9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v.

Evangelio y Gallo

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 181902. August 31, 2011.]

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, accused-appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00109, affirming the trial court's judgment finding
appellant Joseph Evangelio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Rape in Criminal Case No. 2001-12-773.
Appellant Joseph Evangelio (Joseph), accused Edgar Evangelio y
Gallo (Edgar), Atilano Agaton y Obico (Atilano) and Noel Malpas y Garcia
(Noel) are charged with the crime of Robbery with Rape in an Information,
which reads:
The undersigned City Prosecutor of the City of Tacloban
accuses EDGAR EVANGELIO y GALLO, JOSEPH EVANGELIO,
ATILANO AGATON y OBICO, and NOEL MALPAS y GARCIA of the
crime of Robbery with Rape, committed as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of October 2001, in the City of
Tacloban, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating together
and mutually helping each other, with intent to gain and armed with a
handgun and deadly/bladed weapons forcibly enter the inhabited
house/residence of BBB and while inside, by means of violence and
intimidation using said arms on the latter and the other occupants
therein, and without the consent of their owners did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, and carry away from said
residence the following personal properties belonging to:
(a)BBB: DHSCEc

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 1/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

* Two Saudi-gold necklace with pendant with a combined

value of P25,000 more or less;
* Saudi-gold bracelet valued at P25,000.00;
* Leather wallet containing P1,500.00 cash;
and —
* Two shoulder bags with a combined value of P2,000.00.
(b)CCC:
* One tri-colored gold necklace (choker) valued at P50,000.00;
* One yellow-gold necklace (choker) valued at P5,000.00;
* One gold necklace with Jesus Christ head pendant valued at
P12,000.00;
* One gold necklace with star diamond pendant valued at
P8,000.00;
* One gold necklace, tri-colored cross diamond valued at
P13,000.00;
* Three tri-colored bracelet (gold) with diamond valued at
P18,000.00;
* Three tri-colored bracelet (twisted) valued at P15,000.00;
* One gold bracelet with diamonds valued at P6,000.00;
* One gold bracelet (dangling) valued at P4,000.00;
* One gold bracelet (chain) valued at P7,000.00;
* Five sets earrings and rings valued at P45,000.00;
* One set earrings and rings (diamond Solitaire) valued at
P45,000.00;
* Two black-colored wristwatch (Pierre Cardin) valued at
P25,000.00; and
* Two gold-plated wristwatch (Pierre Cardin) valued at
P25,000.00; and — cATDIH

* One gold bracelet (chain) valued at P4,000; and —

(c)Josefina Manlolo:
* Instamatic Camera, Olympus brand.
to the damage and prejudice of said owners to the extent of the value
of their respective properties above indicated.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 2/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

That on the occasion of the said robbery and in the same

house/residence, accused, by means of force and intimidation and
using the said handgun and deadly/bladed weapons, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of
AAA, 2 a 17-year-old minor, against her will and consent and at the
time when the latter lost consciousness after her head was banged
on the bathroom floor. 3
CONTRARY TO LAW.

On December 18, 2001, a Warrant of Arrest was issued against the

four accused. On February 8, 2002, appellant Joseph, accused Edgar and
Atilano were arrested, while accused Noel remained at-large.
On May 21, 2002, appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to
the crime charged. Accused Edgar and Atilano, who at that time were
detained at the Bacolod City Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
(BJMP), were ordered to be brought to Tacloban City for trial. However,
they were not brought to Tacloban City by the Bacolod City BJMP for the
reason that they were criminally charged in the courts of Bacolod City.
The evidence of the prosecution follows:
On October 3, 2001, at 6:30 in the evening, while AAA, a 17-year-old
househelper, was cooking in the kitchen of the house of BBB situated in
Tacloban City, four persons, one of whom was armed with a handgun while
the other three with knives, suddenly barged inside the house through the
open kitchen door. The four men accosted her, warned her to keep quiet,
and brought her to the living room. There, they herded all the other
members of the household whom they caught and bound their hands and
feet, and thereafter, placed masking tapes over their captives' eyes. With
her eyes partially covered by the tape, AAA was brought by the appellant
inside the comfort room and thereat, appellant and one of the robbers
stripped off AAA's clothes and removed her panty. AAA resisted and fought
back but they slammed her head twice against the concrete wall, causing
her to lose consciousness. When she regained her senses, appellant and
the other robbers were already gone, and she found herself lying on the
side on the floor of the comfort room with her feet untied and her hands still
tied behind her back. She saw her shorts and panty strewn at her side.
She suffered pain in her knees, head, stomach, and her vagina, which was
bleeding. Later on, AAA was freed from the comfort room by the other
occupants of the house, who were earlier freed. aSTECI

