In People of the Philippines v. Juanito Cabigquez y Alastra, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision convicting Juanito Cabigquez of rape and robbery despite a DNA test that did not match his profile with the evidence collected from the victim. The ruling underscored that eyewitness testimony, when credible and consistent, can outweigh inconclusive scientific evidence. This case highlights the importance of thorough investigation and reliable witness accounts in prosecuting crimes of sexual assault and robbery. This decision emphasizes the court’s focus on protecting victims and ensuring justice, even when scientific evidence is not definitive.

When Fear Silences: Overcoming Delayed Reporting in a Rape and Robbery Case

The case began on the evening of March 26, 2001, when AAA, a 43-year-old widow, and her three minor children were asleep in their small store in Cagayan de Oro City. Around 3:30 a.m., they were awakened by two men. One, later identified as Romulo Grondiano, robbed the store at gunpoint. The other, Juanito Cabigquez, subsequently raped AAA in front of her children. Initially, the victims were too afraid to report the identities of the perpetrators, but they later came forward after the men were arrested on unrelated charges.

The central legal question was whether the eyewitness testimony of AAA’s daughter, BBB, was sufficient to convict Cabigquez of rape and robbery, despite the inconclusive DNA evidence and the initial delay in reporting the crime. Cabigquez raised the defense of alibi and questioned the credibility of BBB’s testimony. He argued that AAA’s lone outcry during the rape did not constitute manifest resistance and that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy in the robbery.

The Supreme Court addressed these arguments by emphasizing the credibility of BBB’s testimony. Despite the DNA mismatch, the Court found BBB’s account to be consistent and unflinching. The Court noted that rape is defined as carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, as stipulated in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code:

ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. – Rape is committed:
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that BBB’s testimony, along with the medical examination confirming the presence of spermatozoa, provided sufficient basis for Cabigquez’s conviction. The Court addressed the inconclusive DNA test results by stating that the sample tested by the NBI contained mere vaginal discharges and did not invalidate the eyewitness account.

Moreover, the Court acknowledged the delay in reporting the crime. However, it accepted BBB’s explanation that the family feared for their lives due to the perpetrators’ threats. This delay did not diminish her credibility, as the Court recognized that fear is a valid reason for delaying the reporting of a crime. Citing People v. Casanghay, the Court reiterated that failure to immediately reveal the identity of a perpetrator does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses, especially when there is an adequate explanation for the delay.

The Court also addressed the issue of conspiracy in the robbery charge. While there was no direct evidence of Cabigquez acting as a lookout, the Court inferred conspiracy from the circumstances. These included the creaking sound from the balcony, the fact that Cabigquez entered the store immediately after Grondiano left, and the threat issued after the rape to conceal both the robbery and rape. According to the Court, these circumstances sufficiently established a joint purpose and design between Cabigquez and Grondiano.

The Court also found that the rape was committed in the presence of AAA’s minor children. This qualified the rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code:

ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x

The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

(3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity.

The CA was correct in affirming the conviction of appellant for qualified rape. The Court thus upheld the CA’s modification of the trial court’s decision, sentencing Cabigquez to reclusion perpetua. Furthermore, the Court adjusted the sums awarded as civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, increasing them to P75,000.00, P75,000.00, and P25,000.00, respectively.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the eyewitness testimony was sufficient to convict Cabigquez despite the inconclusive DNA evidence. The Court had to determine if the eyewitness account could outweigh the lack of corroborating scientific evidence.
Why was there a delay in reporting the crime?	The victims delayed reporting the crime because they feared for their lives. The perpetrators threatened to return and kill them if they reported the incident to anyone, which kept them silent initially.
What was the significance of the DNA evidence?	The DNA evidence was inconclusive, as the sample tested contained mere vaginal discharges. The Court ruled that this did not invalidate the eyewitness account or preclude a conviction based on other evidence.
How did the Court determine that there was conspiracy in the robbery?	The Court inferred conspiracy from circumstantial evidence. The creaking sound from the balcony, Cabigquez entering the store immediately after Grondiano left, and the subsequent threat to conceal the crimes all suggested a coordinated effort.
What is reclusion perpetua?	Reclusion perpetua is a penalty under Philippine law. It is imprisonment for at least twenty years and one day and up to forty years and carries accessory penalties.
What was the basis for awarding civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages?	Civil indemnity compensates for the injury caused by the crime. Moral damages are awarded for mental anguish and suffering, and exemplary damages are meant to deter similar conduct in the future.
Can a person convicted of reclusion perpetua be eligible for parole?	No, Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua are not eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
What qualified the rape as a more serious offense?	The fact that the rape was committed in the presence and full view of AAA’s three minor children qualified the rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. This circumstance elevated the severity of the crime.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Cabigquez affirms that credible eyewitness testimony can be sufficient for a conviction even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence. The ruling also underscores the Court’s understanding of the psychological impact of crimes, acknowledging that fear can be a valid reason for delaying the reporting of a crime.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines, vs. Juanito Cabigquez y Alastra, G.R. No. 185708, September 29, 2010