* prosecution more reliable, especially the complainants
themselves. While it may be conceded that there were PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. certain inconsistencies in their testimony, the tale they CLAUDIO VELOSO, JULIO DALUMPIENES, RENATO narrated of the terrible night is on the whole credible. TORRES, ISRAEL RAPOTE, REY TORRES, JOHN DOE alias The imperfections were on mere insignificant details "ROLLY" and "PETER DOE," accused, CLAUDIO VELOSO, that do not detract from the veracity of the basic accused-appellant. accusation. One could hardly expect that these three Criminal Law; Evidence; Rape; Defense that the sexual naive girls would concoct it out of pure imagination, intercourse was with the victim's consent as they were implicating without reason people they did not even sweethearts, not believable; Reason.—In his defense at know, and, worse, exposing their own ravishment and the joint trial of the three complaints for rape filed testifying publicly on all the embarrassing details. against him and his companions, Veloso denied the Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; Liability of a co- accusations, saying he and Rosita were sweethearts and conspirator; Conspiracy among the accused established that they did have sexual intercourse on the night and in case at bar.—Veloso also faults the trial court for in the place in question but by mutual consent. This is convicting him of the other rapes, considering that he not believable. In the first place, he offers no evidence was alleged to have raped only Rosita. The defense other than his self-serving statement. Rosita flatly forgets that he is responsible also for the other rapes rejects it. Moreover, it is not likely that, if they were because he was a co-conspirator along with his six other really sweethearts, they would have had sexual companions, whose guilt he must also share. The intercourse only a few meters from where the other conspiracy among them has been amply established by two girls were being violated. The act of love is not that the facts that they together approached the three girls perverse and vulgar. It is a private communion. This earlier that night as one of them introduced himself; blatant lie, which would convert a brutal rape into an that they returned about three hours later and without amorous fulfillment, does not even have the charm of f much ado dragged the three girls into the Capitol antasy. Building; that they successively raped their hapless Same; Same; Same; Confession; Extrajudicial victims, helping each other as each forced himself upon confession, admissible against the accused, having been a victim; and that they later released the girls af ter they made before January 17, 1973 when the right to had satisfied their lust and sent them home in a jeep counsel was not yet in effect under the Magtoto they had flagged. doctrine.—The extrajudicial confession is admissible Same; Same; Same; Same; When does conspiracy exists; against him, having been made before January 17, Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence 1973, when the right to counsel was not yet in effect only, not necessarily by direct evidence.—A conspiracy under the Magtoto doctrine. Signif icantly, he presented exists when two or more persons come to an no medical or other evidence of his alleged agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it. manhandling by the police and did not complain about While it is desirable that the conspiracy be proved by it to the fiscal or any other officer. By contrast, the direct evidence, like an express understanding among policemen he claimed had mauled him were presented the plotters affirming their commitment and defining at the trial and testified to deny his allegations. their respective roles, it may nevertheless be Same; Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Findings of the established at times by circumstantial evidence only. trial judge on the credibility of witnesses, respected; Thus, to repeat established doctrine, where the accused Inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution move in concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy witnesses which are on mere insignificant details, do may be inferred from their joint acts and design, not detract from the veracity of the basic accusation— without need of direct evidence of the criminal Indeed, even if the confession were to be disregarded, agreement. We have held in many cases that the the rest of the prosecution evidence would still be conduct of the accused before, during and after the overwhelming against Veloso. The trial judge, who had commission of the crime, are circumstances that can the firsthand opportunity to observe all the witnesses show whether or not there was a conspiracy among and assess their credibility, considered those for the them. Same; Same; Same; Same; In a conspiracy, the guilt of imprisonment in accordance with Article III, Section one is the guilt of all; Liability of the accused for six 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution. rapes.—In a conspiracy, the guilt of one is the guilt of APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of First Instance all. Therefore, Veloso is responsible not only for the of Lucena City. rape he committed against Rosita but for all the other rapes committed by his companions, with whom he had The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. conspired. In other words, he is liable also for the rape of Rosita by Renato Torres, of Constancia by CRUZ, J.: Dalumpienes and two others, and of Rosanna by another of the conspirators, or a total of six rapes, including the one he actually committed. Three young and innocent girls went to the park on a Sunday evening to relax and enjoy each other's Same; Same; Same; Penalty for rape.—Rape is punished company. Before the night was over, they would be with reclusion perpetua to death where it is committed brutally attacked and deflowered and seared with ugly with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more memories that will probably outrage them f or the rest persons, as in this case. of their lives. Same; Same; Same; Mitigating Circumstances; These unfortunate girls were Rosita Rubio, fifteen years Voluntary surrender, not mitigating, as the accused did old, Constancia de los Reyes, fourteen, and Rosanna not voluntarily surrender but was in fact arrested at a Rodriguez, who was only twelve at the time. 1 railroad station—The accused-appellant did not voluntarily surrender but was in fact arrested at the At about seven o'clock in the evening of June 22,1972, railroad station in the morning after the rapes he and while they were seated near the fountain at a public his companions had committed. Voluntary surrender park in Lucena City, they were approached by a group of should therefore not have been appreciated. men composed of Claudio Veloso, Julio Dalumpienes, Renato Torres, Israel Rapote, Rey Torres, one Gerry, and Same; Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; a seventh who remains unidentified to date. Gerry Superiority and evident premeditation, appreciated introduced himself to Rosanna and then the men left.2 against the accused.—On the other hand, the crime was At 10 o'clock of the same evening, the same group was aggravated not only by superiority but also by evident to return to the three girls in the park, but this time premeditation, which the court did not consider. The with a more malevolent purpose. record shows that after approaching the three girls in the park at 7 o'clock of that fateful night, the same This time there were no amenities. The men group returned about three hours later, obviously surrounded the girls. Veloso held the hand of according to plan, and without much ado surrounded Constancia, who pushed him to the ground. His 8-1/2 their victims and dragged them into the Capitol Building inch bolo fell. Constancia ran but Dalumpienes caught and raped them. and detained her. The three girls were then pulled by the group to the Capitol Building, their mouths covered Same; Same; Same; Penalty for rape with the to prevent them from shouting for help. As it happened, aggravating circumstances of superiority and evident the lights in the park temporarily went out at that premeditation and no mitigating circumstance is death; precise time, and nobody saw or succored them.3 Penalty of death imposable not for each of the three rape victims but for each of the six rapes committed; Six Upon reaching the second floor of the building, Veloso death penalties reduced to life imprisonment under the and Renato Torres dragged Rosita to a dark corner, 1987 Constitution.—With the above aggravating where they raped her in succession. Veloso threatened circumstances and no mitigating circumstance, the her with his bolo.4 Meanwhile, about seven meters applicable penalty is death, to be imposed not for each away, Constancia was struggling with Dalumpienes, who of the three victims but for each of the six rapes subdued and violated her while she was being held by committed on them by Veloso personally and his his two companions, who thereafter also satisfied their companions. Fortunately for him, however, these six lust on her while also held by the others in turn.5 death penalties will now each have to be reduced to life Nearby, Rosanna met a similar fate from the seventh had the firsthand opportunity to observe all the man in the group.6 witnesses and assess their credibility, considered those for the prosecution more reliable, especially the After ravishing them, the men called a jeep to take the complainants themselves. While it may be conceded girls home but instead they proceeded directly to the that there were certain inconsistencies in their police station, where they reported their harrowing testimony, the tale they narrated of that terrible night is experiences.7 Constancia was then taken by a on the whole credible. The imperfections were on mere policeman to the railroad station, where she saw and insignificant details that do not detract from the pointed to Veloso as one of her assailants.8 Veloso was veracity of the basic accusation.21 One could hardly arrested. After investigation, he signed an extrajudicial expect that these three naive girls would concoct it out confession.9 In the morning of the following day, the of pure imagination, implicating without reason people three girls were physically examined by Dr. Imelda de they did not even know, and, worse, exposing their own Imus, who was to testify later that she found hymenal ravishment and testifying publicly on all the lacerations in the complainants that were caused within embarrassing details. the past twenty-four hours from her examination.10 Veloso also faults the trial court for convicting him of The above narration is based on the testimony of the the other rapes, considering that he was alleged to have three girls,11 as well as the examining physician,12 the raped only Rosita. The defense forgets that he is several policemen who received the reports of the responsible also for the other rapes because he was a three victims and investigated Veloso13 and his co-conspirator along with his six other companions, extrajudicial confession.14 whose guilt he must also share. The conspiracy among In his defense at the joint trial of the three complaints them has been amply established by the facts that they for rape filed against him and his companions, Veloso together approached the three girls earlier that night as denied the accusations, saying he and Rosita were one of them introduced himself; that they returned sweethearts and that they did have sexual intercourse about three hours later and without much ado dragged on the night and in the place in question but by mutual the three girls into the Capitol Building; that they consent.15 This is not believable. In the first place, he successively raped their hapless victims, helping each offers no evidence other than his self-serving other as each forced himself upon a victim; and that statement. Rosita flatly rejects it.16 Moreover, it is not they later released the girls after they had satisfied their likely that, if they were really sweethearts, they would lust and sent them home in a jeep they had flagged. A have had sexual intercourse only a few meters from conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an where the other two girls were being violated. The act agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit of love is not that perverse and vulgar. It is a private it.22 While it is desirable that the conspiracy be proved communion. This blatant lie, which would convert a by direct evidence, like an express understanding brutal rape into an amorous fulfillment, does not even among the plotters affirming their commitment and have the charm of fantasy. defining their respective roles, it may nevertheless be established at times by circumstantial evidence only.23 The extrajudicial confession17 is admissible against him, Thus, to repeat established doctrine, where the accused having been made before January 17, 1973, when the move in concert toward a common purpose, conspiracy right to counsel was not yet in effect under the Magtoto may be inferred from their joint acts and design, doctrine.18 Significantly, he presented no medical or without need of direct evidence of the criminal other evidence of his alleged manhandling by the police agreement.24 We have held in many cases that the and did not complain about it to the fiscal or any other conduct of the accused before, during and after the officer.19 By contrast, the policemen he claimed had commission of the crime, are circumstances that can mauled him were presented at the trial and testified to show whether or not there was a conspiracy among deny his allegations.20 them.25 Indeed, even if the confession were to be disregarded, In a conspiracy, the guilt of one is the guilt of all. the rest of the prosecution evidence would still be Therefore, Veloso is responsible not only for the rape he overwhelming against Veloso. The trial judge,** who committed against Rosita but for all the other rapes committed by his companions, with whom he had Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Feliciano, conspired. In other words, he is liable also for the rape Gancayco and Sarmiento, JJ., concur. of Rosita by Renato Torres, of Constancia by Judgment affirmed. Dalumpienes and two others, and of Rosanna by another of the conspirators, or a total of six rapes, Notes.—The crime is qualified rape because the including the one he actually committed. accused was armed with a gun which he used in hitting the shoulder of the victim. (People vs. Maala, 122 SCRA Rape is punished with reclusion perpetua to death 812.) where it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, as in this case.26 The trial Public disclosure by complaining victim that she was court, appreciating the aggravating circumstance of raped proves commission of rape and belies accused's superiority mitigated by voluntary surrender, imposed contention that sexual intercourse was with her the penalty of life imprisonment on Veloso in each of consent. (People vs. Gomez, 124 SCRA 260.) the three cases filed against him, or three life sentences.27 This was erroneous. ——o0o—— People vs. Veloso, 148 SCRA 60, Nos. L- 38551-53 February 27, 1987 The accused-appellant did not voluntarily surrender but was in fact arrested at the railroad station in the morning after the rapes he and his companions had committed.28 Voluntary surrender should therefore not have been appreciated. On the other hand, the crime was aggravated not only by superiority but also by evident premeditation, which the court did not consider. The record shows that after approaching the three girls in the park at 7 o'clock of that fateful night, the same group returned about three hours later, obviously according to plan, and without much ado surrounded their victims and dragged them into the Capitol Building and raped them.29
With the above aggravating circumstances and no
mitigating circumstance, the applicable penalty is death, to be imposed not f or each of the three victims but f or each of the six rapes committed on them by Veloso personally and his companions. Fortunately for him, however, these six death penalties will now each have to be reduced to life imprisonment in accordance with Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
This decision affects only Claudio Veloso because Julio
Dalumpienes, who was convicted with him, did not appeal. As for the others, we note that they have not been arrested and tried, allegedly because of the protection and immunity they are enj oying from the police of Lucena City.30 Let a copy of this decision be sent to the Chief, PC-Integrated National Police, f or investigation of this charge.
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment as above modified
is AFFIRMED, with costs against the accused-appellant. It is so ordered.