Prosecution witness Evelyn 4 was in the living room when the

incident happened. She was tutoring her nieces when the four men barged
inside the house. She testified that she could not be mistaken as to the
identity of the accused Edgar, who was armed with a handgun, because he
is a friend of her husband and who used to work for him. Appellant and
accused Noel are also familiar to her because they previously stayed in
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 3/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

Sampaguita, Tacloban City, where she lives. Upon the instruction of

accused Edgar, Edelyn was divested of her earrings, bracelet, watch, and
ring. Thereafter, appellant tied her hands and feet, and blindfolded her with
masking tape. She was hit on the head with a firearm, causing a cut and
her losing consciousness. When she regained her senses, she found
herself in the maids' room. She heard accused Edgar ask her nieces
where their father kept their pieces of jewelry and firearm. When her nieces
told him that the valuables were kept upstairs, accused Edgar brought one
of them there.
BBB came home around 7:00 in the evening and when he entered
the sliding door facing the garage, he saw the four accused inside, three of
them armed with knives and the other one with a gun. When he entered,
he was immediately accosted and warned to keep quiet. He recognized
their faces, particularly the leader of the group, whom he identified as
accused Edgar, who previously worked for him as a laborer in the
construction of the extension of his house. Upon accused Edgar's
command, the other three accused, one of whom he identified in open
court as appellant, tied him up. Accused Edgar, then struck him with the
gun on his head, causing him to fall face down on the floor with blood
oozing from his left eyebrow. After a while, appellant and the three accused
went out of the house, through the kitchen door, carrying two traveling
bags and the jewelry box of his wife.
CCC, the wife of BBB, came home from the office in the early
evening of October 3, 2001. Upon arriving thereat, she tried to open the
door but was not able to do so. She then called out the names of her
children, but nobody responded. She peeped through the window screen
and saw people inside the house with whom she did not recognize. One of
the accused then poked a gun at her head and told her to come inside,
otherwise, he would kill her children. She ran away from their house, and
cried out for help from the neighbors. They called the police. Shortly
thereafter, the policemen arrived. They found the house in complete
disarray, the cabinets were forcibly opened, CCC's jewelry box and her
pieces of jewelry stolen, and the members of the household traumatized.
An inventory was taken of the stolen valuables which amounted to
PhP336,000.00, more or less. Some of the stolen items were later
recovered from the house of accused Edgar.
The following day, AAA was examined by Dr. Angel Cordero, a
medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory at Camp Ruperto Kangleon, Palo, Leyte. Dr. Cordero found that
AAA sustained "deep healing lacerations at the 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock, and 3
o'clock positions and shallow healed lacerations at the 1 o'clock and 11
o'clock positions." He concluded that AAA was in a "non-virgin state
physically" and that "findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity"
and with "recent sexual intercourse." EDcICT

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 4/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

In his defense, appellant denied having committed the crimes

charged and interposed alibi as a defense. He claims that at the time of the
incident on October 3, 2001, at about 6:30 in the evening, he was sleeping
in his house at Diit, Tacloban City with his mother and sisters. No other
witness was presented by the appellant.
On August 23, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban
City, Branch 7, rendered its Decision 5 dated May 16, 2003, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, pursuant to Article 293
in relation to 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, and
the amendatory provisions of R.A. No. 8353, (the Anti-Rape Law of
1997) and R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law), the Court found
accused, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the special complex crime of ROBBERY WITH RAPE charged
under the information and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty
of DEATH, and pay actual damages in the amount of Three Hundred
Thirty-Six Thousand (P336,000.00) Pesos to spouses BBB and CCC
and moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos; pay civil indemnity to AAA, the amount of Seventy Five
Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, and moral damages in the amount of
Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos; pay Edelyn the amount of Three
Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos as actual damages and moral
damages in the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos;
and pay the costs.

