SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226400. January 24, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . JOSELITO

BRINGCULA y FERNANDEZ , accused-appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

This is to resolve the appeal of appellant Joselito Bringcula y Fernandez that

seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated April 8, 2016 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01294-MIN nding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of robbery with rape.
The facts follow.
On the night of May 2, 2011, private complainant AAA was sleeping in her house
together with her children, househelper and niece. She was awakened at early dawn by
the barking of the dog and when she stood up to see if there was any one inside their
house, she saw no one and went back to sleep. She was again awakened when a man
wearing a mask touched her shoulder and poked a rearm at her neck. The man told
her that it was a robbery and that she should keep quiet or else he would kill her. She
was able to recognize the voice of the man to be that of appellant Bringcula. Then, she
was ordered to lie face down and was hogtied using a shoelace. The appellant took
AAA's two bracelets and wedding ring, and asked her where her money was. AAA
pointed at her bag inside the aparador beside her bed, where she placed her money
which the appellant also took.
Appellant, thereafter, made AAA lie on her back and pulled her pajama and
underwear. He also removed his own clothing including his mask. Appellant proceeded
to lick AAA's vagina, kissed her neck, laid on top of her and inserted his penis into her
vagina. AAA was unable to cry for help because appellant threatened to kill her if she
does. After satisfying his lust, appellant dressed up and took AAA's necklace and two
(2) cellular phones. When appellant left, AAA awakened her niece and told her to shout
for help. A certain BBB, Barangay Captain CCC, Kagawad EEE and some neighbors
arrived at AAA's house and when they asked who the culprit was, she opted not to
immediately disclose appellant's identity.
Later in the morning, AAA went to the police station to report the incident and
submitted herself for a medical examination. CAIHTE

Thus, the following Information was filed against the appellant:

