REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II, CITY OF MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintif-Appellee,
GA. G.R. No. 222222

-versusJUANITO ALFONSO DALAWAHAN

Accused-Appellant,
x------------------------------------------x

APPELLEES BRIEF

Plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

the Office of the Solicitor General in answer to the allegations raised by
the accused-appellant in his Brief, respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Through this appeal, accused-appellant assails the judgment dated
30 November 2006 rendered by Judge Barabas Baldoza of the Regional
Trial Court, 12th Judicial Regional Branch 15, Quezon City, finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Rape.
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
Accused-appellant Juanito Alfonso Dalawahan together with coaccused Anito Macapagal and Analizo Katagalan was charged before the
Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Regional Branch 15, Quezon City of
robbery with rape. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 123456.
The accusatory portion reads:
That on or about February 14, 2006, in Quezon City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed
with a knife, and gun, conspiring and confederating
together, mutually aiding and assisting with one
another, forced open the red Toyota Corrola Plate No.
YHJ123 owned by WARLITA WAR, and by means of
1

violence against or intimidation of persons that is, at

gun point, took, stole and carried away the following
items: a Apple laptop computer, black Nokia N91
cellphone, diamond engagement ring, green Lacoste
handbag, and cash, all estimated to be worth
P150,000.00, all belonging to and taken against the
will of said WARLITA WAR, all to the latters damage
and prejudice; that on the occasion of means of force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully and
feloniously, have carnal knowledge of the said
WARLITA WAR, a 22-year old woman against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon being arraigned all the accused including accused-appellant
Dalawahan pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
The prosecution established the guilt of all the accused beyond
reasonable doubt by presenting as evidence the testimony of the victim
herself, WARLITA WAR, and the other witnesses DR. MA. RUFFA
QUINTO, DEO MACATIAG, and ANITA MACATIAG.
WARLITA WAR, the private complainant testified that she was
driving her way to her house passing through Lubayong Street, after
working overtime when two of her tires blew. She got out of the car to
survey the damage when suddenly three men, two of which where
armed, grabbed her, forced her car open and took her personal
belongings inside the said car. Thereafter the all the perpetrators
removed their mask one of them pointed a gun at her, took her to a
nearby grassy area then and there forcibly raped her at gunpoint. She
was able to identify Anito Macapagal as the rapist and the accusedappellant Juanito Dalawahan as the one holding the knife and was
jeering when she was being raped.
DR. RUFFA QUINTO was the Medico-Legal officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation who examined Rivera on February 16, 2006
(about 10:30 a.m.), testified that the latter was positive of spermatozoa,
vaginal laceration, and there were also bruises on Warlitas thighs
indicating forced entry on her vagina. Dr. Quinto presented the following
report:
Genitalia: external examination= abundant pubic hair,
nulliparous outlet, no bleeding note.
= hymen (+) complete, old healed .aceration at 4 and 7
oclock.
Speculum= vaginal wall no erosion/laceration.
Cervix= pinkish, (+) whitish discharge.

Internal examination= admist 1 finger with ease,

Cervix= closed, small midline, firm, non-tender on
wriggling,
Uterus= small,
Adnexae= negative for tenderness.
Positive for spermatozoa.
Deo and Anita Macatiag were the two couple who found the victim
standing by the road around 11:00 p.m. of February 14, 2006 while
walking home after celebrating their first wedding anniversary. Mrs.
Macatiag even testified that before finding the victim they saw three men
running towards them, one of them was even carrying a Laptop
computer. They were able to identify them later in a police line up as the
accused-appellant Juanito Dalawahan and two other co-accused, Anito
Macapagal and Analizo Katagalan.
The accused denied the charges, claiming that they did not know
each other. All of them used the defense of alibi: Anito Macapagal
testified that during the commission of the crime he was reviewing in his
house at Manggahan, Fairview, Quezon City; Analizo Katagalan claimed
that he was taking care of his sick grandmother who was confined at the
Philippine General Hospital; and Juanito Dalawahan claimed that he had
slept early that night in his house somewhere in Cubao, Quezon City. All
three presented their relatives as witnesses to corroborate their
respective alibis.
On November 30, 2006 on the strength of the prosecutions
evidence the Regional Trial Court promulgated its decision. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds co-accused Anito
Macapagal and Analizo Katagalan, and Juanito
Dalawahan GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the crime of Robbery with Rape, committing with the
use of deadly weapon and with aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and treachery,
without any mitigating circumstance to offset the
same. Considering that there was conspiracy among
the accused, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of DEATH and its actual damages; P75,000.00
as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages;
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the
costs.
Only one of the accused Juanito Dalawahan appealed the matter to
the Court of Appeals raising his arguments in his Appellant Brief.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
3

