10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sultan

*
G.R. No. 132470. April 27, 2000.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

FERNANDO SULTAN y LATO, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Robbery with Rape; Witnesses; The testimony

of complainant as to the taking of her cash and valuables is
evidence enough to sustain a conviction for robbery considering
that the Supreme Court finds no fault in the pronouncement of the
trial court that her testimony is credible.—These arguments fail to
persuade us. The testimony of complainant as to the taking of her
cash and valuables is evidence enough to sustain a conviction for
robbery considering that we find no fault in the pronouncement of
the trial court that her testimony is credible. The persuasive
value of the declaration of credibility is bolstered by our own
scrutiny of the testimony of complainant showing her answers to
the incisive questions propounded to her to be firm and
straightforward.
Same; Same; Robbery; Elements; Robbery was committed
when the accused divested the complaining witness of her personal
belongings, and it is immaterial that the victim failed to ask for
the return of her personal things after all threats had ceased.—
While there may have been no effort on the part of complainant to
retrieve her per-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

217

VOL. 331, APRIL 27, 2000 217

People vs. Sultan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

sonal belongings from accused-appellant even after all threats

had ceased, her failure to do so does not under the circumstances
necessarily dispute the commission of robbery. Article 293 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that “[a]ny person who, with intent
to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by
means of violence against or intimidation of person, or using force
upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.” When accused-
appellant divested complaining witness of her personal belongings
he committed the crime of robbery. All the elements necessary for
its execution and accomplishment were present, i.e., (a) personal
property belonging to another, (b) unlawful taking, (c) intent to
gain, and (d) violence or intimidation. It is therefore immaterial
that she failed to ask for the return of her personal things.
Moreover, her actuation could only be fairly interpreted to mean
that she did not want accused-appellant to be suspicious of her
moves.
Same; Same; Rape; Where the prosecution for rape is based
solely on the testimony of the complaining witness, the basic issue
that must be addressed is her credibility.—We likewise find these
contentions of accused-appellant unconvincing. The prosecution
for rape in the instant case is based solely on the testimony of
complaining witness. Thus, the basic issue that must be
addressed is her credibility. Doctrinally, the trial court’s
assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded the highest
respect and weight by the appellate courts. It is normally
sustained unless material facts and circumstances have been
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied. There is no such
showing in this case.
Same; Same; Same; Intimidation; Intimidation is subjective
so it must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and
judgment.—Accused-appellant might not have employed force in
committing the rape but he definitely used intimidation which
was sufficient to make complainant submit herself to him against
her will for fear of life and personal safety. Accused-appellant
grabbed her and dragged her to his house. He was armed with an
ice pick and threatened to kill her with it if she did not follow his
wishes. She was naturally intimidated and her intimidation
started from that moment on, and subsisted in her mind when the
rape was started until its consummation. Intimidation is
subjective so it must be viewed in the light of the victim’s
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the
crime, and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that it
produces fear, as in the present case, fear that if the complainant
does not yield to the bestial demands of accused-

218

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sultan

appellant something would happen to her at that moment or even

thereafter. Thus, it is irrelevant that she was not certain when
cross-examined that accused-appellant was armed with an ice
pick when the rape commenced; it was enough that he was
holding something that looked like an ice pick which engendered
fear in her. With fear instilled in her mind, it is understandable
that she did not offer any resistance since any attempt to do so
would only be futile. Such failure on her part should not be taken
to mean consent so as to make her a willing participant in the
sexual confrontation.
Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstance; Unless and until a
law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide is
in the special complex crime of robbery with rape may be
considered aggravating, the Supreme Court must construe the
penal law in favor of the offender, as no person may be brought
within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.—The
Information charges accused-appellant with the special complex
crime of robbery with rape. The record shows that the prosecution
has established that he committed both robbery and rape with the
intent to take personal property of another preceding the rape.
Under Art. 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code, “x x x [a]ny
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death, x x x when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape x x x x” Complaining witness Juditha
Bautista was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. In this
regard, this Court had declared in some cases that the additional
rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery would not
increase the penalty. There were also cases, however, where this
Court ruled that the multiplicity of rapes committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Finally, in the
recent case of People v. Regala, the Court held that the additional
rapes committed should not be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance despite a resultant “anomalous situation” wherein
robbery with rape would be on the same level as robbery with
multiple rapes in terms of gravity. The Court realized that there
was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for
that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. It
further observed that the enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is
exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which enumerates
the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may
be considered, hence, the remedy lies with the legislature.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the

addi-

219

VOL. 331, APRIL 27, 2000 219

People vs. Sultan

tional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the

Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no
person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made
so by the statute. Under this view, the additional rape committed
by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating
circumstance.

