PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EFRENIANO BALANE, ALIAS EFREN, ROMEO GIBA, ERIBERTO GIBA, ALIAS BERTING AND INOCENTES BALANE (AT LARGE), ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

“WHEREFORE, the Court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused Efreniano Balane, Eriberto Giba and Romeo Giba in Criminal Case No.
411, for ‘Robbery with Multiple Rape’, and the guilt of the accused Inocentes
Balane and Efreniano Balane for ‘Rape with Homicide’ and of Eriberto Giba and
Romeo Giba for Murder, in conspiracy with the accused Inocentes Balane and
Efreniano Balane, both in Criminal Case No. 412, and hereby renders
judgment:

IN CRIM. CASE NO. 411

[a] Sentencing the accused Efreniano Balane and his co-conspirators Eriberto
Giba and Romeo Giba to DEATH for the crime of Multiple Rape with Robbery
committed by the accused Efreniano Balane; and ordering them to indemnify,
jointly and severally, the offended party Estrella Camo in the amount of Twelve
Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos;

[b] Sentencing the accused Eriberto Giba and his co-conspirators Efreniano
Balane and Romeo Giba to DEATH for the crime of Multiple Rape with Robbery
committed by the accused Eriberto Giba; and ordering them to indemnify, jointly
and severally, the offended party Estrella Camo in the amount of Twelve Thousand
(P12,000.00) Pesos;

[c] Sentencing the accused Romeo Giba and his co-conspirators Efreniano
Balane and Eriberto Giba to DEATH for the crime of Multiple Rape with Robbery
committed by the accused Romeo Giba; and ordering them to indemnify, jointly and
severally, the offended party Estrella Camo in the amount of Twelve Thousand
(P12,000.00) Pesos; and

[d] Ordering the accused Efreniano Balane, Eriberto Giba and Romeo Giba to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the offended party Juan Camo in the amount of
Sixty-Two and 80/100 (P62.80) Pesos for the Robbery committed against the
latter; and in all the foregoing instances, to suffer the accessory penalties
provided by law, and for each of the accused to pay one-third (1/3) of the
costs;

IN CRIM. CASE NO. 412

[a] Sentencing the accused Inocentes Balane and Efreniano Balane to DEATH for
the crime of Rape with Homicide and ordering them to indemnify Adelina Sambajon,
jointly and severally, in the sum of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos for the
crime of Rape committed against her; and

[b] Sentencing the accused Eriberto Giba and Romeo Giba to Death for the
Murder of Noli Grajo and ordering them to indemnify the heirs of the aforesaid
victim in the amount of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos jointly and severally
with the accused Inocentes Balane and Efreniano Balane; and in both of the
foregoing instances, to suffer the accessory penalties provided by law, and for
each of the accused to pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs.”

The amended information in Criminal Case No. 411 charged the accused as
follows:

“That on or about the 10th day of April, 1974, in the barrio of Dolos,
Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the said accused conspiring, confederating
and mutually helping one another and armed with bolos and with intent of gain
and by means of violence and intimidation did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away from JUAN CAMO the amount
of P61.80 Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of JUAN CAMO in the
aforesaid amount; and on the occasion of the said robbery the above-named three
accused, with lewd designs and by means of violence and intimidation did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse, one
after the other, with ESTRELLA CAMO DAUGHTER OF JUAN CAMO AGAINST her will and
without her consent.”

The information in Criminal Case No. 412 reads:

“That on or about the 10th day of April, 1974, in the Municipality of Bulan,
Province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together and mutually
helping one another and armed with bolos and by means of violence and
intimidation upon persons did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously broke [sic] into the house of one NOLI GRAJO and with intent of gain
take, steal and carry away cash money in the amount of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency, without the consent of the owner thereof, NOLI
GRAJO, and to his damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount; and on the
occasion of the said robbery the above-named accused likewise conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another and with intent to kill and with
treachery and evident premeditation did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously hack NOLI GRAJO inflicting upon him various injuries on different
parts of his body which injuries caused his instant death; and likewise on the
same occasion the above-named accused conspiring, confederating together did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and
intimidation have sexual intercourse with ADELINA SAMBAJON wife of the deceased
NOLI GRAJO against her will and without her consent.”

