People vs. Fernandez 183 SCRA 511, March 22, 1990
People vs. Fernandez 183 SCRA 511, March 22, 1990
offended party, young as she was, and with a chaste reputation, would go to
the extent of fabricating this portion of her testimony notwithstanding the
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
*
G.R. No. 62116. March 22, 1990.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
MELQUIADES FERNANDEZ alias “Moding”, and FEDERICO People vs. Fernandez
CONRADO, defendants-appellants.
Before the Court is Federico Conrado’s appeal from the decision of During the trial, Amelita Malong declared that in that afternoon
the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of of 13 January 1982, she was combing her hair in her room
Pangasinan, Branch I, in Criminal Case No. L-2593 entitled, “The
People of the Philippines vs. Melquiades Fernandez, alias ________________
513 514
VOL. 183, MARCH 22, 1990 513 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Fernandez People vs. Fernandez
‘Moding’ and Federico Conrado” convicting him and the other when she saw the approaching Rebecca, naked with smeared mud
accused of the crime of rape and sentencing them each to suffer inter on her lower private part and a piece of cloth around her neck. She
alia two (2) death penalties. testified that after she was told by Rebecca about the incident, they
The criminal complaint dated 2 June 1982 filed before the trial reported the same to her father, Teofilo, who was in his store. She
court, reads as follows: also declared that she knew both the accused because Fernandez
used to spray their mango trees4
while Conrado sold to them a dog
“That on or about the 13th day of January, 1982, at 2:00 o’clock in the sometime in November 1981.
afternoon, at barangay Taloy, municipality of Malasiqui, province of Teofilo Malong likewise testified for the prosecution. He stated
Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, that upon being informed that his housemaid Rebecca was raped by
the above-named accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, did, the accused, he and his family, together with Rebecca, proceeded to
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have sexual intercourse the office of the INP Police Station of Malasiqui to report the crime
with the undersigned offended party Rebecca M. Soriano, a virgin and 15 and had Rebecca physically examined by Dr. Wilfredo Claudio of
years old,
1
by means of force and intimidation and against the will of the the San Carlos General Hospital in that same afternoon. He further
latter.” said that the following day, or on 14 January 1982,5 he, Amelita and
Rebecca gave their written statements to the police.
Assisted by counsel, the accused Fernandez and Conrado, uncle and
2
Submitted as evidence for the prosecution was the “Medico-
nephew respectively, pleaded not guilty on arraignment and
Legal Certificate” issued by Dr. Claudio, indicating his findings of
underwent trial.
“hymenal lacerations at 6, 10, 3 o’clock positions and one dead
Teofilo Malong employed Rebecca Soriano as a househelper 6
sperm cell seen on a slide examined.”
since September 1981. Residing in Teofilo’s house were his wife and
In defense, the two (2) accused denied any involvement in the
daughters Amelita and Ma. Theresa. Rebecca Soriano testified that
offense, both claiming they were nowhere at the scene of the crime
on 13 January 1982 at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, and after
when it was committed.
she had just finished taking a bath and still naked, the two (2)
More particularly, Fernandez claimed he was in his house at
accused, both in short pants, surreptitiously entered the bathroom.
Taloy, Malasiqui weaving baskets when the incident happened. He
To prevent her from making an outcry, a piece of cloth was tightly
admitted having been formerly employed by Teofilo for about two
tied around her neck, after which she was forcibly laid down.
(2) years to spray his mango trees and stated that during the period
Conrado held her hands behind her while Fernandez sexually abused
he was hired as7 such, he lived alone in a small hut constructed under
her. She declared that, immediately after Fernandez had raped her,
a mango tree. Conrado, on the other hand, alleged that when the
Conrado in turn went on top of her and likewise succeeded in having
crime was committed, he was at Malimpuec, Malasiqui as he was
sexual congress with her against her will. She added that, thereafter,
hired to spray the mango trees of a certain Mr. Overo. Bo.
Fernandez got a handful of mud near the bathroom and placed it on
Malimpuec is his hometown but he admitted that he used to go to
her vagina. Thereupon, she ran to the upper floor of the house to 8
3
Bo. Taloy, prior to the incident, as his parents-in-law lived there.
report the tragic incident to Amelita Malong.