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Br. 95.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

FERNANDO SULTAN y LATO appeals from the Decision

of the trial court finding him guilty of the special complex
crime of robbery with rape, sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua and ordering him to return to his victim one (1)
wrist watch, one (1) ring, one (1) pair of earrings, and one
(1) necklace valued at P1,600.00, P850.00, P500.00, and
P2,100.00, respectively, and cash of P130.00; otherwise, to
pay P5,180.00 if restitution be no longer feasible. He 1
was
further ordered to pay P50,000.00 for moral damages.
The evidence for the prosecution was based principally
on the testimony of complaining witness Juditha M.
Bautista. According to her, on 2 June 1997 at 9:00 o’clock
in the evening she was on her way home from a visit to her
cousin Cristina Mansilongan in Novaliches, Quezon City;
when she passed the dark alley in her cousin’s compound
she was accosted by someone, later identified as accused-
appellant Fernando L. Sultan, who pointed a sharp
instrument at her neck and announcing it was a “hold-up.”
He grabbed her and brought her to a house along the alley
which turned out to be his. Once

_______________

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

1 Decision penned by Judge Diosdado M. Peralta, RTC-Br. 95, Quezon

City.

220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sultan

inside the house, he made her sit down. He offered her a

drink; she refused it. Then he started divesting her of her
watch, ring, earrings, and necklace the values of which are
now reflected in the Decision of the court a quo, and her
cash of P130.00. After taking her valuables, he started
kissing her on the lips and cheeks. As if to discourage him
from making further sexual advances, she told him that
she was married with two (2) children but accused-
appellant was not dissuaded from pursuing his intentions.
While pointing an ice pick at her he ordered her to undress.
She acceded for fear that he would kill her as she was
under constant threat. After she had completely undressed,
accused-appellant ordered her to lie down on the floor. He
then kissed her again from head down. Still she could not
resist him because of fear. He went on top of her, held her
two (2) hands on the level of her head, spread her thighs
and inserted his penis into her vagina. The 2
coital encounter
lasted for ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes.
After satisfying his lust, he ordered her to put on her bra
and panty, tied her hands and went out of the room to
smoke. After ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes, he came back,
untied her, and once again with threat and intimidation
sexually abused her. Thereafter, he tied her hands to a
protruding piece of wood in the room and held her in his
arms. She cried. He told her that he loved her and that he
would answer for what he had done to her.3 They talked
until noon the following day without sleeping.
In her effort to release herself from his clutches she
“agreed” to elope with him. Perhaps convinced that she was
going to run away with him, he allowed her to go home at
noon to get her things. She was then staying with her
cousin Nita del Rosario, at No. 9 Sta. Eleuteria Street,
Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City. He 4
even accompanied her
to the highway to get a ride home.

_______________

2 TSN, 15 September 1997, pp. 3-19.

3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

221

VOL. 331, APRIL 27, 2000 221

People vs. Sultan

When Juditha arrived home she saw her sister Antonette

in the house. She was not actually residing there but went
there only that day. Juditha lost no time in narrating her
harrowing experience to her sister. Immediately Antonette
called her brother
5
SPO1 Fernando M. Bautista who resides
in Bulacan. SPO1 Bautista arrived at around 3:00 or 4:00
o’clock in6 the afternoon and was told about what
happened. He then advised Juditha to go back to the house
of accused-appellant for the7 “planned elopement” so
8
that he
and his two (2) companions could stage an arrest.
On their way to the house of accused-appellant, Juditha
rode in a passenger jeep with her sister Antonette and
cousin Nita while her brother and his two (2) companions
followed them on board an XLT van. Juditha alighted near
the house of accused-appellant while her companions
waited for her and accused-appellant along the highway.
When she arrived at accused-appellant’s place, he was
already waiting for her outside the store nearby. They went
inside his house and came out twenty (20) minutes later.
They boarded a passenger bus while SPO1 Bautista and
his companions trailed them. When the bus reached the
corner of Forest Hill Subdivision, Gulod, Novaliches, it
slowed down because of the traffic thus making it easier for
SPO1 Bautista and his companions to board the bus. Upon
seeing her brother and his companions, Juditha motioned
to them. They immediately approached accused-appellant
and boxed him before they could arrest him. The other
passengers of the bus joined in hitting accused-appellant.
This caused a commotion in the bus. Some policemen who
were in the barangay hall across the street saw the
disturbance. They boarded the bus to find out what
happened. Then they assisted in facilitating the arrest of
accused-appellant and brought him to the barangay hall.
He