Plaintiff-appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the

assignment of errors raised by the accused-appellant:
I. The clear and convincing testimony of the private complainant
is credible enough to establish the commission of the crime.
II. The testimony of the private complainant as well as
testimonies of other prosecution witness clearly established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

III. The testimonial evidence of the private complainant as well as

applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established
conspiracy among the accused-appellants.
IV. The testimony of the private complainant as well as the
applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established that the
accused-appellant conspired with the other accused in the
commission of the crime.

V. Positive identification by the private complainant as well as

applicable jurisprudence clearly negates the accusedappellants defense of alibi even if corroborated by another
witness.
VI. The court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime in the commission of the crime.
VII. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as
the clear and credible testimony of the private complainant
satisfied the crucible test of reasonable doubt to overthrow the
Constitutional guaranty of presumption of innocence and
clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Discussion
I. The clear and convincing testimony of the private complainant
is credible enough to establish the commission of the crime.
It must be emphasized that the trial courts conviction of
accused-appellant Sarmiento was based heavily on the
victims testimony. In laying down its decision, the trial court
4

gave full weight and credence to the testimony of Warlita

War, the private complainant.
In crimes were rape is involved, it is a well-settled rule that
conviction may stand on the credible and accurate testimony
of the victim alone.1 Ms. War clearly testified that after she
was robbed then afterwards one of the accused took her to a
grassy area and while pointing a gun successfully ravished
her.
xxx

xxx

xxx
xxx
Atty. Makarate
Q: After they took your material
possessions, what happened next?
A: They removed their mask, and then one
of them pointed a gun at me. He then took
me to the talahib beside my car, removed
my clothes and started to kiss me while
caressing my breast. The others were
cheering him on while he was raping me. I
was so scared that I could not move my
whole body.2
xxx
xxx (Italics supplied)

Furthermore, no decent and sensible woman would ever

publicly admit that she was raped since she would run the
risk of public contempt, unless she was in fact a rape
victim.3 Ms. War is a well known professional who did not
have any criminal records in the past. If she was not raped
at all, she would not run the risk of public trial and admit
that she was indeed a rape victim.
Moreover, motive against the accused is out of the question
since Ms. Rivera had never seen any of the accused before in
her entire life. The court gives credence to testimony of the
victim not only because it is corroborated by the testimonies
of other witnesses, but also because the victim did not have
any motive to falsely implicate the accused.4
II. The testimony of the private complainant as well as
testimonies of other prosecution witness clearly established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

1
2
3
4

People v. Mendoza, 292 SCRA 168, July 9, 1998.

TSN dated March 12, 2006 pp. 18-19.
People v. Ching, 240 SCRA 267.
People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405.

It must be noted that the prosecution presented four (4)

credible witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
deserve the highest respect,5 when there is nothing to point
out that the witnesses had improper motives against the
accused.6 Sometimes even the most truthful witnesses make
mistakes,7 but these minor inaccuracies only strengthen the
veracity of their testimonies on the ground that it erases the
suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.8
The victim Warlita War clearly identified the accusedappellant as the one who was carrying a knife while the
others took her belongings inside the car. According to her
testimony the accused Dalawahan was also the one who held
her while the other accused Macapagal was raping her. As
what was declared in People v. Mendoza, 9 a clear and
accurate testimony of the victim herself is enough to warrant
a conviction of rape against the offenders.
Moreover, Ms Wars testimony was corroborated by the
testimonies by the other prosecution witnesses the
prosecution presented during the trial.
Dr. Ruffa Quinto positively affirmed in court that there was a
presence of spermatozoa in Ms. Wars genitalia several hours
later after the incident occurred. The Doctor also submitted
to the court, as evidence, her findings after medically
examining Ms. War after she was brought to the police
station. The findings states:
xxx

5
6
7
8
9

xxx
xxx
Genitalia: external examination= abundant pubic
hair, nulliparous outlet, no bleeding note.
= hymen (+) complete, old healed .aceration at 4
and 7 oclock.
Speculum= vaginal wall no erosion/laceration.
Cervix= pinkish, (+) whitish discharge.
Internal examination= admist 1 finger with ease,
Cervix= closed, small midline, firm, non-tender on
wriggling,
Uterus= small,
Adnexae= negative for tenderness.