________________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd26f0197ed4479f3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd26f0197ed4479f3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
8/27/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 183 8/27/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 183
4 TSN of August 30, 1982, pp. 19-30. and, pursuant to law, hereby sentences each of them to suffer two (2)
5 TSN of August 31, 1982, pp. 4-12. penalties of death, to indemnify the aggrieved party,
6 Original Record, p. 52.
7 TSN of August 31, 1982, pp. 36-54. ________________
8 TSN of August 31, 1982, pp. 23-28.
9 Original Record, pp. 105-107.
515
516
In the trial court’s decision holding that the guilt of both accused had
Rebecca M. Soriano, in the amount of P12,000.00 as moral damages,
been established beyond shadow of any doubt, the following
without10 subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
observations and conclusions are made:
costs.”
“As already stated, the defense of both accused is alibi, which is not even
In an effort to reduce the imposed penalty of death to reclusion
corroborated by a single defense witness. It is well-settled rule that alibi is
perpetua (life imprisonment), without disproving the charges against
the weakest defense that can be resorted to by an accused, as it is easy to
them, the two (2) accused assigned the following errors:
concoct or fabricate. x x x. “x x x, the alibi of both accused can not prevail
over their positive identification by the prosecution witnesses (especially by “1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING
complainant victim of rape, Rebecca Soriano) as the perpetrators of the ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FOR TWO (2) CRIMES OF
crime charged, they having testified in a clear, straightforward, positive, RAPE.
truthful, and convincing manner, with no motive to fabricate this serious
2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
charge of rape or falsify the truth. The alibi of both accused can not also be
COMMISSION OF THE RAPE WAS ATTENDED BY
given credence or weight, considering that at the time of the rape, accused
THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF CRUELTY
Melquiades Fernandez was in his house at Bo. Taloy, which is just 150
OR IGNOMINY.
meters away from the house of the Malongs, where Rebecca Soriano was
raped; and accused Federico Conrado was at Bo. Malimpuec, which is only 3. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING EACH
9 kms. away from Bo. Taloy, where Rebecca was raped that afternoon of OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS 11
‘TO SUFFER TWO
January 13, 1982. The evidence disclose that said distance of 9 kms. can be (2) PENALTIES OF DEATH.’ ”
negotiated in only about 30 minutes by motorized vehicle, on good road
connecting the 2 barrios. In the light, however, of the 1987 Constitution, specifically, Section
xxx xxx xxx 19(1), Article III thereof, under which a death penalty already
“The clear, positive, straightforward, and convincing testimony of rape imposed 12
is reduced to reclusion perpetua, Fernandez withdrew his
victim Rebecca Soriano, as well as her immediate reporting of the incident appeal. The lone appellant therefore is Conrado who insists on his
to the police authorities, just 30 minutes or so after she was raped that appeal, notwithstanding the advice of his counsel de officio to
afternoon of January 13, 1982 and her giving of a sworn statement (Exh. A) discontinue the appeal13
allegedly on the ground that “it has become
on January 14, 1982 (just the day after she was raped) which was moot and academic.”
corroborated by the statements on the same date (January 14, 1982) by This Court nonetheless proceeded to consider accused-appellant’s
prosecution witnesses Amelita Malong and Teofilo Malong, more than arguments for the sake of verifying the correctness of the sentence
convinces and satisfies this Court9 that the crime charged was, in truth and imposed. We find no merit in the appeal.
fact, perpetrated by both accused.
First Assignment of Error
Hence, the judgment of conviction, now the object of this appeal, the
dispositive part of which reads as follows: The trial court is accused of violating the rule against duplicity of
offenses in that, the accused were convicted for two (2) crimes of
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds each of the accused MELQUIADES
rape even when under the criminal complaint against them, there is
FERNANDEZ, alias ‘Moding’ and FEDERICO CONRADO, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two crimes of rape, aggravated by cruelty or ignominy,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd26f0197ed4479f3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd26f0197ed4479f3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
8/27/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 183 8/27/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 183
only one (1) crime of rape alleged. The rule invoked in Section 13, personally committed by him, but also for the rape committed by the
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which others, because each of them (accused) coop-
________________ ________________
10 Id., p. 107. 14 Section 8, Rule 117, Rules of Court; People vs. Barrunga 61 Phil. 318;
11 Appellants’ Brief, p. 7. Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Ecija vs. CFI of Nueva Ecija, 79 Phil. 165; People vs.
