People vs. Evardone

All rapes committed on the occasion of robbery merge into a single special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code; separate convictions for the component rapes are barred, but the victim is entitled to separate civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each additional rape. Additionally, when the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed due to the absence of any aggravating circumstance, the qualifying phrase “without eligibility for parole” must be deleted.

At dawn on 12 August 2011, AAA was walking along NHA Avenue in Antipolo City toward the jeepney terminal when she was accosted by two men. One of the men, later identified as Jonathan Juarizo Evardone, poked a knife at her neck, declared a hold-up, and took her cellular phone. The assailants then forced her to a canal and, on the occasion of the robbery, Evardone raped her three times in quick succession, employing different positions and at one point ordering her to bend over. During the assault he made lewd and threatening remarks. When the victim parried an attempt to stab her, she sustained an incised wound on her right thumb. After the incident, she reported to her family, underwent medico-legal examination, and identified Evardone at a barangay confrontation.

• The Hold‑Up and Sexual Assault: At approximately 4:30 a.m. on 12 August 2011, AAA was walking along NHA Avenue toward the jeepney terminal to go to work when two men approached, poked a knife at her neck, and announced a hold‑up. Evardone and his companion took her cellular phone worth ₱500. When a passing tricycle did not stop despite her shout for help, AAA attempted to run but Evardone caught her, grabbed her collar, and asked if she was a woman. He then pulled her to the side of a red car, placed his hands under her shirt, mashed her breast, and uttered, “babae ka pala, sige na, humiga ka na.” With the knife still pointed at the left side of her neck, he forced her to lie down in the canal and inserted his penis into her vagina. While raping her, he told her, “diba tiga-Sitio Broadway ka? May girlfriend ka? Dalhin mo dito, titirahin ko din.”

• Second and Third Rapes: Because both persons could not fit in the canal, Evardone ordered AAA to go up and bend over beside the car; he then inserted his penis into her vagina from behind. When he tried to stab her, she parried the knife, sustaining an incised wound on her right thumb. His companion urged him to stop because dawn was breaking, but Evardone replied, “sandali na lang to, isa na lang.” He then forced AAA back into the canal and, for the third time, penetrated her vaginally, warning her not to report to the police and saying that if she became pregnant she should look for him.

• Post‑Incident Report and Medical Examination: After her assailants left, AAA retrieved her shorts, went home, and recounted the ordeal to her siblings and mother. Her brothers went to the crime scene while she and her sister proceeded to the police station. A medico‑legal examination showed deep healing lacerations of the hymen at 6 and 9 o’clock positions, an erythematous labia minora, and two incised wounds on the right thumb and middle finger; the conclusion indicated recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to the hymen.

• Identification: AAA described her attacker’s appearance to an aunt at a wake: wearing a black shirt and shorts, with a pointed chin. A neighbor provided four names, one of which was Evardone. On 14 August 2011, all four were called to the barangay hall, where AAA identified Evardone as the perpetrator. During trial, she testified that the accused’s face was familiar although she did not know his name, and that she had focused on his features during the assault.

• Defense of Alibi: Evardone claimed he had been at a wake from 7:00 p.m. of 11 August 2011 until 5:00 a.m. of 12 August 2011 and thereafter ate lugaw in Sitio Broadway with friends before going home. His friend Jomar Caranto corroborated the alibi, admitting on cross‑examination that to reach Sitio Broadway they had to pass NHA Avenue and Lukban Street. The wake, the lugaw stall, and the crime scene were all situated in the same barangay.

N/A — The appeal was filed by the accused, and the decision does not detail separate arguments advanced by the People as appellee.

• Credibility of Victim: Respondent maintained that AAA’s testimony was incredible and marred by material inconsistencies: her affidavit stated that her phone, money, and jewelry were taken before the rape, while her testimony mentioned only the cellphone, and on re‑direct she claimed jewelry was also taken. She also gave conflicting accounts of the sequence of positions (canal, beside car, canal versus beside car, canal, beside car) and the timing of the stabbing attempt.

• Failure of Proof on Robbery: Respondent argued that the prosecution did not prove the taking of personal property beyond reasonable doubt because no receipts, photographs, or corroborating evidence of the cellphone or jewelry were presented.

• Lack of Resistance and Imperfect Identification: Respondent contended that AAA’s failure to escape or resist when opportunities arose, and her inability to identify the other assailant despite a well‑lit scene, weakened the case. He further claimed that AAA might have mistaken him for the real perpetrator because of similar features and clothing.

• Guilt for Robbery with Rape: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that respondent committed the special complex crime of robbery with rape, given the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, the lack of documentary proof of the stolen items, the victim’s failure to resist, and respondent’s defense of alibi and denial.

• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and the increased awards of ₱100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were proper in light of prevailing jurisprudence.

• Guilt for Robbery with Rape: The conviction was affirmed. The trial court’s assessment of AAA’s credibility was accorded great respect; no compelling reason existed to disturb the finding that her testimony was natural, convincing, and consistent on material points. The inconsistencies cited—whether the jewelry was taken, the exact order of sexual positions, and whether the stabbing occurred during the second or third rape—were minor and pertained to inconsequential details that did not touch upon the elements of the crime. The place of rape is not an essential element, and the victim consistently stated she was raped three times on the same morning. The absence of documentary evidence of the cellphone did not negate the fact of robbery; the taking was sufficiently established by AAA’s positive testimony that her phone was forcibly taken during the hold‑up. The victim’s lack of physical resistance was not fatal to the charge because she was threatened with a knife, and intimidation substitutes for resistance as an element of rape. Evardone’s defense of alibi was rejected because he failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the incident; the wake, the eatery, and the locus criminis were all within the same barangay. Denial and alibi are inherently weak and cannot prevail over AAA’s positive and consistent identification.