The crimes covered by the two informations were committed by the same group
of persons, in the same locality, and on the same date, one offense after the
other.

The prosecution presented evidence separately for each case but the defense
chose to submit its evidence jointly. The trial court rendered one decision for
the two cases. The accused-appellants in the two cases filed a joint brief.

In Criminal Case No. 411, the facts established by the prosecution and
synthesized in the People’s brief are as follows:

“At about 9:00 o’clock in the evening of April 10, 1974, Juan Camo, his wife
Socorro Camposano, their five children and his mother-in-law were already asleep
in their house in the barrio of Dolos, Bulan, Sorsogon, when he was awakened by
a loud pounding on their door. As he was afraid, he did not immediately open the
door. However, there followed another pounding on the door with a threat to kill
him and so he got up despite the efforts of his wife to restrain him. When he
opened the door, Efreniano Balane pulled him outside to the porch where Berting
Giba also was. Efreniano was wearing a black veil over his mouth, but he
recognized him from the light coming from the gas lamp hanging on the rafter
over the place where Juan Camo was sleeping. Besides, the veil of Efreniano was
very thin, and Juan had known him since the latter’s childhood, they being from
the same barrio. Efreniano demanded money from him and when he said he had no
money, he was threatened to be killed. Seeing that both Efren and Berting were
carrying what seemed to be long weapons wrapped in sack, Juan went inside, to
the room where his mother-in-law and daughters were, to get the money. On his
way to the room, he saw Romeo Giba already inside, having passed through the
window, also holding an elongated object wrapped in a sack and pointing the same
at his wife. Juan opened the trunk and get out his money amounting to P40.00 as
well as the piggy-bank of his mother-in-law, which when opened yielded P22.80.
After the money was counted, Efren and Romeo made a grab for it with both
succeeding in getting something from the pile. Eriberto stood guard.

“After having gotten the money, Efren caught sight of Estrella, 16-year old
daughter of Socorro by a former husband, and dragged her downstairs with the
help of Romeo. Her mother pleaded to them not to touch her because she was sick.
Romeo answered that they just wanted to relieve themselves, using the Tagalog
words ‘maparaos kami’. Estrella was brought by Efren and Romeo to the back of
the house at the edge of the yard where abaca plants begin to grow. Efren struck
Estrella when she offered resistance, as a result, she fell on the ground.
Afterwhich, Efren laid himself on top of her after removing her panty and
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. At that time, Romeo and Eriberto
guarded Juan and the family. After raping Estrella, Efren went back to the
house, whereupon Romeo came down and went to where Estrella was and succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her despite her pleadings to spare her. After
Romeo was through, he went back to the house. Then Eriberto came down and took
his turn in raping Estrella. In all these attacks on Estrella, she protested and
begged to be spared, even offering resistance, but to no avail. Her mother heard
her cry for help. After Eriberto was through raping her, he no longer went back
to the house and the three accused left without saying any word.

“Soon afterwards, Estrella came back to the house and crying, she narrated
the abuse committed on her by Efren, Romeo and Eriberto. On examination by
Municipal Health Officer Gloria C. de Vera of Bulan, her findings were as
follows:

‘1. Pubic hair scanty

‘2. Contusion of both labia majora and minora

‘3. New laceration of the hymen at 3, 7, 9 and 12 o’clock.’

“As testified to by Dr. De Vera, the lacerations were new because they were
still oozing with blood. These lacerations, according to the doctor, would have
been due to the entrance of any hard instrument thru the hymen, which in her
opinion could have been the penis of a man. (tsn., Sept. 10, 1974; tsn., Sept.
13, 1974, pp. 2-4; tsn., Sept. 19, 1974).”

