THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO MINTU, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The trial court found appellant Lorenzo Mintu guilty of the
crime of robbery with rape and sentenced him to twenty years of reclusion
temporal and to pay jointly and severally with his co-accused Fernando
Masikap the offended party in the sum of P270, value of the articles taken.

There is no question that on September 2, 1946, at about 10
o’clock in the evening, four persons, one armed with a pistol and the others
with rifles, entered the house of Andres Zabala in Mulawin, Tanza, Cavite, and
took and carried away with them several pieces of clothes, jewelry and other
personal effects valued in all at P270. While the robbery was being perpetrated,
one of the robbers, Fernando Masikap, raped Maria Zabal, 22, married with German
Gimenez, daughter of the owner of the house, Andres Zabala, although the rape
was committed without the assistance of the other malefactors.

The main question raised by appellant Lorenzo Mintu is whether
or not he has been sufficiently identified as one of the malefactors. After a
careful weighing of the testimonies on record, we are satisfied that Andres and
Maria Zabala, witnesses for the prosecution, have sufficiently identified
appellant as one of the robbers. Mintu was known to Maria Zabala before the
crime was committed because she used to see him pass by a small store she had
when she was still single. At the time the robbery was being committed, there
was light in the house, and the robbrs did not cover their faces or took any
other precaution to avoid their being identified by the dwellers.

It is true that when Andres Zabala went the next morning to the
authorities to denounce the robbery he was unable to mention the name of Mintu,
but this failure is explained by the fact that he did not know then the name of
the accused. It is also true that Mayor Eustaquio V. Arayata testified that on
September 3, 1946, when Andres Zabala reported to him the robbery and he asked
him as to the identity of the robbers, Zabala said that he did not know them,
but his answer can easily be interpreted as menaing that Andres Zabala did not
know the names of the robbers with the exception of one Pando, with whom he used
to know accused Fernando Masikap.

Furthermore, when appellant was already arrested he was pointed
out by Andres and Maria Zabala as among the robbers, and Mintu chose to keep
silent when he could then express his protest if he was not one of the
robbers.

Through his own testimony and that of Marcelino Buctong, Mintu
tried to show that, in the night when the robbery was being committed, he was at
his home attending to his wife who was then suffering stomach-ache. To cure her
he solicited the services of Marcelino Buctong. We found no merit in the alibi.
According to Marcelino Buctong he has been called may times to treat Mintu’s
wife, but the only date that he could specify in going ot Minut’s house for the
purpose is that the night of September 2, 1946, and no valid reason was given by
him for not remembering anyone of the other dates. On the other side, there is
absolutely no showing on record why Andres and Maria Zabala should have accused
appellant falsely as one of the robbers.

The appealed decision is in accordance with law, paragraph 2 of
article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and is affirmed with costs against
appellant.

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