ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1029   August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS<br /><br />084 Phil 326

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-1029. August 23, 1949. ] 1

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO RAMOS Y LINAO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Damian L. Jimenez for Appellant.

    Assistant Solicitor General Manuel P. Barcelona and Acting Solicitor Pedro Ocampo for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL LAW; ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE WITH DOUBLE RAPE; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES CONTRADICTIONS. — Unsubstantial contradictions incurred in by witnesses which can easily be explained, do not affect their credibility nor the weight of their testimonies.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT AS TO CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. — As a general rule the findings of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses, will not be disturbed by the appellate court.


    D E C I S I O N


    MONTEMAYOR, J.:


    In the Court of First Instance of Manila, Reynaldo Ramos y Linao was charged with the crime of "robbery in an inhabited house by means of force against and intimidation of persons with double rape," found guilty thereof and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the offended parties in the sum of P2,380, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which later endorsed the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of section 145-K of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by section 2 of Republic Act No. 52, it being of the opinion that the penalty which should be imposed in the case should be reclusion perpetua as recommended by the Solicitor General and not of reclusion temporal as imposed by the lower court.

    The evidence in the record in our opinion conclusively establishes the following facts: On April 5, 1946, about midnight, four men each armed with a revolver broke into the house at 1432 Balintawak, Palomar, Manila, occupied by Atty. Filomeno Lerias, his wife and children and two cousins-in-law Lolita Abainza and her sister Marcela Abainza by forcing open the backdoor. At the time an electric light was burning in the middle of the room where the occupants of the house were sleeping. The first thing the occupants knew upon being awakened from their sleep, the four robbers were pointing their revolvers at them and threatening them with death if they made any resistance or outcry. They were herded in one corner of the room guarded by one of the robbers while his companions ransacked the house, their efforts resulting in a total loot amounting to P2,380, including cash of P1,100 and jewelry, silverware, watches, dresses and linen, valued at P1,280, all belonging to Atty. Filomeno Lerias and members of his household. After gathering the plunder the robbers put out the electric light and two of them pulled and dragged Lolita to one corner of the room and raped her. The two other robbers repeating the process, dragged Marcela to another corner and also ravished her, the sexual intercourses being accomplished against the will of both women and through force and intimidation. Only one of the robbers, the present defendant herein was identified, his identification having been made later by Attorney Lerias at the police station after the appellant’s arrest. Although many suspects were shown to him, Lerias picked out only Reynaldo Ramos as one of the robbers and as one of the malefactors who took his turn in raping Marcela Abainza.

    The appellant put up the defense of alibi but in a quite weak and ineffective manner, and to show that the prosecution did not consider his short testimony of any value, it did not even cross-examine him. When asked by his counsel where he was on April 5, 1946, that is, the day of the robbery, he said that he did not remember. Later, he added that he did not know anything about the robbery and rape of which he was accused. He also claims in his testimony that he could not have committed the crime of rape imputed to him because he was incapable of sexual intercourse as his private organ was not complete. His counsel now who seems to be the same lawyer who represented him at the trial claims in his brief that he repeatedly asked the lower court to have the defendant physically examined, especially his private parts to support his claim that he was physically incapable of sexual intercourse but that the trial judge persistently refused to accede to his request. The record however, fails to show this supposed motion or request of counsel for the defendant or the alleged refusal of the court to permit the physical examination of the accused. Besides, Marcela assured the Court that the two men who dragged her to one corner or room succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her, the first man taking about thirty minutes to satisfy his lust and the second man employing about fifteen minutes to consummate the sexual act. True, Marcela was unable to recognize her ravishers, but Lerias positively identified the appellant as one of them.

    As to the alleged contradictions supposedly incurred in by the witnesses for the prosecution, claimed by counsel for the appellant, we agree with the Solicitor General that they are unsubstantial and do not affect the credibility of such witnesses nor the weight to be attached to their testimonies, and they can easily be explained. For instance, while Lerias told the court that the robbery was committed about 1 o’clock in the morning, Lolita and Marcela said that it was about 10 o’clock in the evening. Unless these witnesses looked at their watches if they had any, to tell the time, which in their panic and excitement they could not probably have done, they could honestly disagree as to the exact hour the robbers broke into their house. While Lerias said that he distinctly saw Marcela being ravished by at least one of the robbers, Marcela told the court that only her two ravishers witnessed the brutal act and that Lerias was not present. Considering the fact that the rape of the two women was accomplished after the electric light was put out by the robbers and that the house must have been in total darkness except for the occasional flashes of the flashlights of the robbers, Marcela may have been mistaken in saying that Lerias was not anywhere near her when she was ravished in order to witness the ravishment. As to the credibility of the witnesses, we find nothing in the record to justify our disturbing the credit given by the lower court to the witnesses for the prosecution and its failure to believe the testimony of the appellant. On the contrary, the fact that only Lerias claims to have been able to identify the appellant herein and that Marcela and Lolita who could easily have told the court without fear of possible contradiction that they also recognized the appellant in order to insure his conviction, frankly told the court that they did not recognize any of the four malefactors, strengthens our conviction that the prosecution witnesses were truthful and sincere.

    We agree with the trial court in its finding the appellant guilty of the crime charged against him. We, however, disagree as to the penalty imposed. As correctly recommended by the Solicitor General, considering the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and in band, the penalty in article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code should be imposed in its maximum degree, namely, reclusion perpetua. With the modification that the prison sentence imposed by the trial court should be raised to reclusion perpetua, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. See 79 Phil., 612

    G.R. No. L-1029   August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS<br /><br />084 Phil 326


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED