PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
Most often, the face and body movements of the
BONFILO MARTINEZ y DE LA ROSA, JOHN DOE and
PETER DOE, accused. BONFILO MARTINEZ y DE LA ROSA,
accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It has long been a well-
entrenched rule of evidence and procedure that the issue of
credibility of witnesses is almost invariably within the exclusive
province of a trial court to determine, under the principle that
the findings of trial courts deserve respect from appellate
tribunals.—When an accused assails the identification made by
witnesses, he is in effect attacking the credibility of those
witnesses who referred to him as the perpetrator of the crime
alleged to have been committed. The case then turns on the
question of credibility. It has long been a well-entrenched rule
of evidence and procedure that the issue of credibility of
witnesses is almost invariably within the exclusive province of
a trial court to determine, under the principle that the findings
of trial courts deserve respect from appellate tribunals. The
foregoing rule notwithstanding, we expended considerable time
and effort to thoroughly examine the records and objectively
assay the evidence before us, considering the gravity of the
offense charged. However, we find no compelling reasons to
overturn the lower court’s conclusion on the accuracy and
correctness of the witnesses’ identification of appellant as one
of the persons who robbed the house of the Buenvinidas and
raped Glorivic.
Same; Same; Same; It is the most natural reaction for victims
of criminal violence to strive to ascertain the appearance of
their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was
committed.—It is the most natural reaction for victims of
criminal violence to strive to ascertain the appearance of their
assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was
committed.
assailants create a lasting impression on the victims’ minds
which cannot be easily erased from their memory.
Same; Same; Same; Fear for one’s life may even cause the
witness to be more observant of his surroundings—the ample
opportunity to observe and the compelling reason to identify
the wrongdoer
______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
260
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
are invaluable physiognomical and psychological factors for
accuracy in such identification.—There is no evidence to show
that the two eyewitnesses were so petrified with fear as to
result in subnormal sensory functions on their part. Contrarily,
in a recently decided case, we held that fear for one’s life may
even cause the witness to be more observant of his
surroundings. The ample opportunity to observe and the
compelling reason to identify the wrongdoer are invaluable
physiognomical and psychological factors for accuracy in such
identification.
Same; Same; Same; Robbery with Rape; In the absence of
evidence showing that the prosecution witnesses were actuated
by improper motive, their identification of the accused as the
assailant should be given full faith and credit.—The records do
not disclose any improper motive on the part of the witnesses 261
to falsely point to appellant as one of the robber-rapists.
Appellant even admitted that he did not know Glorivic and VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 261
Michael prior to the commission of the crime. It is doctrinally People vs. Martinez
settled that in the absence of evidence showing that the
prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motive, their
identification of the accused as the assailant should be given ments having been admitted as part of testimony of the
full faith and credit. policeman, they shall accordingly be given the same weight as
that to which his testimony may be entitled.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where conditions of visibility are
Same; Same; Same; Same; Opinion Evidence; It is a standing
favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their
doctrine that the opinion of a witness is admissible in evidence
assertions as to the identity of the malefactor should be
on ordinary matters known to all men of common perception,
accepted as trustworthy.—Where conditions of visibility are
such as the value of ordinary household articles.—Again, even
favorable, as those obtaining in the Buenvinida residence when
under the rule on opinions of ordinary witnesses, the value of
the crimes were committed, and the witnesses do not appear to
the stolen items was established. It is a standing doctrine that
be biased, their assertions as to the identity of the malefactor
the opinion of a witness is admissible in evidence on ordinary
should be accepted as trustworthy.
matters known to all men of common perception, such as the
value of ordinary household articles. Here, the witness is not
Same; Same; Same; Same; Hearsay; It is the opportunity to
just an ordinary witness, but virtually an expert, since his work
cross-examine which negates the claim that the matters
as an investigator of crimes against property has given him
testified to by a witness are hearsay.—While it is claimed that
both the exposure to and experience in fixing the current value
hearsay testimony was involved, it is actually and not
of such ordinary articles subject of the crime at bar.
necessarily so. The rule that hearsay evidence has no probative
Incidentally, it is significant that appellant never dared to
value does not apply here, since SPO4 Abner Castro was
crossexamine on the points involved, which opportunity to
presented as a witness and testified on two occasions, during
cross-examine takes the testimony of Castro out of the hearsay
which he explained how the value of the stolen properties was
rule, while the lack of objection to the value placed by Castro
arrived at for purposes of the criminal prosecution. During his
bolsters his testimony under the cited exception to the opinion
testimony on his investigation report and the affidavit of
rule.
Ernesto Buenvinida on the amounts involved, appellant had all
the opportunity to cross-examine him on the correctness
thereof; and it was this opportunity to cross-examine which Same; Same; Same; Same; Judicial Notice; The trial court has
negates the claim that the matters testified to by the witness are the power to take judicial notice of the value of stolen goods
hearsay. And, said docu- because these are matter of public knowledge or are capable of
unquestionable demonstration; Judicial cognizance, which is
based on considerations of expediency and convenience,
displace evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the
object which the evidence is intended to achieve.—Also not to
be overlooked is the fact that the trial court has the power to
take judicial notice, in this case of the value of the stolen
goods, because these are matter of public knowledge or are
capable of unquestionable demonstration. The lower court may,
as it obviously did, take such judicial notice motu proprio.
Judicial cognizance, which is based on considerations of
expediency and convenience, displace evidence since, being
equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object which the evidence is
intended to achieve. Surely, matters like the value of the
appliances, canned goods and perfume (especially since the
trial court was presided by a lady judge) are undeniably within
public knowledge and easily capable of unquestionable
demonstration.
Criminal Law; Robbery with Rape; Complex Crimes; Where
the component crime of robbery in the special complex crime
of robbery
262
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
with rape is committed through violence against or
intimidation of persons, and not through force upon things, the
value of the property subject of the crime is immaterial.—As a
matter of law and not on the excuse that after all appellant
cannot satisfy his civil liability, the real value of the asported
properties would nonetheless be irrelevant to the criminal
liability of appellant. Insofar as the component crime of
robbery is concerned, the same was committed through
violence against or intimidation of persons, and not through
force upon things, hence the value of the property subject of
the crime is immaterial. The special complex crime of robbery
with rape has, therefore, been committed by the felonious acts
of appellant and his cohorts, with all acts of rape on that
occasion being integrated in one composite crime. The value of
the objects of the apoderamiento relates only to the civil
aspect, which we have already resolved.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan City, Br. 121.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
REGALADO, J.:
In an information filed before Branch 121 of the Regional Trial
Court of Caloocan City on March 8, 1994, accused-appellant
Bonfilo Martinez and two other unidentified persons were
charged with the special complex crime of robbery with rape
allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 28th of December, 1991 in Kalookan City,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, together and
mutually helping with (sic) one another, with intent of gain and
by means of violence and intimidation employed upon the
persons of MICHAEL BUENVINIDA Y SOLMAYOR, POL
BONGGAT, SHERWIN SOLMAYOR, JONATHAN
BONGGAT, JUNIOR SOLMAYOR, GLORIA SOLMAYOR
and GLORIVIC BANDAYANON Y QUIAJO while the
aforesaid persons were inside the house of ERNESTO
BUENVINIDA viewing television program, said accused, all
armed with guns of unknown caliber, tied the hands of the
occupants of the
263
VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 263
People vs. Martinez
house, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, rob and carry away the following articles belonging to
ERNESTO BUENVINIDA, to wit:
confined at the Bagong Silang Sub-station detention cell for an
hour and was later transferred to the Caloocan City Jail.3
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment in
Criminal Case No. C-46704 (94) on March 21, 1994.4 As
collated from the transcripts of the testimonies of prosecution
eyewitnesses Glorivic Bandayanon5 and Michael Buenvinida,6
the indicated coverage of which yield the particular facts
hereunder narrated, the circumstances attendant to the crime
charged are detailed in the paragraphs that follow. Michael
Buenvinida, Michelle Buenvinida, Gloria Solmayor, Sherwin
Solmayor, Junior (JR) Solmayor, Paul Bonggat, Jonathan
Bonggat and Glorivic Bandayanon were in Ernesto and
Cornelia Buenvinida’s house situated at Lot 25,
_____________
1
Original Record, 1.

1. Radio Cassette Recorder worth P3,000.00 2

TSN, May 16, 1994, 8.
2. Assorted imported perfumes 30,000.00
3
3. Assorted imported canned goods 5,000.00 Ibid., id.,1994, 9.
4. Cash money amounting to 8,000.00 4
Original Record, 8.
5. Cash money in U.S. Dollar $1,000.00
5
TSN, April 5, 1994, (A.M.), 2-14; (P.M.), 2-25.
that in the course of said robbery, said accused, with the use of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, 6
Ibid., April 6, 1994, 2-21.
unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse
with one GLORIVIC BANDAYON Y QUIAJO, against the 264
latter’s will and without her consent.1
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Although the two Does remained unknown and at large,
appellant was arrested on March 3, 1994 for soliciting funds for People vs. Martinez
a fictitious volleyball competition.2 After his arrest, he was
Block 20, Wallnut St., Rainbow Village, Caloocan City when
the crime was committed on December 28, 1991.
Michael and Michelle are the children of Ernesto and Cornelia.
Gloria is a sister-in-law of Cornelia who was in the house for a
visit, while Sherwin, Junior, Paul and Jonathan are Cornelia’s
nephews. Glorivic is a friend of Cornelia who volunteered to
look after the latter’s children while she is in Sweden. Ernesto
was at the office at the time of the commission of the crime.
While the occupants of the house were watching a television
show in the living room at around 6:30 P.M., Michael noticed a
man wearing short pants and holding a handgun jump over the
low fence of their house. The man entered the house through its
unlocked front door and introduced himself to the surprised
group as a policeman. The intruder then told them that
Michael’s father got involved in a stabbing incident in the local
basketball court. As if on cue, two men followed the first man
in entering the house and promptly thereafter covered their
faces with handkerchiefs. These two were wearing long pants
and also carried handguns. The first man who entered the house
did not cover his face.
With guns pointed at them, the occupants of the house were
brought to the master’s bedroom where they were tied and
detained by the three intruders.
Later, one of the armed men, identified by Michael as herein
appellant, untied Michael and ordered him to pull out the plugs
of the appliances in the house, such as the television set, the
V.H.S. player and the radio cassette recorder. Appellant and the
other masked man then began to search the house for valuables
in the living room and in the kitchen.
Meanwhile, the first man remained in the master’s bedroom
and found cash money, in pesos and dollars, and bottles of
perfume. The men then placed in a big bag the radio cassette
player, canned goods, money and perfumes that they had found
inside the house.
Thereafter, the first intruder, whom Glorivic referred to as the
mastermind of the group, returned to the master’s bedroom and
asked the terrified group for jewelries. Unable to
265
VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 265
People vs. Martinez
get any jewelry, he brought Glorivic to the children’s (Michael
and Michelle’s) bedroom opposite the master’s bedroom. Upon
entering the room, the man turned on the lights there. In the
meanwhile, his two masked companions continued looking
around the house for other valuables.
Inside the bedroom, the ostensible leader of the gang untied
Glorivic and ordered her to search the room for jewelries. After
Glorivic failed to find any, the man directed her to remove her
clothes and pointed his gun at Glorivic’s head. Despite her
pleas and cries, the man removed the shirt, long pants and
underwear of Glorivic while keeping the gun leveled at her.
Shortly after, the man put the gun on top of the ironing board
beside the bed, then pushed Glorivic towards the bed and lay
on top of her. Glorivic’s resistance proved to be futile as the
man was able to violate her chastity.
Before the first man could leave the room, another member of
the group entered and pushed Glorivic again to the bed when
she was just about to put on her dress. Upon entering the room,
the second man’s cloth cover tied around his face fell and hang
around his neck. After threatening to kill her, the man put a
pillow on her face, forcibly spread Glorivic’s legs and had
sexual congress with her. Glorivic would later point to
appellant during the trial as this second man.
After the second man was through, the third man came in.
While Glorivic was still sitting on the bed and crying, the third
man took the bed sheet and covered her face with it. Just like
what his companions did before him, the third man had sexual
intercourse with Glorivic through force and intimidation, but
not without first removing the handkerchief tied over his face.
Michael was able to see the three malefactors enter and leave
the room one after the other as the door of the master’s
bedroom was left open. He was also able to hear Glorivic
crying and her implorations to her tormentors in the opposite
room.
After the consummation of the odious act, the third man told
Glorivic to dress up. Glorivic felt blood flowing down her
thighs as she put on her clothes. Thereafter, the third man
266
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
tied her up and brought her back to the company of the other
occupants of the house. Michael saw Glorivic with disheveled
hair and wearing her pants turned inside out, with blood on the
lower parts.
The felons left after intimating to the group by way of a threat
that they were going to explode a hand grenade. Around five
minutes later, after ascertaining that the culprits had left,
Michael and the others untied each other. Thereafter, they went
to the house of his father’s friend located two blocks away and,
from there, they proceeded to the Urduja police detachment.
Glorivic met appellant again on March 7, 1994. Policemen
came to her place of work and asked her to come with them as
they had a person in custody who they suspected to be herein
appellant. At the Caloocan City Jail, Glorivic was made to face
eight detainees. She was able to readily recognize appellant
among the group because of the mole on his right cheek.
Before she picked him out from the other men, she carefully
saw to it that the one she pointed out was really appellant.
On the part of Michael, he stated that he was fetched by
policemen on March 7, 1994 at his school to make an
identification at the Dagat-Dagatan police station. Appellant
was with six other inmates when they arrived at the station.
Michael pointed to appellant as one of the robbers who entered
their house, after readily remembering that he was the one who
ordered him to unplug the appliances. Michael could never be
mistaken in appellant’s identity because he could not forget the
prominent mole and its location on appellant’s right cheek.
Testifying at the trial,7 appellant denied any participation in the
robbery with rape committed in the Buenvinida residence.
Appellant claimed that it was only on March 7, 1994 that he
first met Glorivic Bandayanon and insisted that he does not
know Michael Buenvinida.
_____________
7
TSN, May 16, 1994, 2-11.
267
VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 267
People vs. Martinez
He claimed that he was in his house in Wawa, Parañaque
together with his wife and children the whole day of December
28, 1991. He moved to Bagong Silang, Caloocan City in 1993
after he was able to find work as a mason under his brother
who lives in the same district. On cross-examination, appellant
denied having visited his brother at Bagong Silang from 1991
to 1992. However, upon further questioning by the public
prosecutor, appellant admitted that he made several visits to his
brother in 1991. Moreover, he explained that it usually took
him three hours to travel to Caloocan City from Parañaque by
public utility bus.
