Solely responsible

When the crimes committed are more than one, and by a band, the act of one is the act of all. Hence, all accused are liable even if not all of them participated in the commission of the criminal acts for as long as all of them are sufficiently identified. But in this case, this rule was not applied. This case gives us the reason for not applying this rule in case there is conspiracy. It also explains how all the accused can be adequately identified especially if the crimes were committed during a dark night.

This is the case involving Jonas and Sarah, husband and wife with two children, Gabe and Mica, who are living in a modest house at a remote town. One night when they were already in deep slumber, an intruder later identified as Anton, succeeded in boring a hole through the lawanit window of their bedroom and, brandishing a bolo, ordered Jonas and Sarah to lie face down on the floor as he tied Jonas hand and foot. Afterwards, another bolo wielding man later identified as Gino also entered the house through the window and opened the main door to let his six other companions surreptitiously enter the house. Once inside, the bandits ransacked the couples’ house and the family’s personal belongings, as Gino remained beside Jonas to prevent him from seeing what the armed trespassers were doing.

After a while, Gino moved to Sarah’s side and began touching her intimate parts to arouse his animalistic passion. Then he dragged Sarah out of the house some 30 meters away and forced her to take off her clothes by pointing a jungle knife at her throat. Ignoring Sarah’s tearful pleas, Gino pawed her body and mashed her private parts and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her, twice.  A third attempt was aborted when he heard his companions whistling for him. He ordered Sarah to put her dress back on, pulled her inside the house and tied her hands.

Before leaving the house the armed men warned the couple not to tell anyone what had happened under threats of death. All throughout their ordeal, their children mercifully slept undisturbed. After the malefactors left, the couple freed each other from their bounded hands then fled with their children to the house of Jonas’ father, Joseph and slept there. The next day, Jonas reported the incident to the police while Sarah underwent physical examination at the town hospital and found positive for spermatozoa.

The police were convinced that it was the group known as “Sais Pares” who was responsible for the crime because they had already received reports of several robberies perpetrated by them in the area. Accordingly they proceeded to their hideout and picked up Anton, Gino, Jano, MJ, Lino and Luisito for investigation. They even found some items stolen from the couple in the house of Luisito. After identifying the gang who robbed them with Gino being pinpointed by Sarah as the one who raped her, they were charged with the crime of robbery with rape.

At the trial, Sarah testified and pointed to the six accused as the persons who committed the crimes charge. She described to the Court the specific participation of each of the accused particularly Gino as the person who had brutally defiled her. She also related how the robbers methodically divested her family of its possessions.

The accused put up the defense of alibi and claimed that they were somewhere else when the offense was committed already sleeping or drinking with friends or still working in a plantation.

But the trial court found them guilty of the crime charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the value of the stolen goods as well as the indemnity.

On appeal, they contended that Sarah could not have sufficient time to see and subsequently remember their faces because she herself admitted that the crime was committed at the middle of the night in a room with a 25 watt bulb that was immediately turned off and the only remaining source of illumination was their flashlight.

The Supreme Court however denied their appeal. The court said that the accuracy of Sarah’s testimony is a factual issue resolved by the trial court which should be given weight unless significant facts and circumstances which could have altered the result of the case have been overlooked. No such convincing indications appear in this case so the Trial Court’s decision should not be overturned. Furthermore, Sarah categorically and naturally recounted her plight while crying very hard, under deep emotion. She detailed with clarity the specific participation of each of the accused in the robbery. The Court likewise ruled that a flashlight has sufficient illumination to make a reliable identification. It also notes that victims of criminal violence would naturally strive to observe the appearance of their assailants and the manner in which the crime was committed especially Gino who molested her sexually even at the onset of the robbery.

But the Court ruled that only Gino should be held responsible for the crime of rape. While there is conspiracy here it was only for the crime of robbery. There was no evidence that the other robbers were aware of Gino’s lustful intent and his consummation thereof so that they could have prevented the same. The other robbers cannot be held responsible for rape in the absence of proof that they were aware of and abetted the rape. So only Gino should suffer the penalty of reclusion while the rest should suffer the penalty of four years and two months up to ten years (People vs. Canturia et. al. G.R. 108490, June 22, 1995)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]