_______________

5 Ibid.
6 TSN, 8 September 1997, pp. 3-11.
7 Bong Coronel and policeman Agustin Bautista, Jr.
8 See Note 6.

222

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sultan

was later on transferred to the police headquarters for

further interrogation.
At the police station the authorities investigated Juditha
who readily identified accused-appellant as her robber and
rapist. The police then requested for physical examination
to find signs of sexual abuse. Medico-Legal Inspector Dr.
Dennis G. Bellin found no external signs of violence
although there was a deep fresh laceration at 5 o’clock
position in Juditha’s hymen. He also discovered other
lacerations, deep healed, at 3, 7 and 9 o’clock positions. Dr.
Bellin also observed that Juditha’s external vaginal orifice
offered moderate resistance to his examining index finger
and virgin-sized vaginal speculum. She9 was no longer a
virgin when the alleged rape transpired.
10
On 5 June 1997 an Information for the special complex
crime of robbery with rape was filed against accused-
appellant Fernando Sultan y Lato, docketed as Crim. Case
No. Q-97-71353. But accused-appellant brushed aside the
charge and claimed that it was simply a sexual congress of
consenting adults.
Finding the complaining witness’ version more credible,
the trial court, on 5 June 1998, found accused-appellant
guilty as charged and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
He was ordered to return to Juditha Bautista one (1) wrist
watch valued at P1,600.00, one (1) ring worth P850.00, one
(1) pair of earrings worth P500.00, one (1) necklace worth
P2,100.00 and cash in the amount of P130.00, or the
payment of P5,180.00 if return was not possible. Accused-
appellant was further
11
directed to pay his victim P50,000.00
for moral damages.
In this appeal, accused-appellant submits that there is
no convincing proof that he is guilty of the crime charged.
As to the robbery, he contends that the testimony of
complainant that she was robbed of her personal valuables
should

_______________

9 TSN, 15 September 1997, pp. 3-10.

10 Rollo, p. 4.
11 See. Note 1.

223

VOL. 331, APRIL 27, 2000 223

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

People vs. Sultan

not be given weight and credence as (a) no evidence was

presented in court to prove her claim and that (b) if he had
really robbed her, why did she not ask him for restitution of
her valuables after the alleged threat had ceased, i.e., when
there was already an agreement between them to elope?
These arguments fail to persuade us. The testimony of
complainant as to the taking of her cash and valuables is
evidence enough to sustain a conviction for robbery
considering that we find no fault in the pronouncement of
the trial court that her testimony is credible. The
persuasive value of the declaration of credibility is
bolstered by our own scrutiny of the testimony of
complainant showing her answers to the incisive questions
propounded to her to be firm and straightforward.
While there may have been no effort on the part of
complainant to retrieve her personal belongings from
accused-appellant even after all threats had ceased, her
failure to do so does not under the circumstances
necessarily dispute the commission of robbery. Article 293
of the Revised Penal Code provides that “[a]ny person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence against or
intimidation of person, or using force upon anything, shall
be guilty of robbery.” When accused-appellant divested
complaining witness of her personal belongings he
committed the crime of robbery. All the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment were present, i.e., (a)
personal property belonging to another, (b) unlawful
taking, (c) intent to gain, and (d) violence or intimidation.
It is therefore immaterial that she failed to ask for the
return of her personal things. Moreover, her actuation
could only be fairly interpreted to mean that she did not
want accused-appellant to be suspicious of her moves.
As for the charge of rape, accused-appellant maintains
that the requisite force or intimidation was not proved by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt; that there was
some form of consent to the sexual intercourse as
complainant did not put up tenacious resistance despite
lack of threat on her life during the alleged rape; and, that
complainant on cross-

224

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sultan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

examination was not certain whether accused-appellant

was armed at the commencement of the rape.
We likewise find these contentions of accused-appellant
unconvincing. The prosecution for rape in the instant case
is based solely on the testimony of complaining witness.
Thus, the basic issue that must be addressed is her
credibility. Doctrinally, the trial court’s assessment of the
credibility of witnesses is accorded the highest respect and
weight by the appellate courts. It is normally sustained
unless material facts and circumstances 12
have been
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied. There is no such
showing in this case.
Accused-appellant might not have employed force in
committing the rape but he definitely used intimidation
which was sufficient to make complainant submit herself to
him against her will for fear of life and personal safety.
Accused-appellant grabbed her and dragged her to his
house. He was armed with an ice pick and threatened to
kill her with it if she did not follow his wishes. She was
naturally intimidated and her intimidation started from
that moment on, and subsisted in her mind when the rape
was started until its consummation. Intimidation is
subjective so it must be viewed in the light of the victim’s
perception and judgment at the time of the commission of
the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough
that it produces fear, as in the present case, fear that if the
complainant does not yield to the bestial demands of
accused-appellant something would happen to her at that
moment or even thereafter. Thus, it is irrelevant that she
was not certain when cross-examined that accused-
appellant was armed with an ice pick when the rape
commenced; it was enough that he was holding something
that looked like an ice pick which engendered fear in her.
With fear instilled in her mind, it is understandable that
she did not offer any resistance since any attempt to do so
would only be futile. Such failure on her part should not be
taken to