Giving credence to the testimonies of the witnesses of the
prosecution and rejecting appellant’s defense of alibi, the trial
court8 found appellant guilty of the composite crime of robbery
with rape. Although the proper imposable penalty is death,9
considering the lower court’s finding of two aggravating
circumstances of nocturnidad and use of a deadly weapon,
appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in observance of
the then constitutional prohibition against the imposition of
capital punishment. With regard to his civil liabilities, appellant
was ordered to indemnify Ernesto Buenvinida in the sum of
P73,000.00 as the value of his stolen and unrecovered personal
properties, and to pay Glorivic Bandaya P30,000.00 by way of
moral damages, plus the costs of suit.10
In this present appellate review, appellant inceptively faults the
lower court for convicting him despite the supposedly
undependable and untrustworthy identification made by the
eyewitnesses. He claims that Glorivic Bandayanon and
Michael Buenvinida could have been mistaken in their identi-
_____________
8
Presided over by Judge Adoracion G. Angeles.
9
The law in force at the time of the commission of the crime
was Art. 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
P.D. No. 767, which provided that when the robbery
accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
10
Original Record, 60; Decision, 11.
268
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
fication11 because (1) of the long interval of time before they
were able to confront him; (2) his face was covered with a
handkerchief as they themselves narrated in court; and (3) they
could have been so gravely terrified by the criminal act as to
have their mental faculties impaired.
When an accused assails the identification made by witnesses,
he is in effect attacking the credibility of those witnesses who
referred to him as the perpetrator of the crime alleged to have
been committed.12 The case then turns on the question of
credibility.
It has long been a well-entrenched rule of evidence and
procedure that the issue of credibility of witnesses is almost
invariably within the exclusive province of a trial court to
determine, under the principle that the findings of trial courts
deserve respect from appellate tribunals.13 The foregoing rule
notwithstanding, we expended considerable time and effort to
thoroughly examine the records and objectively assay the
evidence before us, considering the gravity of the offense
charged. However, we find no compelling reasons to overturn
the lower court’s conclusion on the accuracy and correctness of
the witnesses’ identification of appellant as one of the persons
who robbed the house of the Buenvinidas and raped Glorivic.
The testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution
were not only consistent with and corroborative of each other.
The transcripts of stenographic notes which we have
conscientiously reviewed, further reveal that their narrations
before the lower court were delivered in a clear, coherent and
unequivocal manner.
There was no perceptible hesitation or uncertainty on the part
of Glorivic and Michael when they unerringly identified
appellant during the trial. The unhurried, studious and delib-
_____________
11
Appellant’s Brief, 5; Rollo, 52-55.
12
See People vs. Apawan, et al., G.R. No. 85329, August 16,
1994, 235 SCRA 355.
13
People vs. Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994,
235 SCRA 202.
269
VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 269
People vs. Martinez
erate manner in which appellant was identified by them in
court added strength to their credibility14 and immeasurably
fortified the case of the prosecution.
The records also show that the memory of these witnesses were
not in any way affected by the passage of two years and three
months since the tragedy. Glorivic categorically stated on the
witness stand that the lapse of those years did not impair her
memory and she could still identify those who raped her.15
Michael asserted that he could still positively identify appellant
because of the latter’s mole, as well as the several opportunities
of the former to take a good look at appellant’s face during the
robbery,16 and the same is true with Glorivic. Appellant’s mole
on his right cheek provided a distinctive mark for recollection
and which, coupled with the emotional atmosphere during the
incident, would be perpetually etched in the minds of the
witnesses.
It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence
to strive to ascertain the appearance of their assailants and
observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most
often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a
lasting impression on the victims’ minds which cannot be
easily erased from their memory.17
While appellant claims that his face was covered during the
commission of the crime, there were providential points in time
when the two witnesses were able to freely see his face and
scan his facial features closely to as to enable them to identify
him later on.
Although appellant placed a pillow on her face. Glorivic
declared that when the latter two offenders raped her, their
faces were no longer covered. In the case of appellant, the
handkerchief on his face fell upon his entering the room and
______________
14
See People vs. Corpuz and Eufemia, G.R. No. 105007,
January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 203.
15
TSN, April 5, 1994, afternoon, 22.
16
Ibid., April 6, 1994, 20.
17
People vs. Apawan, et al., supra; People vs. Salazar, et al.,
G.R. No. 109943, September 20, 1995, 248 SCRA 460.
270
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
he left it that way while he raped Glorivic.18 And when the
latter two transgressors entered the house, their faces were then
exposed and it was only when they were already inside the
house that they covered their faces with handkerchiefs.19 These
circumstances gave Michael and Glorivic sufficient time and
unimpeded opportunity to recognize and identify appellant.
There is no evidence to show that the two eyewitnesses were so
petrified with fear as to result in subnormal sensory functions
on their part. Contrarily, in a recently decided case, we held
that fear for one’s life may even cause the witness to be more
observant of his surroundings.20 The ample opportunity to
observe and the compelling reason to identify the wrongdoer
are invaluable physiognomical and psychological factors for
accuracy in such identification.
The records do not disclose any improper motive on the part of
the witnesses to falsely point to appellant as one of the robber-
rapists. Appellant even admitted that he did not know Glorivic
and Michael prior to the commission of the crime. It is
doctrinally settled that in the absence of evidence showing that
the prosecution witnesses were actuated by improper motive,
their identification of the accused as the assailant should be
given full faith and credit.21
Where conditions of visibility are favorable, as those obtaining
in the Buenvinida residence when the crimes were committed,
and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertions as
to the identity of the malefactor should be accepted as
trustworthy.22
_____________
18
TSN, April 5, 1994, (P.M.), 10, 15.
19
Ibid., April 6, 1994, 11-12.
20
See People vs. Salazar, et al., supra.
21
People vs. Lozano, G.R. No. 90801, February 13, 1992, 206
SCRA 234.
22
People vs. Bongadillo, G.R. No. 96687, July 20, 1994, 234
SCRA 233; People vs. Villaruel, G.R. Nos. 110803-04,
November 25, 1994, 238 SCRA 408.
271
VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 271
People vs. Martinez
For his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the
lower court should not have ordered him to pay the value of the
unrecovered personalties to Ernesto Buenvinida, damages to
Glorivic Bandayanon, and the costs of suit because he is not
criminally liable as shown by the failure of the witnesses to
properly identify him.
We find speciosity in this second contention of appellant
because such argument flows from the premise that he is not
guilty. As the trial court found, and with which we resolutely
agree as already explained, appellant is culpable beyond
reasonable doubt for the special complex crime of robbery with
rape committed in the early evening of December 28, 1991 at
Caloocan City.
However, we deem worthy of elucidation the matter of the
value of the items established to have been stolen from the
house of the Buenvinidas. Incidentally, appellant claims in his
brief that the amounts alleged in the information as the bases of
his civil liability for robbery were just concocted and founded
on speculation and conjectures.23
To prove the value of the burglarized properties, the
prosecution presented an affidavit executed by Ernesto
Buenvinida24 on March 7, 1994, containing a list of the stolen
mov-ables and with their corresponding values, as now found
in the information. This affidavit was identified and marked as
Exhibit H25 for the prosecution during the testimony of SPO4
Abner Castro,26 the police officer who conducted an
investigation of the incident on December 28, 1991. In addition
to testifying on the arrest and investigation of appellant, Castro
repeated in open court the respective values of the personal
properties as explained to him by Ernesto Buenvinida and how
he helped Ernesto in the preparation thereof.27 The same
_____________
23
Appellant’s Brief, 9; Rollo, 56.
24
Exhibit H, Exhibits for the Prosecution.
25
TSN, April 8, 1994, 18-19.
26
Ibid., id., 12-19 and April 12, 1994, 1-7.
27
Ibid., id., 17-18.
272
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
was formally offered in evidence28 to prove, among others, the
facts and amounts contained therein and as testified to by
witness Castro. Although objected to by appellant as self-
serving,29 the lower court admitted said document for the
purpose for which it was offered and as part of the testimony of
said witness.30
It may be theorized, and in fact appellant in effect so
postulates, that the prosecution has failed to prove the value of
the stolen properties and, for lack of evidence thereon, the civil
liability therefor as adjudged by the court below may not be
sustained. It is true that the evidence presented thereon
consisted of the testimony of the investigator, Abner Castro,
who based his evaluation on the report to him by Ernesto
Buenvinida. These are legal aspects worth discussing for future
guidance.
While it is claimed that hearsay testimony was involved, it is
actually and not necessarily so. The rule that hearsay evidence
has no probative value does not apply here, since SPO4 Abner
Castro was presented as a witness and testified on two
occasions, during which he explained how the value of the
stolen properties was arrived at for purposes of the criminal
prosecution. During his testimony on his investigation report
and the affidavit of Ernesto Buenvinida on the amounts
involved, appellant had all the opportunity to cross-examine
him on the correctness thereof; and it was this opportunity to
cross-examine which negates the claim that the matters
testified to by the witness are hearsay. And, said documents
having been admitted as part of testimony of the policeman,
they shall accordingly be given the same weight as that to
which his testimony may be entitled.
Again, even under the rule on opinions of ordinary witnesses,
the value of the stolen items was established. It is a standing
doctrine that the opinion of a witness is admissible in evidence
on ordinary matters known to all men of common
_____________
28
Original Record, 41-42.
29
Ibid., 44.
30
Ibid., 45.
273
VOL. 274, JUNE 19, 1997 273
People vs. Martinez
perception, such as the value of ordinary household articles.31
Here, the witness is not just an ordinary witness, but virtually
an expert, since his work as an investigator of crimes against
property has given him both the exposure to and experience in
fixing the current value of such ordinary articles subject of the
crime at bar. Incidentally, it is significant that appellant never
dared to cross-examine on the points involved, which
opportunity to cross-examine takes the testimony of Castro out

of the hearsay rule, while the lack of objection to the value
placed by Castro bolsters his testimony under the cited
exception to the opinion rule.
Also not to be overlooked is the fact that the trial court has the
power to take judicial notice, in this case of the value of the
stolen goods, because these are matter of public knowledge or
are capable of unquestionable demonstration.32 The lower court
may, as it obviously did, take such judicial notice motu
proprio.33 Judicial cognizance, which is based on
considerations of expediency and convenience, displace
evidence since, being equivalent to proof, it fulfills the object
which the evidence is intended to achieve.34 Surely, matters
like the value of the appliances, canned goods and perfume
(especially since the trial court was presided by a lady judge)
are undeniably within public knowledge and easily capable of
unquestionable demonstration.
Finally, as a matter of law and not on the excuse that after all
appellant cannot satisfy his civil liability, the real value of the
asported properties would nonetheless be irrelevant to the
criminal liability of appellant. Insofar as the component crime
of robbery is concerned, the same was committed through
violence against or intimidation of persons, and not through
force upon things, hence the value of the property subject of
_______________
31
Galian vs. State Assurance Co., Ltd., 29 Phil. 413 (1915).
32
Sec. 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court.
33
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-54886,
September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 504.
34
Alzua, et al. vs. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308 (1912).
274
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Martinez
the crime is immaterial.35 The special complex crime of
robbery with rape has, therefore, been committed by the
felonious acts of appellant and his cohorts, with all acts of rape
on that occasion being integrated in one composite crime. The
value of the objects of the apoderamiento relates only to the
civil aspect, which we have already resolved.
One final complementary disposition is called for. Victim
Glorivic Bandayanon was subjected by appellant and his co-
conspirators to multiple rape, and under humiliating
circumstances equivalent to augmented ignominy since she was
abused by the three accused successively and virtually in the
presence of one after the other. The award of P30,000.00 for
moral damage made by the court below should accordingly be
amended.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of the trial court is
hereby AFFIRMED in full, with the sole MODIFICATION
that the damages awarded to the offended party, Glorivic
Bandayanon, is hereby increased to P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.