That on or about the 2nd day of May, 2011, in ____________, municipality
of _________________, Province of Bukidnon, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with rearm, by means
of force and violence, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner thereof enter the house
of AAA and once inside entered the room of AAA and rob, take, and carry away:
necklace worth P1,000.00, bracelet worth P1,500.00, ring worth P600.00, two (2)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 cellular phones worth P1,500.00 and cash money in the amount of P5,000.00
with a total value of P9,600, Philippine currency, belonging to AAA;
That on the occasion of the said robbery, accused, prompted by lewd
designs, by means of threat and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously poke the rearm in the neck of AAA, hogtied her,
remove her pajama and panty, lick her vagina, place himself on top of her and
inserted his penis into her vagina and have sexual intercourse with AAA, against
her will.
CONTRARY to and in violation of Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal
Code. 2
Appellant denied the allegations and interposed alibi as a defense. He claimed
that in the evening of May 2, 2011, he was at home sleeping. His testimony was
corroborated by his wife who testi ed that appellant was sleeping beside her on May 2,
2011 around 1 o'clock in the early morning.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), 3 Branch 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon found
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged; thus, he was sentenced
with the following:
Premises above-considered and with no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the court nds the accused DDD Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua. The preventive
detention undergone by the accused at the BJMP, Manolo, Fortich, Bukidnon
shall be credited to his penalty of imprisonment, the remainder of which he shall
serve at the Davao Penal and Prison Farm, B.E. Dujali Davao Del Norte.
Furthermore, the accused is hereby ordered to pay PC the following:
1. P9,600.00 — Actual damages, if restitution is not feasible with legal
interest.
2. P75,000.00 — Moral damages
3. P50,000.00 — Exemplary damages
4. Costs of the suits.
SO ORDERED. 4
According to the RTC, the elements of the crime charged are present in the case
and that the defense of appellant is weak.
The CA a rmed the decision of the RTC with modi cation that appellant pay
AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED, the 25 March 2014 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, Branch 11, is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . Appellant is DIRECTED to pay AAA
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, in addition to the other damages awarded by the
lower court. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on all
the damages awarded in this case from date of nality of this judgment until
fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 5
The CA agreed with the RTC that the elements of the crime of robbery with rape
are present. It also agreed that appellant's defense of denial and alibi must fail. The CA
also ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be appreciated. DETACa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Hence, the present appeal.
Appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He contends that his identity was not properly established and that the
testimony of AAA is not credible because of its inconsistencies. He also questions the
legality of his warrantless arrest.
The crime of Robbery with Rape is penalized under Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659. Robbery
with Rape is a special complex crime under Article 294 of the RPC. It contemplates a
situation where the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain,
personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof
or as an accompanying crime. 6
In People v. Evangelio, et al., 7 this Court ruled that:
For a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be
shown that the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery
and not the other way around. This special complex crime under Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code contemplates a situation where the original intent of the
accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another
and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. x
xx8
Thus, to be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against
persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by
intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. 9
The RTC and the CA were correct in ruling that the elements of robbery with rape
are present in this case. As ruled by the CA:
As to the asportation by appellant of private complainant's personal
properties constituting the rst three (3) elements of the crime, We nd the
same su ciently established by the evidence on records. The prosecution was
able to prove that appellant entered the house of private complainant and took
her money, some pieces of jewelry and cellphones by means of violence and
intimidation. Appellant barged into the house of the victim armed with a
weapon, tied her down to immobilize her, and robbed her of some personal
belongings. Private complainant saw the perpetrator leaving her house carrying
the pieces of jewelry and other items taken from her.
Having established that the personal properties of the [victim were]
unlawfully taken by the appellant, intent to gain was sufficiently proven. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The prosecution was likewise able to establish that appellant raped
private complainant on the occasion of the robbery.
Private complainant's account on what appellant did to her was
straightforward, candid and carries a disturbing ring of sordid truth. She vividly
recounted how appellant forced himself on her and succeeded in having carnal
knowledge with her. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
It is a settled rule that the foremost even sometimes, the only
consideration in the prosecution for rape is the victim's testimony. The victim's
testimony alone, if credible, is su cient to convict. A rape victim, who testi es
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank manner, and remains
consistent on all material points, is a credible witness. 1 0
The prosecution was also able to establish, based on AAA's testimony, that the
robbery preceded the crime of rape and that the latter crime was an incident to the
original intent of the appellant to rob AAA, thus:
Q: Now that was the rst word asked by the accused that he was looking for
money from you, am I right?
A: After he called my attention by touching my shoulder and he tied me, he
asked where is the money.
Q: At that time you were already lying on your back or still facing down?
A: I was still lying face down.
Q: But according to you, the rst thing that the accused allegedly got from
your possession is your wedding ring and your bracelet, am I right?
A: Yes sir because when he ordered me to lay (sic) on my face and tied my
hands, he saw the wedding ring and the bracelet and he took it.
Q: And after that, the accused asked you where is your money?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Now, according to you, the accused then removed your pajama, am I
right?
A: Yes sir.
Q: At that time, what was your position?
A: I was lying on my back.
Q: And you mean to say, you were already face to face looking with (sic) the
accused, am I right?
A: Yes sir.
Q: But at that time, the accused was allegedly still concealing his identity
with the use of the clothing?
A: No more.
Q: In other words, when you were already lying on your back, you already saw
the accused already removing the clothing, to show his identity?
A: Yes sir. 1 1
As to the issue raised by appellant that the testimony of AAA is not credible
because it was impossible for her to have identi ed her aggressor because of her
inconsistent statements and that she did not disclose the violation committed against
her person immediately after the incident, deserves no merit. This Court has ruled in
several cases that inconsistencies of witnesses with respect to minor details and
collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declarations, their veracity or the
weight of their testimonies. It would be unfair to expect a awless recollection from
one who is forced to relive the gruesome details of a painful and humiliating experience
such as rape. 1 2 What is clear is that AAA was able to testify in a straightforward
manner the incident that took place or on how she was raped, thus:
Q: So he tied your hands behind your back while you were lying down and he
undressed himself or he undress you first?

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 A: He first remove[s] my pajama.
Q: And your underwear?
A: Yes sir.
Q: And he followed that up by undressing himself?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Which one was undressed on the part of the accused?
A: He removed all his clothing.
Q: You want to impress to this court that the accused was entirely naked?
A: Yes sir.
Q: That is before he licked your vagina?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Now, when the accused laid on top of you, he was doing such push and
pull movement, am I right?
A: Yes sir. 1 3
When the testimony of a rape victim is simple and straightforward, unshaken by
rigorous cross-examination and un awed by any serious inconsistency or
contradiction, the same must be given full faith and credit. 1 4
Also, AAA's behavior after the incident, particularly opting not to disclose her
ordeal in the hands of the appellant immediately thereafter, is inconsequential.
Jurisprudence has established that delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an
indication of a fabricated charge, and the same is rendered doubtful only if the delay
was unreasonable and unexplained. 1 5
Anent the defense of denial and alibi interposed by appellant, such must not be
appreciated by the Court. Between the categorical statements of the prosecution
witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the appellant, on the other, the former must
perforce prevail. An a rmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony
especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. Alibi and denial, if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence
undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received
with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because
they are easily fabricated and concocted. 1 6 Denial cannot prevail over the positive
testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not shown to have any ill-motive to
testify against the appellant. 1 7 ATICcS

