THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CESAR LUNETA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. CESAR LUNETA, APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Capiz finding the appellant, Cesar Luneta, guilty of robbery with rape,
and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term ranging from 8 years
and 1 day to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, to indemnify the offended
spouses, Leon Gonzales and Segunda Fuentes, in the sum of P375, with the
accessories of the law, and to pay one-half of the costs.

At about three o’clock in the afternoon of January 5, 1946, while
Leon Gonzales and his wife Segunda Fuentes were walking along an
uninhabited place in the sitio of Mahayag, barrio of Malocloc,
municipality of Ivisan, Province of Capiz, they were stopped by the
appellant and one Dominador who is still at large. The appellant and his
companion were both armed with revolvers and represented themselves as
MP soldiers. Leon Gonzales was asked whether he was an army man to which
he answered in the negative, whereupon appellant’s companion gave him a
fist blow on the stomach and another blow with his revolver. In the
meantime the appellant was an onlooker with his revolver pointed at the
spouses. Dominador ordered Leon and his wife to take off their clothes, a
command which was obeyed. Dominador thereupon asked the appellant to
take away and kill Leon Gonzales, and after the two had gone, Dominador,
by means of force, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Segunda
Fuentes. Leon Gonzales, however, was able to escape from the appellant
who then returned to the place where Dominador and Segunda Fuentes were.
Upon learning that Leon Gonzales had fled, Dominador went to look for
him, whereupon the appellant, left alone with Segunda Fuentes, and also
by means of force, succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the
woman. The appellant and Dominador thereafter left the scene, carrying
with them the clothes of Leon Gonzales and Segunda Fuentes and several
other articles having a total value of P375. The spouses did not meet
each other again until the next day and, in their scanty clothes, they
proceeded to the municipality of Ivisan and reported the incident to the
chief of police. Accompanied by the latter and two policemen, the
spouses went around in the hope of meeting their assailants. The search
proved to be successful, as they were able to recognize the appellant in
the house of a lady doctor. Thus identified, the chief of police
arrested and investigated him. Appellant’s defense consisted of a denial
and of the allegation that he was on the day in question in the house
of his relative in the municipality of Ivisan.

We have no hesitancy in concluding that the appellant
committed the offense for which he was sentenced in the appealed
judgment. The promptness with which the offended spouses reported the
incident to the authorities, and the short interval between the time of
the commission of the offense and the time when said spouses identified
the appellant, readily lead us to the belief that they were not
concocting an imaginary story. They would not, to say the least,
complain of acts that would bring disgrace on their honor, and
considering the facts that the offense was committed in full daylight
and that the outrage lasted long enough for the appellant and his
companion to have left a good impression of their identity, said spouses
could not have possibly made a mistake in recognizing the appellant. It
is noteworthy that there is absolutely no showing that the offended
spouses could have any motive for testifying falsely against the
appellant. Upon the other hand, their testimony coincides essentially
with their statements before the chief of police, a circumstance lending
force to the theory of the prosecution. Much less could the chief of
police have any reason for incriminating the appellant who admitted
before said officer that the wound on appellant’s forehead resulted from
a quarrel with his companion over the division of the spoils. At any
rate, we are not inclined to disregard the advantage of the trial judge
in hearing and seeing the witnesses for both sides testify.

Contrary to the contention of appellant’s counsel de oficio, the weight
of the evidence for the prosecution has not been adversely affected,
much less overcome, by the circumstance that the offended woman did not
submit herself to a physical examination and that her soiled chemise was
not presented in evidence. While said details are useful, they are not
essential, especially where, as in this case, there is already
sufficient evidence establishing appellant’s guilt.

We cannot,
however, agree with the Solicitor General in his contention that the
offense is aggravated by the circumstance that it was committed in an
uninhabited place, because it has not been proved that the appellant and
his companion purposely chose said place as an aid either to an easy
and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs or to a surer
concealment of the offense. (U. S. vs. Vitug, 17 Phil., 1.) On
the contrary, it is not improbable that the offended parties were
casually encountered, there being no evidence that the accused had
previously sought the former for any purpose whatsoever (U. S. vs. Vitug, supra), or that said offended parties were known by the accused to be habitual travelers in that vicinity.

The offense committed is robbery with rape and penalized under article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, said
penalty should be imposed in its medium degree, or from 17 years, 4
months and 1 day to 20 years. The maximum of the indeterminate sentence
imposed by the trial court is below this range.

It being understood, therefore, that the appellant shall
suffer an indeterminate prison term carrying a maximum of 17 years, 4
months and 1 day, reclusion temporal, the appealed judgment is in all other respects affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

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