THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUANITO NAPILI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This case is before Us by appeal from the judgment rendered by the Court of
First Instance of Sorsogon which found Juanito Napili guilty of robbery with
rape and Crisostomo Napili of rape. Upon an information which charged them with
robbery in band with rape, said court sentenced Juanito Napili to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from a minimum of 8 years and 1 day of prision
mayor to a maximum of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal, with the accessories of the law, to indemnify Salud Levantino in
the sum of P500.00, to acknowledge and maintain the offspring, should there be
any, and to pay his share of the costs; and likewise sentenced Crisostomo Napili
to an indeterminate penalty of from 4 months of arresto mayor to 3
years, 8 months and 1 day of prision correccional, with the accessories
of the law. Both defendants were likewise sentenced to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the offended parties Pedro Levantino and the members of his family in
the sum of P653.85 and in case of insolvency on the part of Crisostomo Napili to
undergo the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, and also to pay his share of
the costs.

The information accused Raymundo Trifolca, Silvino Peñarubia,
Juanito Napili, Crisostomo Napili, Gabino Napili, Basilio Napili and Dioscoro
Llanillo of the crime charged, in that on the 24th day of May, 1946 in the
municipality of Magallanes, province of Sorsogon, said accused armed with
rifles, revolvers and bolos, entered the house of Pedro Levantino and with
intent to gain through violence and intimidation, by binding the hands of Pedro
Levantino and the other occupants of the house, namely, Salud Levantino, Emilia
Levantino, Flora Levantino, Roger Levantino, Jaime Grutas, boxing and kicking
them, took and carried away personal property consisting of wearing apparel,
pieces of jewelry, a flashlight and a bolo and cash, all totalling P653.85,
belonging to Pedro Levantino and his family, and that by using force and threat
to kill, some of the accused had sexual intercourse with Salud Levantino, Flora
Levantino and Lory Levantino against their will.

At the hearing and on
motion of the prosecution, the court dismissed the case against Raymundo
Trifolca, because the latter escaped from his guards when he was being conducted
from the insular penitentiary in Muntinglupa, Rizal, to Sorsogon for trial, and
has not been recaptured. Two other accused, Silvino Penarubia and Dioscoro
Llanillo, have never been arrested and are still at large, and finally, after
the submission of the evidence for the prosecution, the fiscal moved that the
charge against Gabino Napili and Basilio Napili be dismissed on account of the
insufficiency of the evidence. The court granted said petition. There were,
therefore, only two accused, Juanito Napili and Crisostomo Napili, who have been
found guilty of the charge and sentenced as already stated. Of these two, only
Juanito Napili has appealed.

From our survey of the evidence We find that
after dusk, or around seven o’clock in the evening of May 24, 1946, several
armed persons called at the house of Pedro Levantino in the barrio of Pawik,
municipality of Magallanes, Sorsogon and from a distance one of them shouted
that they wanted to buy cigarettes. Pedro Levantino, without suspecting that
those persons were up to some mischief, opened the kitchen of his house and met
his callers to deliver the cigarettes. One member of the group, on the pretext
that he -wanted some water to drink, went up the house followed by his
companions. Once inside, the intruders ordered Levantino to raise his hands and
then brought him to the parlor, blindfolded him and bound his hands behind his
back. The accused proceeded immediately to ransack the place by opening trunks
and other furniture from which they got the personal properties described and
enumerated in the information, the value of which has been estimated, without
objection from the defense, at P653.85.

While members of the gang were
ransacking the house, Salud Levantino, Flora Levantino, Roger Levantino and
Emilia Levantino, children of Pedro Levantino, and one Jaime Grutas who was a
helper of Pedro Levantino in his copra business, arrived from a neighboring
barrio where they attended a Santa Cruz de Mayo celebration. Entirely
unaware of what was going on in their home, they entered the house to be met by
the robbers who ordered them to raise their hands. The hands of Salud, Flora and
Emilia were immediately bound and, together with another sister, Lory Levantino,
who did not attend the celebration of the Santa Cruz de Mayo, they were
herded into a room and with a rope were bound to a bed. In the meantime, Pedro
Levantino was brought down from the house and taken to a shack in the yard where
he was kept under guard. Jaime Grutas was also directed to come down, to the
ground floor and there kept isolated from the rest. The girls, Salud, Flora and
Lory, were then ordered to the ground floor and by means of force and
intimidation individually ravished, with this appellant, Juanito Napill, taking
charge and raping Salud Levantino. Flora Levantino, as the result of the brutal
outrage committed on her by one of the robbers, became pregnant and subsequently
gave birth to a child.

After satisfying their lewd desires, the accused,
including this appellant, left the scene of their crime carrying away with them
their loot in a sack. While the robbery and ravaging of the girls were being
perpetrated, the victims were able to recognize only Juanito Napili, this
appellant, and Crisostomo Napili. Juanito Napili was identified not only by
Salud Levantino but also by Lory Levantino; and Crisostomo, by virtue of the
fact that he was previously known to the Levantino family and was identified as
one of the robbers by Jaime Grutas, Salud Levantino and Pedro
Levantino.