As to the legality of his warrantless arrest, appellant is already estopped from

questioning such because it was never raised prior to his having entered a plea of not
guilty. Moreover, the rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of
his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his
arraignment. 1 8 Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by
the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters
his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 1 9 Even in the instances not
allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto
is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection. 2 0 The
subsequent ling of the charges and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of
arrest against a person illegally detained will cure the defect of that detention. 2 1 As
aptly ruled by the CA:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 In the present case, appellant was arrested on the very same day that the
crime was committed. Albeit the arrest was not effected immediately after the
incident, this is readily explained by the fact that private complainant opted not
tell anyone who [her] assailant was until that morning when she o cially led
her complaint in the police station. True enough, she cannot just divulge to her
companions that she was raped, a conduct consistent with a woman who had
just underwent a grievous ordeal. It was thus only upon the ling of the
complaint and on the basis thereof that the police found a reasonable ground to
make appellant a suspect of the crime and accordingly caused his arrest. With
the fact that appellant and private complainant are neighbors, the latter's
identi cation of the former as her assailant strongly created the probable cause
of the guilt of appellant. As such, in the inquest investigation, the Provincial
Prosecutor found a probable cause that appellant committed the crime of
robbery with rape, thus rendering his arrest without warrant legal.
At any rate, accused-appellant already pleaded not guilty to the crime
charged against him during his arraignment without questioning his warrantless
arrest. He actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court
thereafter. In effect, appellant is deemed to have submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court and waived any perceived defect or irregularity that may
have attended his arrest.
Settled is the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing any
irregularity with regard to his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for
the quashal of the information against him on this ground before his
arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by
which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. 2 2
As imposition of the penalty, the crime of robbery with rape is a special complex
crime punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
7659. 2 3 Article 294 provides for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when the
robbery was accompanied by rape. The provision reads as follows:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons;
Penalties. — Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall
have been committed; or when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson; x x x
The CA is correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the
offended party provided that the latter has not given provocation therefor. 2 4 In this
particular case, robbery with violence was committed in the house of the victim without
provocation on her part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons,
dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed
without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. 2 5 It is
considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
that the law accords to the human abode. 2 6 He who goes to another's house to hurt
him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. 2 7 Hence, under
Article 63, paragraph 1 of the RPC, the imposable penalty upon appellant is death since
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was duly alleged and proven. However, since
the death penalty has been prohibited under R.A. 9346, the penalty of reclusion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 perpetua should be imposed. TIADCc

As to the award of damages, the amounts must be modi ed in accordance with

People v. Jugueta . 2 8 Since the imposable penalty is death but due to R.A. 9346, the
actual penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, the amounts of civil indemnity, moral
damages and exemplary damages shall be P100,000.00 each. Also, the CA was correct
in awarding civil indemnity in view of the finding of rape. 2 9
WHEREFORE , PREMISES CONSIDERED , the Court DISMISSES the present
appeal and AFFIRMS the Decision dated April 8, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR HC No. 01294-MIN nding appellant Joselito Bringcula y Fernandez guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape under Article 294 the
Revised Penal Code with MODIFICATION that the same appellant is ORDERED to
PAY the victim, the amounts of P100,00.00 n as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral
damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages per People v. Jugueta , 3 0 with legal
interest on all the said damages awarded at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum
from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Rafael Antonio M. Santos; rollo, pp. 3-16.
2. Records, pp. 1-2.
3. Penned by Judge Jose U. Yamut, Sr.

4. CA rollo, pp. 48-49.

5. Rollo, p. 16.
6. People v. Marlon Belmonte, et al. , G.R. No. 220889, July 5, 2017, citing People v. Tamayo ,
434 Phil. 642, 654 (2002).
7. 672 Phil. 229 (2011).
8. Id. at 245-246, citing People v. Tamayo, supra note 6.
9. People v. Suyu, 530 Phil. 569, 596 (2006).

10. Rollo, pp. 9-11.

11. TSN, October 29, 2012, pp. 17-18.
12. People v. Bautista, 474 Phil. 531, 555 (2004).
13. TSN, January 29, 2013, p. 11.
14. People v. Sernadilla, 403 Phil. 125, 140 (2001).

15. People v. Suyu, supra note 9, at 588, citing People v. Baway , 402 Phil. 872, 892 (2001).
16. People v. Evangelio, et al. , supra note 7, at 241, citing People v. Togahan , 551 Phil. 997,
1014 (2007).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 17. Id., citing Gan v. People, 550 Phil. 133, 157 (2007).
18. People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96 (2002).

19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Rollo, pp. 8-9.
23. Otherwise known as An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes
Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, As Amended, Other Special Penal
Laws, and for Other Purposes.
24. People v. Bragat, 416 Phil. 829, 843 (2001).
25. People v. Paraiso, 377 Phil. 445, 464 (1999).

26. People v. Taboga, 426 Phil. 908, 929 (2002).

27. People v. Bragat, supra note 24.
28. G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016, 788 SCRA 331.
29. People v. Ortiz, 614 Phil. 625 (2009).
30. Supra note 28.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official copy.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com