Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1948 > December 1948 Decisions > G.R. No. L-1703 December 21, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

082 Phil 420:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-1703. December 21, 1948.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERNESTO CASTILLO and QUINTIN CASTILLO, Defendants-Appellants.

Geminiano F. Yabut for Appellants.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Luis R. Feria for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY IN BAND WITH RAPE; EVIDENCE; DELAY IN PROSECUTION. — Counsel for appellants contends that the theory of the prosecution is untenable because it took the offended party three days before denouncing the offense to the authorities, reference being made to the testimony of detective inspector B to the effect that P. D. and H. A. reported the incident on April 4, 1947. Held: That the criticism is obviously without merit. Spontaneity is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that upon arrival at the place where H. A. was kept tied, P told the former that she had been raped by four men and by the fact that P’s husband reported the matter to the mayor on the day following the incident. The observation that P’s husband could not probably have made such report in view of his admitted illness is of no moment, as there is nothing in the record to show that said illness was then of such a nature as to have completely disabled him.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; IMMATERIAL CONTRADICTION OF TESTIMONIES. — Appellant’s counsel also calls attention to an alleged material contradiction in the evidence for the prosecution, namely, that while P testified that she was abused by only four men, detective inspector B stated that P’s report was to the effect that she was robbed and raped by five men. It is at once noteworthy that the latter testimony refers both to the robbery and to the rape, and cannot be said to have particularized the matter of rape.

3. ID.; ID., ID.; ORDINARY OBSERVATION WHEN DOES NOT HOLD TRUE. — It is also argued for the appellants that it is hard to believe that, as claimed by P, while she was being ravished by one of the malefactors, the others remained as onlookers. In other words, it is maintained that one would not have carnal knowledge of a woman in the presence of others. Held: That this should be true under normal conditions but not when, as in this case, the presence or cooperation of another or others was even necessary for the consummation of a common evil design. Indeed, such presence might have given the malefactors the assurance of safety.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN TESTIMONIES ARE NOT IN CORROBORATION. — The circumstance (also capitalized by appellants) that H. A. failed to corroborate P on the vital details of her testimony, far from indicating a weakness in the theory of the prosecution, shows lack of fabrication on their part. Indeed, H could not touch all the points mentioned by P, as he was handled differently by the malefactors.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALIBI AS A DEFENSE. — The appellants have set up the defense that from March 30 to April 5, 1947, they were in barrio Trangka, Bay, Laguna, a defense which certainly cannot prevail over the testimony of P. D. and H. A. who positively identified the appellants.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Ernesto Castillo, Quintin Castillo, Leon Reyes, Cornelio Añonuevo and Emeterio Añonuevo were accused in the Court of First Instance of Laguna of the crime of robbery in band with rape. After trial (which did not include Cornelio and Emeterio Añonuevo who were then still at large), Ernesto Castillo and Quintin Castillo were found guilty as charged, while Leon Reyes was found guilty only of robbery in band, and the first two were accordingly sentenced to life imprisonment, and the latter to an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day to 12 years, prision mayor. In addition the three were sentenced to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P101.90 and to pay each one-fifth of the costs. Only Ernesto and Quintin Castillo have appealed.

The evidence for the prosecution has conclusively proved that at about midnight on April 1, 1947, Paula Diana, who was still awake in her house situated in barrio Sto. Niño, City of San Pablo, Laguna, heard her dogs barking. Peeping through the window, Paula saw the presence of five persons armed with rifles and pistols, from whom the following threat came: "Don’t move or you will be killed." Thereupon Cornelio Añonuevo and Emeterio Añonuevo entered the house and ordered the male inmates to go down. Paula had to wake up his step-father (Herman Alvarez), then still asleep, and the latter was dragged downstairs by Emeterio Añonuevo. Upon Emeterio’s return, Cornelio Añonuevo ordered, upon threat of death, Paula to open her wardrobe from which Cornelio took several belongings of Paula. After going downstairs, Cornelio returned to the house and, at the point of his revolver, forced Paula to go down where she saw Ernesto Castillo, Quintin Castillo and Leon Reyes. Cornelio and Emeterio Añonuevo then took Paula to a place about 200 meters away from her house where, after slapping, boxing and kicking Paula, Cornelio and Emeterio successively were able to ravish her by means of threats and intimidation. Coming to the scene after Cornelio had whistled, Ernesto and Quintin Castillo took their turns in forcibly having carnal knowledge of Paula. After these proceedings, Paula was ordered to go home, but not without the admonition not to make any revelation. Paula found her step-father near the fence of her house with hands tied behind his back. No sooner had Paula untied his step-father than four shots were heard which marked the disappearance of all the malefactors. Leon Aragon (Paula’s husband who was then in the house of his cousin Isaac Gutierrez for treatment of his sickness) went to his wife and took the latter with him to the house of Isaac.

