with fire arms [sic].

“Q   What
happen [sic] next?

“A    While
we are struggling to [sic] each other said Eleanor Tamang appeared and pointed
towards me his fire arms [sic], and immediately thereafter Arnel [sic] Limbauan
bodily carried me and forced me to laid [sic] down facing up-ward, [sic] and
because of my fearness and tiredness I became unconscious, when I regain(ed) my
knowledge I noticed and feel [sic] that my vagina is too hurt [sic] and
bleeding, and same the spermatozoa is contaminated [sic] at my private
parts.”^[9]

A conspiracy exists when
two (2) or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit
it. While proof of the agreement need
not rest on direct evidence, the agreement itself may be inferred from the
conduct of the parties disclosing a
common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense.^[10]

In the present case, we are fully convinced that appellant and
accused Ariel Limbauan had a previous agreement relating to the commission of
the felony which they decided to finally commit. From the time of the investigation and all throughout her
testimony in court, Elisa Austria never diverted from her declaration
positively pointing to Leonor Tamang as the person who helped and aided Ariel Limbauan
in committing the felony. We quote with
approval the finding of the trial court that –

“(T)he
act of Tamang in handing over Elisa Austria to Limbauan however, must be
construed as evidence of conspiracy. When Limbauan disappeared in the banana groove [sic] with Elisa Austria
there is no doubt that Tamang
knew what was the intention of Limbauan“^[11]

The evidence of the prosecution has abundantly established and
beyond reasonable doubt that conspiracy existed between appellant Leonor Tamang
and accused Ariel Limbauan in the commission of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is
hereby AFFIRMED, with costs
against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Teodoro L. Hernando.

^[2]
Original record, p. 212.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 3.

^[4]
Decision, p. 2.

^[5]
TSN, 18 October, 1988, p. 58-59.

^[6]
Ibid., p. 47.

^[7]
Ibid, p. 48, direct examination of Elisa

^[8]
Ibid., pp. 62-63, Cross-examination.

^[9]
Exhibit “E”, p. 4, Original Record.

^[10]
People vs. Uy, G.R. No. 84275, 14 February 1992, 206 SCRA 270.

^[11]
Decision, p. 14; Original Record, p. 211.