_______________

12 People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 119218, 29 April 1999, 306 SCRA 358,
citing People v. Banela, G.R. No. 124973, 18 January 1999, 301 SCRA 84.

225

VOL. 331, APRIL 27, 2000 225

People vs. Sultan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

mean consent so as to make her a willing participant in the

sexual confrontation.
The Information charges accused-appellant with the
special complex crime of robbery with rape. The record
shows that the prosecution has established that he
committed both robbery and rape with the intent to take
personal property of another preceding the rape. Under
Art. 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code, “x x x [a]ny
person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death, x x x when the robbery shall
have been accompanied by rape x x x x” Complaining
witness Juditha Bautista was raped twice on the occasion
of the robbery. In this regard, this Court had declared in
some cases that the additional rapes committed on the13
same occasion of robbery would not increase the penalty.
There were also cases, however, where this Court ruled
that the multiplicity of rapes committed 14
could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
15
Finally, in
the recent case of People v. Regala, the Court held that
the additional rapes committed should not be appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance despite a resultant
“anomalous situation” wherein robbery with rape would be
on the same16
level as robbery with multiple rapes in terms
of gravity. The Court realized that there was no law
providing for the additional rape/s or homi-

_______________

13 People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 119218, 29 April 1999, supra; People v.

Martinez, G.R. No. 116918, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 259; People v. Lutao,
G.R. No. 107798, 16 November 1995, 250 SCRA 45; People v. Precioso,
G.R. No. 95890, 12 May 1993, 221 SCRA 748, cited in People v. Regala,
G.R. No. 130508, 5 April 2000, 329 SCRA 707.
14 People v. Candelario, G.R. No. 125550, 28 July 1999, 311 SCRA 475;
People v. Pulusan, G.R. No. 110037, 21 May 1998, 290 SCRA 353; People
v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 111124, 20 June 1996, 257 SCRA 489.
15 G.R. No. 130508, 5 April 2000, supra.
16 Citing People v. Pedroso, No. L-32997, 30 July 1982, 115 SCRA 599;
People v. Mabilangan, No. L-48217, 30 January 1982, 111 SCRA 398.

226

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Sultan

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

cide/s for that matter to be considered as aggravating

circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised
Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code
which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where
analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the
remedy lies with the legislature. Consequently, unless and
until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court must
construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person
may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so
by the statute. Under this view, the additional rape
committed by accused-appellant is not considered an
aggravating circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that “(i)n all cases in
which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in
the application thereof x x x x 2. (w)hen there are neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied,”
the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed
on accused-appellant.
As to the award of damages to the complaining witness,
an additional amount of P50,000.00 may be given 17
as
damages ex delicto in line with recent jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding
accused-appellant FERNANDO SULTAN Y LATO GUILTY
of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to pay Juditha M.
Bautista P50,000.00 for moral damages, P5,180.00 for
actual damages representing the value of the personal
properties plus the cash amount of P130.00 taken from her
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount
of P50,000.00 be added as civil indemnity in conformity
with prevailing jurisprudence. Costs against accused-
appellant.

_______________

17 People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 119218, 29 April 1999, supra.

227

VOL. 331, APRIL 27, 2000 227

Ley son, Jr. vs. Office of the Ombudsman

SO ORDERED.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 331

     Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,

concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Delay of eight (8) years in reporting long

history of rape by her father not incredible for a 13-year old
daughter. (People vs. Coloma, 222 SCRA 255 [1993])
Delay in the giving of written statement not attributable
to witness’ vacillation may not reasonably be considered a
factor in the assessment of the credibility of said witness.
(People vs. Rafols, 228 SCRA 351 [1993])
The number of persons killed in homicide on the
occasion of attempted robbery is immaterial. (People vs.
Dalanon, 237 SCRA 607 [1994])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dc8e6b34c68ff6d42003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12