People v. Ancheta, 419 SCRA 307.

People v. Abes, 420 SCRA 259.
People v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 98, April 15, 1988.
Aportadera v. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 695.
292 SCRA 168.

xxx

Positive for spermatozoa.10

xxx
xxx (Italics supplied)

The prosecution also presented as witnesses a couple, Deo

and Anita Macatiag, who testified before seeing Ms. War at
the side of the road, saw three men running towards their
direction and one of them was even carrying a laptop
computer. As Mrs. Macatiag stated in her testimony:
xxx

xxx

xxx
xxx
Atty Makarate:
Q: What did you see at the road while
walking on the night of February 15, 2007?
A: While me and Deo were walking along
the road, it was our first wedding
anniversary then, we saw three men
running towards us, the tall one was even
carrying a laptop computer. Then we
continued walking and suddenly saw Ms.
War on the side of the road walking weakly
and breathing heavily. She cannot speak
then that is why we brought her to the
police. Deo insisted that we first take her to
the police but upon seeing her only wearing
a skirt we took her to the hospital.11
xxx
xxx (Italics supplied)

III. The testimonial evidence of the private complainant as well as

applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established
conspiracy among the accused-appellants.
The prosecution presented the victim, Ms. War, who testified
that the three accused were only using hand signals and
head nods to give instruction to each and everyone of them
during the robbery. Afterwards the one whom she identified
as the apparent leader, Macapagal barked at the others
telling them that she was too beautiful to be true and thus
Macapagal must taste her. Upon kissing her the two (2) other
accused jeered.12 Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code,
when the crime is already committed, conspiracy will not be
appreciated as a separate offense but as a manner of
incurring criminal liability, the act of one is the act of all,

10
11
12

TSN dated April 14, 2006 p. 27.

TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 22.
TSN dated March 12, 2006 p. 15.

regardless of the extent of the participation of the other

offenders.13
Furthermore, in a long line of cases it is declared that the
existence of conspiracy need not be expressed by direct
evidence it may be implied from the acts of the accused
although they dont even know each other, as what was
declared in People v. Aguilos:
xxx

xxx

xxx
xxx
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct
evidence. After all, secrecy and concealment are
essential features of a successful conspiracy. It
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the
crime, showing that they had acted with a
common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be
implied if it is proved that two or more persons
aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently
independent of each other, were, in fact,
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness
of personal association and a concurrence of
sentiment. There may be conspiracy even if an
offender does not know the identities of the other
offenders, and even though he is not aware of all
the details of the plan of operation or was not in
on the scheme from the beginning. One need only
to knowingly contribute his efforts in furtherance
of it. One who joins a criminal conspiracy in
effect adopts as his own the criminal designs of
his co-conspirators.14
xxx
xxx (Italics supplied)

IV. The testimony of the private complainant as well as the

applicable laws and jurisprudence clearly established that the
accused-appellant conspired with the other accused in the
commission of the crime.
When the prosecution presented Ms. War, the victim, she
positively
identified
the
accused-appellant
Juanito
Dalawahan as the one who carried the knife while opening
the door of the car, and also she identified Dalawahan as the
one who held her hand while Macapagal was raping her, and
13
14

Citing Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code Book 1, 16th Ed., 124(2006).
GR. 121828, June 27, 2003.

all the while the accused-appellant was jeering and clapping

his hand.15
Since Robbery with Rape16 was committed, all those who
committed robbery will also be liable for the rape committed;
the conspiracy to rob is all that is needed to punish them all
as principals in the commission of the crime.17
Although the accused-appellant testified that he was not the
one who committed the rape, he did not say that he
prevented the commission of rape done by his companion. 18
The accused to be exonerated of liability in the rape must
prove that he prevented the commission of rape.19
The accused-appellant said in his testimony that he did not
know the other accused. Granting for the sake of argument
that this is true, under the Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy,
the Honorable Supreme Court declared in the Aguilos case, 20
conspiracy may exist although the offenders do not know
each other as long as their acts show a common design.
V. Positive identification by the private complainant as well as
applicable jurisprudence clearly negates the accusedappellants defense of alibi even if corroborated by another
witness.
The accused-appellant used the defense of alibi. In his
testimony, he said that he slept early that night in his house
somewhere in Cubao, Quezon City. He also presented his
uncle, Dominodor Burao, as a witness to corroborate his
alibi.21 But his allege uncles testimony is self serving then
after the victim positively identified him as one of the robbers
after all of them removed their mask. As it was declared in
People v. Corpuz,22 if the alibi of the accused can only be
confirmed by his relatives, his denial of culpability deserves
scant consideration, especially, in the face of affirmative
testimony of the victim as to his presence in the crime scene.
Furthermore, in order for the court to appreciate the
accused-appellants defense of alibi, it must be physically
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 23.