In Criminal Case No. 412, the facts established by the prosecution and
synthesized in the People’s brief are as follows:

“At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of April 10, 1974, Adelina Sambajon,
her husband Noli Grajo and their four children were already resting for the
night. When they were about to sleep, Inocentes Balane and Efreniano Balane
suddenly entered their house, the door thereof consisting merely of a mat, with
each carrying and pointing something wrapped in a piece of cloth at Noli. They
said, ‘Mr. ‘wag kang kikilos pagkat kung kikilos kayo babarilin kita.’ Inocentes
face was covered with a thin black veil, while Efreniano’s was covered by a
handkerchief from his nose down. Adelina recognized them because of the light
coming from their gas lamp and their faces were only partially covered. Besides
she knew them well even before. Inocentes then brought Noli to the ground. When
she peeped out of the room, Adelina saw others, whose faces were covered with a
cloth from the nose down, but whom she recognized as Romeo Giba and Berting
Giba, as it was full moon. Inocentes ordered Romeo to tie up Noli. Then
Inocentes and Efreniano went back to the house and Inocentes told her in
Tagalog, ‘Mrs. bigyan mo ako ng isang bagay, kung hindi ay papatayin kita’. She
understood what he meant and refused, telling him he was not her husband, but he
pushed her on the shoulder causing her to fall. Inocentes pressed her arm down
with the weapon he was carrying, spreading out her arms so she could not move,
while Efreniano held her feet. In this position, Inocentes succeeded in removing
her panty and having sexual intercourse with her. After he was through,
Inocentes went to where their trunk was and got their money amounting to
P1,000.00 which they had accumulated from the sale of a pig and abaca. After
getting the money, Inocentes and Efreniano went down and proceeded to kill her
husband. She heard sounds like thuds coming from about three armlengths from the
stair­way. She peeped through the wall and saw the four accused attacking Noli.
She then lifted a floor board which was not nailed down, crept under the house
and ran to the nearby house of her parents-in-law. Upon reaching the latter’s
house, she told Noli’s father, Luis Grajo, to get up because Noli has been tied
up and was being killed. Luis immediately went to his son’s house, together with
his wife Soledad, followed by Adelina. When they reached the house, they found
the accused no longer there, and the children crying. So they all returned to
Luis’ house and spent the rest of the night there. Next morning, accompanied by
Noli’s uncle Inggo, they returned to look for Noli and Adelina found his dead
body in the thicket about 20 armlengths away from the house. After which, she
and her mother-in-law went to the poblacion to inform the police about the
incident. The cadaver was later brought to the town and
examined.”

The necropsy report of Dr. Gloria C. De Vera (Exhibit “A”) contained the
following findings:

“1. Incised wound 8 inches long, semi-lunar in shape, cutting temporal region
of the scalp, skull and muscles of right neck, brain tissue protruding.

“2. Incised wound 4 inches long cutting right elbow joint;

“3. Stab wound 1-1/2 inches wide right supra clavicular region;

“4. Incised wound 5 inches long right lateral neck cutting muscles and big
blood vessels;

“5. Multiple incised wounds numbering three (3) at posterior portion of right
hand and lower 3rd of right forearm;

“6. Incised wound cutting left small finger, right finger and middle
finger.

CAUSE OF DEATH—Hemorrhage severe secondary to multiple stab
wounds.”

On the other hand, the accused-appellants in their joint brief presented
their own versions of the facts:

“On April 10, 1974, at around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon in Barrio Dolos,
Bulan Sorsogon, accused-appellant Efreniano Balane, on his way home from work,
dropped by at the store of Jaime Borromeo to buy some cigarettes. The said
accused-appellant was invited for a drink of a bottle of sio hoc tong
by accused-appellant Inocentes Balane. Accused-appellant Efreniano Balane
obliged and drunk with Inocentes. The said two accused-appellants also invited
accused-appellants Romeo Giba and Eriberto Giba, who were likewise on their way
home from work and who dropped by the said store to buy some cigarettes.
(t.s.n., August 20, 1975, p. 5)