Counsel for appellants contends that the theory of the prosecution is untenable because it took the offended party three days before denouncing the offense to the authorities, reference being made to the testimony of detective inspector Brion to the effect that Paula Diana and Herman Alvarez reported the incident on April 4, 1947. The criticism is obviously without merit. Spontaneity is sufficiently demonstrated by the fact that upon arrival at the place where Herman Alvarez was kept tied, Paula told the former that she had been raped by four men and by the fact that Paula’s husband reported the matter to the mayor on the day following the incident. The observation that Paula’s husband could not probably have made such report in view of his admitted illness is of no moment, as there is nothing in the record to show that said illness was then of such a nature as to have completely disabled him.

Appellant’s counsel also calls attention to an alleged material contradiction on the evidence for the prosecution, namely, that while Paula testified that she was abused by only four men, detective inspector Brion stated that Paula’s report was to the effect that she was robbed and raped by five men. It is at once noteworthy that the latter testimony refers both to the robbery and to the rape, and cannot be said to have particularized the matter of rape.

It is also argued for the appellants that it is hard to believe that, as claimed by Paula, while she was being ravished by one of the malefactors, the others remained as onlookers. In other words, it is maintained that one would not have carnal knowledge of a woman in the presence of others. This should be true under normal conditions but not when, as in this case, the presence or cooperation of another or others was even necessary for the consummation of a common evil design. Indeed, such presence might have given the malefactors the assurance of safety.

The circumstance (also capitalized by appellants) that Herman Alvarez failed to corroborate Paula on the vital details of her testimony, far from indicating a weakness in the theory of the prosecution, shows lack of fabrication on their part. Indeed, Herman could not touch all the points mentioned by Paula, as he was handled differently by the malefactors.

The appellants have set up the defense that from March 30 to April 5, 1947, they were in barrio Trangka, Bay, Laguna, a defense which certainly cannot prevail over the testimony of Paula Diana and Herman Alvarez who positively identified the appellants. At any rate, it is not pretended that the witnesses for the prosecution had any motive in falsely incriminating the appellants, and no cogent reason exists why we should overrule the lower court which saw and heard all the witnesses testify.

Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the appealed judgment is affirmed, it being understood, however, that the appellants shall in addition indemnify jointly and severally Paula Diana in the sum of one thousand pesos. So ordered, with costs.

Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1948 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1516 December 2, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO DE LOS REYES

    082 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-1622 December 2, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN LANSANAS

    082 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. L-1687 December 2, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO DEDAL, ET AL.

    082 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-1804 December 2, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO VERGARA

    082 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-2581 December 2, 1948 - FIDEL C. QUERUBIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

    082 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. 120348 December 3, 1948 - In re PARAZO

    082 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1764 December 9, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELO MAGSILANG

    082 Phil 271

  • G.R. Nos. L-2147 & 2148 December 9, 1948 - IGNACIO M. COINGCO v. ROBERTA FLORES

    082 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-2658 December 9, 1948 - EPIFANIO BARADI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    082 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-2503 December 10, 1948 - CRESENCIO RUBEN TOLENTINO v. CESARIO CATOY

    082 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1959 December 13, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GONZALES

    082 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. L-1333 December 14, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN HERNANA, ET AL.

    082 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1727 December 14, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO HOFILEÑA

    082 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. L-1774 December 14, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO ORDONIO

    082 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-1813 December 14, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHI. v. DELFIN GALLEGO

    082 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. L-1894 December 14, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO JOSE

    082 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-2061 December 14, 1948 - DOMINGO B. MADDUMBA v. ROMAN OZAETA

    082 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 49155 December 14, 1948 - JUAN CASTRO v. ACRO TAXICAB CO.

    082 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-2204 December 15, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DE LA CRUZ

    082 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-2118 December 16, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO BARRERA

    082 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-604 December 17, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO ARIBAS

    082 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. L-1908 December 17, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIVENCIO CELESPARA

    082 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. L-2211 December 20, 1948 - NATIVIDAD I. VDA. DE ROXAS v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    082 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. L-1702 December 21, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO RONDA

    082 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-1703 December 21, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

    082 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-1845 December 21, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS CARAOS

    082 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-1701 December 22, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ESQUIVEL, ET AL.

    082 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. L-1775 December 22, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIMBAL KALI

    082 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-1961 December 22, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO DE LOS REYES

    082 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-1963 December 22, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO QUINTO, ET AL.

    082 Phil 467

  • G.R. Nos. L-1710 & L-1711 December 23, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO MANABAT ET AL.

    082 Phil 471

  • G. .R. No. L-2055 December 24, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO CANASTRE

    082 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. L-1652 December 29, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN SUAREZ ET AL.

    082 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-1798 December 29, 1948 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO ACUSAR ET AL.

    082 Phil 490