G.R. No. L-1029. August 23, 1949
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO RAMOS Y LINAO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
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 Atty. 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 for darkness except 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 hy 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.
[1] See 79 Phil., 612.