“At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, accused-appellants Romeo and Eriberto
Giba, who are brothers, excused themselves from the company of the Balanes and
proceeded home. Accused-appellant Inocentes Balane proceeded to one of the
hills. Accused-appellant Efreniano Balane followed him (Inocentes) because he
knew that accused-appellant Inocentes Balane was going to visit his girlfriend,
complaining witness Adelina Sambajon, on invitation from the latter, as was
related to him earlier on that evening by accused-appellant Inocentes Balane.
(t.s.n., August 18, 1975, p. 15). Previous to this evening, at least on two
occasions, accused-appellant Efreniano Balane was invited by accused-appellant
Inocentes Balane to watch the latter and his girlfriend, complaining witness
Adelina Sambajon, have carnal relationship. (t.s.n., August 18, 1975, p. 28).
When the two accused-appellants (Efreniano and Inocentes) reached the house of
Noli Grajo, common-law husband of complaining witness Adelina Sambajon (also the
girlfriend of accused-appellant Inocentes Balane), accused-appellant Inocentes
Balane requested accused-appellant Efreniano Balane to hide, while
accused-appellant Inocentes Balane went to the door. At this juncture,
complaining witness Adelina Sambajon was pushed out of the house by common-law
husband Noli Grajo and she fell on the ground, Noli Grajo was very angry.

“Q. Now, while Noli Grajo was pushing Adelina Sambajon out of the house, what
else happened?

“A. Then, Noli Grajo said, ‘So, you are here, traitor.’

“Q. To whom was he referring?

“A. To Inocentes Balane.’ (t.s.n., August 18, 1975, p. 17).

“Considering that Noli Grajo was at the peak of his anger, accused-appellant
Inocentes Balane ran away but Noli Grajo pursued him. When accused-appellant
Inocentes Balane was already at a distance, he warned Noli Grajo not to come
near because he (Inocentes Balane) was armed with a bolo. Despite the warning,
Noli Grajo continued to pursue him. Later, they hacked each other with their
bolos. As a result, Noli Grajo lay prostrate on the ground.

“In the meantime, accused-appellant Efreniano Balane ran home. While he was
running about 300 meters away already, he heard that complaining witness Adelina
Sambajon shouted that her husband was killed.

“Q. Will you quote exactly what Adelina was shouting?

“A. Acoderi man comi coy pinatay an asawa co’. (Please help us because my
husband had been killed).’ (t.s.n., August 18, 1975, p. 37).

Upon reaching home, accused-appellant Efreniano Balane told his father,
Liberato Balane, that accused-appellant Inocentes killed the son of Luis Grajo.
His father advised him to return to the poblacion the following
morning, where he was arrested at about 11:30 o’clock by members of the Bulan
Police Department.

“At around 6:00 o’clock in the morning of April 11, 1975, accused-appellant
Inocentes Balane likewise went to the house of Liberato Balane (father of
accused-appellant Efreniano), and confessed to him that he killed Noli Grajo, so
Liberato Balane advised Inocentes Balane to surrender. Accused-appellant
Inocentes Balane was also arrested in the poblacion and he implicated
all the other three accused-appellants Efreniano Balane (who was arrested after
Inocentes), Eriberto and Romeo Giba (who were likewise arrested on that same
afternoon) for the robbery case committed.’ . . .”

After trial on the merits and submission of respective memoranda by both the
prosecution and defense, on December 16, 1975, the trial court rendered the
decision with the judgments earlier mentioned.

Accused-appellants now alleged:

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION
WITNESS ADELINA SAMBAJON IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 412.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME
CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 412 WHERE THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION IS NOT
ONLY CLOUDY AND UNCERTAIN, BUT VERY INSUFFICIENT.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS, EXHIBITS
‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ AND ‘F’ OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS WERE VOLUNTARILY MADE.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 411 ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR GUILT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

The first and second assignments of errors being intertwined may be discussed
jointly.

In finding the appellants Inocentes Balane and Eriberto Giba guilty beyond
reasonable doubt with the crime of rape with Homicide in Criminal Case No. 412,
the lower court relied mainly on the testimony of the prosecution’s lone
eyewitness, Adelina Sambajon. She testified to the killing of her husband by the
four appellants herein as well as the rape committed against her by accused
Inocentes Balane with the participation of Efreniano Balane.

The accused-appellants maintain that the testimony of the expert witness Dr.
Gloria C. De Vera, who examined Adelina Sambajon immediately after the alleged
rape, renders doubtful the prosecution’s theory on the alleged rape when she
testified that there was no important finding in the sexual organ of Adelina
Sambajon. The accused-appellants argue that if there was really sexual
intercourse, much more rape, it would be the height of improbability, that
nothing unusual was found, not even a smear of spermatozoa in the vagina of the
victim by the examining physician.