SO ORDERED. 6

An appeal was made and the records of the case were forwarded to
this Court. However, pursuant to this Court's ruling in People v. Mateo, 7
the case was transferred to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.
The CA rendered a Decision dated August 10, 2007 affirming with
modification the decision of the trial court. In view of the abolition of the
death penalty, pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346, which was
approved on June 24, 2006, the appellant was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole. The CA did not consider the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry in the
commission of the crime. The CA deleted the awards of PhP3,000.00, as
actual damages, and PhP20,000.00, as moral damages, in favor of
Edelyn, because they were not charged in the Information. HSIaAT

On August 28, 2007, appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office

(PAO), appealed the decision of the CA to this Court. Appellant had
assigned the following error in his appeal initially passed upon by the CA,
to wit:
I

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 5/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF NIGHTTIME, COMMITTED
BY A BAND, DWELLING AND UNLAWFUL ENTRY IN THE
IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY AGAINST THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT. 8

In his Brief, appellant denied having committed the crime charged

and interposed alibi as a defense. He claims that at the time of the incident
on October 3, 2001, at about 6:30 in the evening, he was sleeping in his
house at Diit, Tacloban City, together with his mother and sisters. On the
other hand, the appellant was positively identified by the prosecution
witnesses as one of the perpetrators of the crime of robbery with rape.
Both the trial court and the CA found the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses credible. The Court gives great weight to the trial court's
evaluation of the testimony of a witness because it had the opportunity to
observe the facial expression, gesture, and tone of voice of a witness while
testifying, thus making it in a better position to determine whether a witness
is lying or telling the truth. 9
Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on
one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the former
must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a
negative testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible
witness. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in
law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution,
not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because
they are easily fabricated and concocted. 10 Denial cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have
any ill-motive to testify against the appellant. 11
As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant that
he was in Diit, Tacloban City at the time of the incident, the defense was
unable to show that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the
scene of the crime. Basic is the rule that 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 have been at the scene of
the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place
where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it
was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. 12
Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime
scene, the defense of alibi must fail. 13 The appellant testified during trial
that Diit is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City. 14 Thus, it was
not physically impossible for the appellant to be at the locus criminis at the
time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense
of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such identification is
credible and categorical. 15 cECaHA

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 6/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

Further, appellant insists that he was at home at the time of the

incident with his mother and sisters. The defense, however, failed to put
them on the witness stand. Neither did they execute any statement under
oath to substantiate appellant's alibi.
To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must
concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3)
the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the
robbery is accompanied by rape. 16
In this case, the prosecution established that appellant and his three
co-accused took the pieces of jewelry and valuables of the spouses BBB
and CCC by means of violence and intimidation. Appellant and his co-
accused barged into the house of the victims armed with a handgun and
knives and tied the hands and feet of the members of the household. The
perpetrators then asked for the location of the pieces of jewelry and
valuables. BBB was also tied and was struck in the head with a gun
causing him to fall face down on the floor with blood oozing from his left
eyebrow. He was able to see the perpetrators going out of the house
carrying bags and the jewelry box of his wife. Intent to gain, or animus
lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act; hence,
presumed from the unlawful taking of things. 17 Having established that the
personal properties of the victims were unlawfully taken by the appellant,
intent to gain was sufficiently proven. Thus, the first three elements of the
crime were clearly established.
As regard the last requirement. Although the victim AAA did not
exactly witness the actual rape because she was unconscious at that time,
circumstantial evidence shows that the victim was raped by the appellant
and the other accused.
Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect or presumptive
evidence, refers to proof of collateral facts and circumstances whence the
existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and
common experience. 18 Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain
conviction if (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. 19 A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can
be sustained when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that
results in a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the
exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. 20
The following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution,
when analyzed and taken together, lead to the inescapable conclusion that
the appellant raped AAA: first, while two of the robbers were stealing,
appellant and one of the robbers brought AAA inside the comfort room;
second, inside the comfort room, AAA was stripped off her clothes and her
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 7/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