• Penalty and Damages: The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was modified. Under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, when no aggravating or mitigating circumstance is present, the lesser indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. The phrase “without eligibility for parole” was erroneously appended; pursuant to A.M. No. 15‑08‑02‑SC, that phrase applies only when the original imposable penalty would have been death but for R.A. 9346. Here, the Information did not allege and the prosecution did not prove any aggravating circumstance that would justify the death penalty, so the qualifying phrase was deleted. The civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the composite crime were reduced from ₱100,000 to ₱75,000 each, following the framework in People v. Jugueta for special complex crimes where the penalty is reclusion perpetua without a death‑reduction scenario. As to the two additional rapes absorbed into the special complex crime, the victim was entitled to separate damages for each incident: ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱75,000 moral damages, and ₱75,000 exemplary damages per additional rape, consistent with Jugueta, People v. Candelario, and People v. Ortiz, even though those rapes could not ground separate convictions.

• Merger of Multiple Rapes in Robbery with Rape — When multiple rapes are committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all the rapes are absorbed into the single special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code; the accused cannot be separately convicted for each rape. The proper mode of disposition is to declare that the charges for the component rapes are merged, not to enter an acquittal.

• Damages for Absorbed Rapes — Although the component rapes do not give rise to independent convictions, the victim is entitled to additional civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each rape committed, following the guidelines in People v. Jugueta, People v. Candelario, and People v. Ortiz. Where the penalty is reclusion perpetua (not reduced from death), the amount is ₱75,000 for each category of damages for the principal crime as well as for each additional rape.

• Credibility of Rape Victims — Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim—especially concerning non‑essential details—do not impair credibility; a victim recounting a harrowing experience cannot be expected to give a perfectly uniform account of every peripheral circumstance. The trial court’s assessment of credibility is entitled to the highest respect absent a showing of palpable error.

• Resistance in Rape — The law does not require physical resistance when the victim is threatened or intimidated with a deadly weapon; intimidation substitutes for force. The victim’s failure to physically resist or attempt escape is not a ground to disbelieve the charge.

• Alibi — For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else at the time of the crime but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene; mere proximity of locations negates the defense.

• “Time and again, this Court has reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is a question best addressed by the trial court because of its opportunity to observe their demeanor while testifying on the stand, an opportunity denied to the appellate courts.”

• “It is well‑settled that minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim does not automatically discredit the credibility of the witness. It should be borne in mind that minor inconsistencies are to be expected when a victim recalls her harrowing and traumatic experience which are commonly too painful and agonizing to recount, especially in a courtroom setting.”

• “Physical resistance to a rape need not be established where it is shown that the rape victim was threatened or intimidated into submission by the assailant. … After all, resistance is not an element of rape and its absence does not negate AAA’s claim that the accused‑appellant consummated his bestial act.”

• “Where the component crime is rape, the above Rules shall likewise apply, and that for every additional rape committed, whether against the same victim or other victims, the victims shall be entitled to the same damages unless the other crimes of rape are treated as separate crimes, in which case, the damages awarded to simple rape/qualified rape shall apply.” (quoting People v. Jugueta)

• People v. Seguis, 402 Phil. 584 (2001) — Repeated rapes committed on the occasion of robbery are merged into the single special complex crime of robbery with rape; relied on by the Court of Appeals and affirmed.

• People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Established the matrix of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for special complex crimes, including additional damages for each component rape; applied to fix the awards at ₱75,000 per category per rape incident.

• People v. Candelario, 370 Phil. 506 (1999) — Upheld the award of additional damages for each rape committed during a robbery even though only one conviction for robbery with rape was entered; considered consistent with the ruling in Jugueta.

• People v. Antonio Ortiz, 614 Phil. 625 (2009) — Similarly granted damages for each rape committed by multiple accused during a single robbery, although only one complex crime was prosecuted.

• People v. Belmonte, 813 Phil. 240 (2017) — Cited for the principle that the absence of a receipt for a stolen cellular phone does not negate the fact of robbery when the victim’s testimony sufficiently establishes the taking.

• Article 294, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. 7659) — Defines and penalizes robbery with rape, prescribing the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Applied as the crime for which Evardone was convicted.

• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — When the penalty consists of two indivisible penalties and neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances are present, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. Invoked to fix the penalty at reclusion perpetua instead of death.

• A.M. No. 15‑08‑02‑SC (Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrase “Without Eligibility for Parole” in Indivisible Penalties) — Clarified that the phrase “without eligibility for parole” is appended only to penalties of reclusion perpetua that were imposed in lieu of the death penalty after R.A. 9346. Here, because no aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven, the original penalty would have been reclusion perpetua and not death; the phrase was therefore deleted.

Leonen, Gesmundo, and Gaerlan, JJ., concurred. Zalameda, J., concurred in the result but wrote a separate opinion.

• Justice Zalameda (Separate Opinion, Concurring and Dissenting in Part) — Concurred in the conviction but dissented from the deletion of the phrase “without eligibility for parole.” Zalameda pointed out that the Informations for the absorbed component rapes specifically alleged the aggravating circumstance of ignominy (the sexual positions employed—“while on a sitting position” and “ordered to bend over”—added disgrace to the victim’s suffering). He argued that because all charges are merged into the single special complex crime, the allegations in the Informations for the component crimes should be treated as integrated into the robbery‑with‑rape charge, thus satisfying the requirement that aggravating circumstances be alleged in writing. Consequently, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy, proven at trial, warranted the imposition of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The separate opinion further noted that the Court of Appeals erred in outrightly “acquitting” the accused on the two rape charges; the proper disposition was to declare that those charges were merged into the robbery with rape, not to enter an acquittal under Rule 120.