Revised Penal Code, Art 294.
People v. Mendoza, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 168.
TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 24.
People v. Mendoza, 292 SCRA 168.
GR. 121828, June 27, 2003
TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 24.
240 SCRA 203, (1995).

commission.23 Dalawahan was only said he was at his house

in Cubao which is only two (2) corners away from Lubayong
Street, the area where the crime took place.
Moreover, it is a well settled rule that the defense of alibi is
worthless in the face of positive identification of prosecution
witnesses24 or the offended party.25 Ms. War positively
identified Mr. Dalawahan as the one holding the knife and as
the one cheering Macapagal on while she was being ravished
by the latter.26

VI. The court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance

of nighttime in the commission of the crime.
Aside from the fact that the crime happened during the night
the victim Ms. War, testified that she always passes by
Lubayong Street on her way to work. Furthermore it is well
known that Lubayong Street is one of the busiest streets in
the Cubao area. This clearly implicates that the accused
would not have been successful if they carried out their plan
during the day time. That is why they waited for their victim
at end of dusk to take advantage of the silence of the night.
Under the Article 14 of the Penal Code, 27 nighttime is
appreciated when it was purposely sought for by the
offenders. Furthermore when the offender took advantage of
nighttime or the same facilitated the commission of the
crime, nighttime need not be specifically sought for.28
VII. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as
the clear and credible testimony of the private complainant
satisfied the crucible test of reasonable doubt to overthrow the
Constitutional guaranty of presumption of innocence and
clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses including the
victim herself to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt withstanding the crucible test of

23
24
25
26
27
28

Ibid.
People v. Tansiangco, L-128164, February 28, 1964.
People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162.
TSN dated March 12, 2006 p. 14.
Revised Penal Code, Art 14, Par. 6.
Citing Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code Book 1, 16th Ed., 364(2006).

10

reasonable doubt and overthrowing the presumption of

innocence of the said appellant.
The victim Warlita War positively identified all of the accused
when they removed their mask after robbing her.29 She also
identified Macapagal as the one who raped her while the
accused-appellant Dalawahan was jeering her. It is a well
settled rule in this jurisdiction that an accurate and
convincing testimony of the rape victim alone is enough to
warrant a conviction for rape since no decent woman would
publicly admit that she was raped and face public contempt,
unless she was in fact ravished.30
Although the victims testimony is enough to warrant
conviction it was even corroborated by the other witnesses
presented by the prosecution. Dr. Quinto testified that Ms.
War was positive of fresh spermatozoa and vaginal laceration
upon physical examination, after the latter was brought to
her clinic. She positively stated in her affidavit that Ms. War
indeed had carnal knowledge during the time when she
examined her.31
Moreover, the prosecution presented a couple, Deo and Anita
Macatiag that found Ms. War traumatized by the side walk at
Lubayong Street in Cubao.32 Anita Mactaiag even testified
that she saw the three men running towards their direction
and one of them was carrying a laptop as the place where
they incidentally met was illuminated by post lights in the
said street.33
PRAYER

VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT, it is respectfully prayed for

that the instant appeal be DENIED for lack of merit.
Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable, are likewise
prayed for.
March 31, 2006 Manila City, Philippines

29
30
31
32
33

TSN dated March 12, 2006 p. 11.

People v. Mendoza, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 168.
TSN dated March 12, 2006 pp. 8-9.
TSN dated March 12, 2006 pp. 14-15.
Ibid.

11

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

#123 Leo St, GSIS Building,
Brgy. Lasalle, Manila, Philippines
By
Louie Kagwapuhan
Associate Solicitor General

Copy Furnished
Atty. Zenaida Kagandahan
Kagandahan Law Office
LTA, Bldg. Salcedo Village, Makati
Counsel of the Accused-appellant

12