panty; third, when AAA resisted and struggled, appellant and the other
robber banged her head against the wall, causing her to lose
consciousness; fourth, when she regained consciousness, the culprits
were already gone and she saw her shorts and panty strewn at her side;
and fifth, she suffered pain in her knees, head, stomach and, most of all, in
her vagina which was then bleeding.
In the following decided cases, the victim was unconscious and was
not aware of the sexual intercourse that transpired, yet the accused was
found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
In People v. Gaufo, 21 the victim was hit on her head by the accused
but she fought back and asked for help. The accused then punched her
abdomen causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining her bearings,
she noticed that she had no more underwear, her vagina was bleeding and
her body was painful. The combination of these circumstances, among
others, led the Court to adjudge the accused guilty of rape.
In People v. Pabol, 22 the accused hit the victim on her face causing
her to fall. Accused then hugging the victim from behind, sat the victim on
his lap, and stroke her breast with a piece of stone. When she shouted for
help, accused covered her mouth and later she fell unconscious. When
she had woken up some two hours later, she discovered that her ears had
been sliced, her blouse opened and her underwear stained with her own
blood. She also experienced pain in her private part after the incident.
Given the foregoing circumstances, the Court found that the accused
raped the victim. cAISTC

The Court notes that AAA was examined by Dr. Angel Cordero, a
medico-legal officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, Camp Ruperto Kangleon, Leyte the following day 23 and found
that she sustained deep healing lacerations and shallow healed
lacerations. He concluded that AAA was in a "non-virgin state physically"
and that "findings are compatible with recent loss of virginity" and with
"recent sexual intercourse." 24 Prosecution witness Dr. Cordero on direct
examination stated that:
Q. Now in your examination were you able to conduct a personal
examination on the person of the victim?
A. Yes, Sir.
Q. And what was your finding?
A. I had my findings in my report and it is all reflected in this
particular report that I have made.
Q. Now in your report in the second page of your report there is
here a conclusion and remarks, No. 3 of which states that
finding compatible with recent sexual intercourse. What do you
mean by that Doctor Cordero?
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 8/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

A. That there was a sexual connection between the victim and

that of the offender and it was manifested on the findings that I
have made and reflected in my report. 25
Although Dr. Cordero's report stated that AAA's lacerations were
deep healing and healed lacerations, this finding does not negate the
commission of rape on October 3, 2001. The Court held that the absence
of fresh lacerations does not prove that the victim was not raped. 26 A
freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed
lacerations do not negate rape. 27 Hence, the presence of healed hymenal
lacerations the day after the victim was raped does not negate the
commission of rape by the appellant when the crime was proven by the
combination of highly convincing pieces of circumstantial evidence. In
addition, a medical examination and a medical certificate are merely
corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.
28

For a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be

shown that the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a
robbery and not the other way around. This special complex crime under
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code contemplates a situation where the
original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal
property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion
thereof or as an accompanying crime. 29 In the case at bar, the original
intent of the appellant and his co-accused was to rob the victims and AAA
was raped on the occasion of the robbery.
The trial court also found the presence of conspiracy between the
perpetrators. Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is
conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a
felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the
accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when
taken together, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design,
as the proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances. 30 To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not
even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of
the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different
tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a
whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The
precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. 31
In the instant case, conspiracy was shown by the coordinated acts of
the four persons. From the time they gained entry into the victims'
residence, they tied and blindfolded the members of the household;
inflicted physical injuries on some of the victims; some went upstairs and
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 9/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

proceeded to ransack the house; the others brought AAA in the comfort
room and sexually abused her; they then left the house together carrying
the loot. With the foregoing circumstances, there can be no other
conclusion than that the successful perpetration of the crime was done
through the concerted efforts of the four armed men. EScAID