The defense did not deny that in the evening of May 24, 1946
the house of Pedro Levantino in the barrio of Pawik, Magallanes, Sorsogon, was
visited by a gang of men who took away by force and intimidation cash and
personal belongings of Levantino and his family. It also admitted that some
members of the gang raped Salud, Lory and Flora Levantino. Counsel for appellant
in this instance questions, however, the finding of the lower court regarding
the identification of Juanito Napili as one of the robbers who raped Salud
Levantino, by contending that it has not been sufficiently established by the
prosecution. Counsel likewise insists that the lower court should have favorably
considered the alibi alleged by his client.

On the witness stand, Salud
Levantino, one of the victims of the outrage, without hesitation identified
Juanito Napili as the robber who raped her that night. She said that appellant brought her down to the ground floor and by threatening her with a dagger was
able to have carnal knowledge of her. She stated that she did not forget his
features and his face on the night in question. That he is thin, with curly hair
and of small structure. Upon the arrest of Crisostomo, Basilio and Juanito
Napili, the chief of police of Magallanes, requeued her to point out among the
three persons lined up before her, the one who had raped her, and she pointed
out the appellant. According to the offended party there was moonlight on the
evening in question which helped her to identify the appellant. Moreover,
according to the evidence, although the leader of the gang had ordered Pedro
Levantino to put out the light in the house, one of the malefactors was using
quite frequently a flashlight, the glare of which helped Salud Levantino in the
identification of this appellant.

The other victim, Lory Levantino,
corroborating her sister, testified that Salud Levantino was brought down to the
ground floor by appellant and there she was ravished by Juanito Napili. Salud
and Lory frankly stated that they were not able to identify the other accused,
but they were positive as to their identification of this appellant.

So
much for this point. As regards the alleged alibi of appellant, the latter would
make the court believe that, at the time of the commission of the crime, he was
in the municipality of Castilla, of the province of Sorsogon, saving logs in the
homestead of Melecio Llanillo and. that, therefore, it was physically impossible
for him to have been in the scene of the crime, in the municipality of
Magallanes, at the time of its commission.

As properly remarked by the
lower court, the municipality of Castilla is separated from that of Magallanes
by the Sorsogon Bay, which is a rather small body of water which can be crossed
in a few hours ride by boat from Castilla to Magallanes and vice-versa. Granting
that Juanito Napili was employed in the homestead of Melecio Llanillo in the
municipality of Castilla, the trial judge said that it was not physically
impossible for him to have crossed the bay of Sorsogon, joined his confederates
in the commission of the complex crime charged and of which he was convicted,
and afterwards returned to Castilla by crossing the bay of Sorsogon. Paulino
Dondonilla, who was put on the witness stand by the defense to prove the alleged
alibi of Juanito Napili, testified that he was present when this appellant was
arrested by the military police, and yet he kept silent and withheld from the
officers of the law the supposed presence in Castilla of Juanito Napili
precisely at the time when the house of Pedro Levantino was being robbed by a
gang of malefactors of which Napili was identified as one of its active members.
We are, therefore, satisfied that the evidence presented by appellant to prove
his alibi is incredible (People vs. Badilla, 48 Phil., 718) and his
identification “by the offended parties being so clear and positive his alibi is
rejected. (People vs. Palamos, 49 Phil., 601; People vs.
Medina, 49 Phil., 313.)

Finally, counsel for appellant contends that the
latter was wrongly convicted of the complex crime of robbery with rape because
there is no specific allegation contained in the information, regarding the
commission of the crime of rape, but the wording of the last paragraph of the
information is so manifestly clear that We are convinced that the lower court
did not err in convicting this appellant of said complex crime. The information
says in parts:

“* * * and then two of the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously by use of force and threat to kill, have sexual
intercourse with said Salud Levantino, Flor Levantino and Lory Levantino
against their will.”

We shall now turn our attention to the circumstances which accompanied the
commission of the offense. Those are (1) the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime (Art. 14, par. 6, Rev. Penal Code), for the record shows that it was
already dark when the robbers intruded in the house of Pedro Levantino, so much
so that one of the members of the gang was using a flashlight frequently during
the ransacking of the house (People vs. Aquino, 39 Off.Gaz., No. 74,
page 1799); (2) the aggravating circumstance of craft as provided in paragraph
14 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, as it has been shown that in order
to enter the house of Pedro Levantino, one of the malefactors shouted from the
outside that they wanted to buy cigarettes, which induced Pedro Levantino to
open the kitchen for them, and that one of them said that they wanted to drink
some water which also paved the way for their intrusion in the house of the
offended parties (U. S. vs. Gampoña, 30 Phil., 817; People vs.
Daos, 60 Phil., 143); and (3) the commission of the offense in the dwelling of
the offended parties (People vs. Collado, 60 Phil.,
610).

Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
which punishes robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, “the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to recluslon
perpetua” shall be inflicted upon the culprit, “when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape, * * *.” Said penalty is reclusion temporal in
its medium period to reclusion perpetua and consists of three periods
the maximum of which is reclusion perpetua. and in view of the presence
of three aggravating circumstances in the commission by this appellant of the
offense of which he is hereby found guilty, without any mitigating circumstance
to offset the same, the penalty which is hereby imposed upon him is that of
reclusion perpetua with the corresponding accessories.

With the
above stated modification, and it being understood that appellant shall return
to the offended parties the property stolen and in case of failure to do so
shall reimburse the value thereof, the judgment appealed from is otherwise
affirmed, with costs.

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