Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Nos. L-38551-53. February 27,1987.

* 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.

S-ar putea să vă placă și