In People v. Suyu, we ruled that once conspiracy is established

between several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they
would all be equally culpable for the rape committed by anyone of them on
the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them proves that he
endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape. 32 There is no
showing that the other accused prevented appellant from sexually abusing
AAA. In view, however, that the accused Edgar, Atilano and Noel were not
brought for arraignment and trial, judgment cannot be rendered against
them.
THE PENALTY
We now come to the imposition of the proper penalty. The crime of
robbery with rape is a special complex crime punishable under Article 294
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659. 33 Article 294
provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when the robbery
was accompanied by rape. The provision reads as follows:
Art. 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; .
..
The CA correctly ruled in not considering the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and unlawful entry.
As correctly pointed out by the CA:
. . . [T]he aggravating circumstances of nighttime and unlawful
entry cannot be considered. Under the law, specifically Sections 8
and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as well
as jurisprudence, it is required that qualifying as well as aggravating
circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in the
Complaint or Information; otherwise, the same will not be considered
by the court against the appellant, even if proved during the trial.
And, this principle is applicable to all criminal cases. DISTcH

The information merely stated that the crime took place "on or
about the 3rd day of October 2001," without specifying the time of its
commission. Also nighttime is considered an aggravating
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 10/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

circumstance only when it is deliberately sought to prevent the

accused from being recognized or to ensure escape. There must be
proof that this was intentionally sought to ensure the commission of
the crime, and that the accused took advantage of it to insure his
immunity from captivity. Here, there is a paucity of evidence that
nighttime was purposely, deliberately, and especially sought by the
accused. The mere fact that the offense was committed at night will
not suffice to sustain a finding of nocturnity.
Further, the phrase, "forcibly enter the inhabited house" does
not comprise the aggravating circumstance of "unlawful entry." Verily,
evidence showed that all the accused freely entered the [victims']
residence through the open kitchen door, which is clearly intended for
ingress and or egress. 34

The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating

circumstance of the commission of a crime by a band. 35 In the crime of
robbery with rape, band is considered as an aggravating circumstance. 36
The prosecution established that one of the accused was armed with a
handgun, while the other three had knives when they committed the crime.
37

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling 38 was also attendant in

the present case. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is
committed in the dwelling of the offended party provided that the latter has
not given provocation therefor. 39 In this case, robbery with violence was
committed in the house of the victims without provocation on their part. In
robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is
aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed
without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's
house. 40 It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because
of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. 41 He
who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty
than he who offends him elsewhere. 42
Since the aggravating circumstances of band and dwelling were
alleged in the Information and proven, the imposable penalty upon the
appellant is death, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised
Penal Code, which provides:
. . . In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is
present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater
penalty shall be applied. . . .THADEI

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 11/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

In view, however, of the passage of R.A. No. 9346, 43 prohibiting the

imposition of the death penalty, the CA correctly reduced the penalty of
death to reclusion perpetua, 44 without eligibility for parole. 45
THE DAMAGES
The trial court did not order the appellant to return the items taken
from the victims but, instead, directed the payment of actual damages
amounting to PhP336,000.00. The said amount is the value of the items
taken from the spouses BBB and CCC.
Under Article 105 46 of the Revised Penal Code, the appellant is
obliged to return the items he took from the spouses BBB and CCC. If
appellant can no longer return the articles taken, he is obliged to make
reparation for their value, taking into consideration their price and their
special sentimental value to the offended parties. 47 Hence, the Court
modifies the decision of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, and directs
the appellant to return the pieces of jewelry and valuables taken from the
spouses BBB and CCC as enumerated in the Information 48 dated
December 3, 2001 and proven during trial. Should restitution be no longer
possible, appellant shall pay the spouses BBB and CCC the value of the
stolen pieces of jewelry and valuables as determined by the trial court in
the amount of PhP336,000.00.
The trial court's award of moral damages in the amount of
PhP50,000.00 to the spouses BBB and CCC is not proper. In order that a
claim for moral damages can be aptly justified, it must be anchored on
proof showing that the claimant experienced moral suffering, mental
anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral
shock, social humiliation or similar injury. 49 The victim spouses BBB and
CCC, however, did not present any evidence of their moral sufferings as a
result of the robbery. Thus, there is no basis for the grant of moral
damages in connection with the robbery.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, AAA is entitled to civil
indemnification. Upon the finding of rape, the victim is entitled to civil
indemnity. 50 Thus, AAA is entitled to PhP75,000.00 as civil indemnity. 51
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Article
2219 of the Civil Code, 52 without the necessity of additional pleadings or
proof other than the fact of rape. 53 Moral damages is granted in
recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime
of rape. 54 Such award is separate and distinct from the civil indemnity. 55
However, the amount of PhP50,000.00 awarded as moral damages, is
increased to PhP75,000.00 in line with current jurisprudence. 56
The award of exemplary damages in the amount of PhP30,000.00
should also be imposed. Exemplary damages are awarded when the crime
is attended by an aggravating circumstance, or as a public example, in