12 Melquiades Fernandez’s Manifestation, p. 103, Rollo. Roca, et al., August 19, 1986, 143 SCRA 552.
13 Federico Conrado’s Manifestation, p. 102, Rollo. 15 Original Record, p. 7.
517 518
VOL. 183, MARCH 22, 1990 517 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Fernandez People vs. Fernandez
states that there should be only one (1) offense charged in a criminal erated in the commission of the rape perpetrated by the16 others, by
complaint or information, the purpose of which is to afford the acts without which it would not have been accomplished.
defendant a necessary knowledge of the charge so that he may not
be confused in his defense. But it is likewise the rule that if ever
duplicity of offenses is committed, the same constitutes a ground for Second Assignment of Error
a motion to quash the complaint; and failure 14
of the accused to The trial court is correct in appreciating the aggravating
interpose the objection constitutes waiver. Conrado, after he had circumstance of ignominy because of the greater perversity
been convicted by the court a quo, can no longer assail its judgment displayed by the offenders. The testimony of the examining
by raising this issue. Neither can he claim, as he now does, that he physician that he did not find mud on the victim’s private organ,
was denied the information that he was to be tried for two (2) does not necessarily belie the latter’s asseveration that the accused
separate crimes of rape. The acts complained of, as constituting the “plastered” (in the words of the lower court) mud on her private
offenses, were stated in the 2 June 1982 complaint in ordinary and part. It is worthwhile mentioning that the victim was examined and
concise language that any person of common intelligence would be treated by Dr. Claudio at 3:55 p.m. or about almost two (2) hours
able to understand and thereby know what acts he was to defend 17
after the rape was committed. Given this circumstance, the absence
himself against. of mud in the victim’s private part when she was examined by the
The imposition on each of the accused of the penalty physician, may be attributed to the possibility that the mud washed
corresponding to two (2) crimes of rape is proper, because of the or fell off even before the victim left the house for her physical
existence of conspiracy. As clearly found by the trial court: examination. Moreover, Rebecca’s testimony was corroborated by
“Both accused have, obviously, conspired and confederated to commit the that of Amelita Malong who swore that she saw mud smeared on
crime, considering that they entered the bathroom where Rebecca was, Rebecca’s private part when she (Amelita) saw Rebecca right after
together and at the same time. Accused Fernandez then tied her with a piece the incident. It is also difficult to conceive why the offended party,
of cloth tightly around her neck, while accused Conrado held her hands young as she was, and with a chaste reputation, would go to the
placing them behind her body, to prevent her from struggling or resisting. extent of fabricating this portion of her testimony notwithstanding
Then after accused Fernandez had raped Rebecca, accused Conrado raped the consequent humiliation on her person and disgrace on her
her. Both accused, thereafter, fled from the scene of the crime together and womanhood. We cannot but agree with the trial court’s finding that
at the same time. All these circumstances show beyond shadow of any doubt the offense was aggravated by ignominy. We are of the opinion,
conspiracy on the part of both accused, which renders each of them liable however that the word “cruelty” used in the dispositive portion of
for two (2) crimes of rape, x x x.”
15
the judgment, to describe an alternative aggravating circumstance, is
unnecessary. The act of “plastering” mud on the victim’s vagina
In a long line of decided cases, it has been held by this Court that in right after she was raped, is adequately and properly described as
multiple rape, each defendant is responsible not only for the rape “ignominy” rather than “cruelty or ignominy.”
________________
16 People vs. Alfaro, et al., 91 Phil. 404; People v. Vidal, et al., February 28, 1984,
127 SCRA 793; People vs. Ludovico, et al., March 23, 1984, 128 SCRA 361.
17 TSN of August 30, 1982, p. 6.
519
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
———o0o———
________________
18 Section 19(1), Article III, Philippine Constitution; People vs. Muñoz, G.R. Nos.
L-38968-70, February 9, 1989.
520