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 12/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

order to protect hapless individuals from molestation. 57 Furthermore,

interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all
damages awarded from the date of finality of this judgment, pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence. 58
The CA was also correct in deleting the award of actual damages
amounting to PhP3,000.00 and moral damages amounting to
PhP20,000.00 in favor of Edelyn. Verily, it is a rule that the accused is
entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. 59 The information for robbery with rape filed against the accused
shows that Edelyn is not one of the complainants therein and there is no
description of the pieces of jewelry and valuables allegedly taken from her.
Simply put, the appellant was not informed that he was being charged of
robbery in so far as Edelyn is concerned. Hence, the CA correctly deleted
the award.
On a final note, records reveal that accused Edgar and Atilano, who
were charged with the appellant, were not brought for arraignment and
trial, despite the fact that they are detained in Bacolod City. HcTEaA

Records show that the RTC of Tacloban City directed the BJMP of
Bacolod City to transfer the accused Atilano and Edgar to the BJMP of
Tacloban City in order for them to stand trial for the crime of robbery with
rape. 60 In a letter 61 dated June 26, 2002, the Jail Warden of Bacolod City
informed the trial court that Edgar and Atilano are being charged with
several offenses in the courts of Bacolod City. 62 Thus, the Jail Warden of
Bacolod City requested that Edgar and Atilano be transferred from the
BJMP Bacolod City to the BJMP Tacloban City only after their pending
criminal cases in Bacolod City shall have been terminated. However, the
records are bereft of any information as to the status of this case, i.e.,
Criminal Case No. 2001-12-773, insofar as accused Atilano and Edgar are
concerned.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00109 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. Appellant Joseph Evangelio is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape and is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole pursuant to
Republic Act No. 9346. He is ordered to return the pieces of jewelry and
valuables taken from the spouses BBB and CCC as enumerated in the
Information 63 dated December 3, 2001. Should restitution be no longer
possible, appellant shall pay the spouses BBB and CCC the value of the
stolen pieces of jewelry and valuables in the amount of PhP336,000.00.
He is further directed to pay AAA the amounts of PhP75,000.00 as civil
indemnity, PhP75,000.00 as moral damages and PhP30,000.00 as
exemplary damages. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is
imposed on all the damages awarded in this case from date of finality of
this judgment until fully paid. ITCHSa

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 13/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby DIRECTED to

determine the status of the case against the accused Edgar Evangelio and
Atilano Agaton who, despite being under the custody of the BJMP Bacolod
City, were not brought for trial at the RTC, Tacloban City for the crime of
robbery with rape. The said office is further directed to investigate and
ascertain the possible liability of the person(s) concerned who caused the
delay in the prosecution of accused Edgar Evangelio and Atilano Agaton
for the said offense.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Abad, Mendoza and Sereno, * JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Designated additional member, per Special Order No. 1028 dated June
21, 2011.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-17.
2. The victim is referred to as AAA; her employer, BBB; and her employer's
wife, CCC, per Republic Act No. 9262 and A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC. See
People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA
419.
3. CA rollo, pp. 8-10.
4. Also referred as Edelyn.
5. CA rollo, pp. 19-36.
6. Id. at 35-36.
7. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, modifying Sections
3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124 and Section 3 of Rule 125 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
8. CA rollo, p. 53.
9. People v. Pillas, 458 Phil. 347, 369 (2003).
10. People v. Togahan, G.R. No. 174064, June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 557,
573-574.
11. Gan v. People, G.R. No. 165884, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 550, 575.
12. People v. Delim, G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA
366, 379.
13. People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA
412, 439.
14. TSN, February 6, 2003, p. 12.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 14/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

15. People v. Casitas, Jr., 445 Phil. 407, 425 (2003).

16. People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 177,
202-203.
17. Sazon v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 150873, February
10, 2009, 578 SCRA 211, 221.
18. People v. Pabol, G.R. No. 187084, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 522,
530.
19. Rules of Court, Rule 133, Sec. 4.
20. Diega v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 173510 and 174099, March 15,
2010, 615 SCRA 399, 407-408.
21. 469 Phil. 66 (2004).
22. Supra note 18.
23. AAA testified that she was subjected to medical check-up the following
day of the incident. (TSN, October 16, 2002, p. 8). However, Dr. Cordero
testified that he examined AAA on the same day of the incident at the later
part of the evening. (TSN, November 6, 2002, p. 2.)
24. Living Case Report of AAA, records, p. 13.
25. TSN, November 6, 2002, p. 2.
26. People v. Baylen, 431 Phil. 106, 116 (2002).
27. People v. Orilla, 467 Phil. 253, 274 (2004).
28. Id.
29. People v. Tamayo, 434 Phil. 642, 654 (2002).
30. Go v. Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007,
521 SCRA 270, 290.
31. People v. De Jesus, 473 Phil. 405, 429 (2004).
32. People v. Suyu, supra note 16, at 202.
33. Otherwise known as An Act to Impose the death Penalty on Certain
Heinous Crimes Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, As
Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.
34. Rollo, pp. 14-15.
35. Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code defines a band in this wise:
"When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a
robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band . . . .
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by
the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by
the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same."
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 15/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

36. People v. Tejero, G.R. No. 128892, June 21, 1999, 308 SCRA 660,
683.
37. TSN, October 16, 2002, p. 4; TSN, October 17, 2002, pp. 3-4; TSN,
November 7, 2002, p. 3.
38. Revised Penal Code, Art. 14, Par. 3, . . . that it be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
39. People v. Bragat, 416 Phil. 829, 843 (2001).
40. People v. Paraiso, 377 Phil. 445, 464 (1999).
41. People v. Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA
500, 519.
42. People v. Bragat, supra note 39.
43. An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines.
44. R.A. 9346, Sec. 2.
45. R.A. 9346, Sec. 3.
46. ART. 105. Restitution — How made. — The restitution of the thing itself
must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or
diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession
of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter
his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in case in which the thing has been acquired
by the third person in the manner and under the requirement which, by law,
bar an action for its recovery.
47. People v. Carpio, G.R. No. 150083, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 676,
683.
48. CA rollo, pp. 8-10.
49. People v. Taño, 387 Phil. 465, 490 (2000).
50. People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010, 611 SCRA 596,
621.
51. Id.
52. Civil Code, Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the
following and analogous cases: . . .
3) Deduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; . . . .
53. People v. Ospig, 461 Phil. 481, 496 (2003).
54. Id. at 496-497.
55. People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, May 21, 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 29.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 16/17
9/18/2019 G.R. No. 181902 | People v. Evangelio y Gallo

56. People v. Madsali, supra note 50, at 621-622.

57. People v. Neverio, G.R. No. 182792, August 25, 2009, 597 SCRA 149,
158.

58. People v. Florante Relanes @ Dante n, G.R. No. 175831, April 12,
2011.
59. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 115, Sec. 1 (b).
60. Records, p. 31.
61. Id. at 35.
62. Accused Atilano and Edgar are facing trial for violation of Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions at the RTC Bacolod City, Branch
42. (Id. at 37-38.) Further, Atilano and Edgar are both facing charges for
attempted robbery in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Bacolod
City. (Id. at 39 and 41) Furthermore, Edgar is also facing charges for Direct
Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority at the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, Branch 5, Bacolod City. (Id. at 40.)
63. CA rollo, pp. 8-10.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "People v. Florante Relantes @
Dante" in the original document.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/54853/print 17/17