We ruled in People v. Selfaison (1 SCRA 235) that such a defense
lacks merit. This Court stated: “The absence of such spermatozoa, however, does
not necessarily mean that the complainants had not in fact been raped. The very
authority cited states that such absence does not necessarily mean that the girl
subject of examination has not had any sexual intercourse. It need hardly be
said here that in the crime of rape, the slightest penetration is enough.”

Resolving a similar issue in People v. Carandang (52 SCRA 259) and
People v. Ytac (95 SCRA 644) this Court ruled that the absence of
spermatozoa in the vagina is no legal obstacle to holding that rape has been
committed.

As to who are liable for this crime of rape in Criminal Case No. 412, the
lower court ruled:

“The liability for this crime must attach both to Inocentes Balane, who
actually committed it, and to Efreniano Balane who lent cooperation to the
former by holding the feet of Adelina Sambajon while Inocentes was satisfying
his lecherous urge. In a case directly in point it was held that the persons
holding the legs and shoulders of the victim of rape are guilty not merely as
accomplices in the commission of the crime but as co-principals with the one who
actually committed the rape (People vs. Amit, et al., L-30102, February
27, 1971, 37 SCRA 793).” (Rollo, p. 104)

The following testimony of Adelina Sambajon is relevant:

“FISCAL PERALTA:
“Q-	Now, after bringing Noli Grajo to the ground from your house, what happened next?
“A-	Inocentes went up the house again.
“Q-	Inocentes only?
“A-	And also Efreniano.
“Q-	What did they do when they came back?
“A-	Inocentes said to me, ‘Mrs. give me one thing. If you do not, I will kill you.’ and right away pushed me on my shoulder.” (t.s.n., February 5, 1975, p. 12)
. . .                   . . .                   . . .
“FISCAL PERALTA:
“Q-	And what did you feel?
“A-	After my fall and with the pressure applied by Inocentes, he then removed my panties and then he was able to accomplish what he wanted of me.
“Q-	You mean to say that Inocentes had sexual intercourse with you?
“A-	Yes, sir. He really was able to accomplish.
“Q-	What was Efreniano or Efren doing also?
“A-	He was holding on to my feet while Inocentes was on top of me.” (t.s.n., February 5, 1975, p. 13)

The records show convincingly and beyond reasonable doubt that appellant’s
guilt with respect to the crime of rape as charged in Criminal Case No. 412 has
been proved.

With respect to the liability of Romeo and Berting Giba, the following
testimony of Adelina Sambajon is pertinent:

“COURT:
“q	You are sure that only two of these accused went up your house on the evening in question?
“a	Yes, sir.
“q	And these two are …?
“a	Inocentes and Efreniano went up the house.
“q	The other two accused stayed outside of the house and never entered it?
“a	Yes, sir.” (t.s.n., February 19, 1975, p. 5)

This Court agrees that the accused Eriberto and Romeo Giba cannot be held
responsible for the rape committed by Inocentes Balane and Efreniano Balane. The
records show that from the very start, they did not know of the rape which took
place inside the house, nor were they informed that Inocentes Balane and
Efreniano Balane had rape in mind when these two entered the house. Eriberto and
Romeo’s attention was centered on Noli Grajo, whose hands they tied, brought
some distance away from the house, and guarded until Inocentes and Efreniano
came down from the house to join them there.

With respect to the killing of Noli Grajo, the lower court found the
existence of conspiracy between all the four accused sufficiently proven. The
following facts stated by the lower court support this conclusion:

. . .                   . . .                   . . .

“. . . Inocentes Balane and Efreniano Balane entered Noli Grajo’s house, and
with the use of force and intimidation brought Noli outside. Once there,
Inocentes, who appears to be the leader of the group, ordered the two Gibas to
tie up Noli Grajo and guard him. Then, while Inocentes and Efreniano went back
to the house to commit still another reprehensible deed, Romeo and Eriberto,
entirely on their own and without further instructions from their leader, tied
the hands of Noli, brought him some distance away from the house, and stood
guard over him. Shortly thereafter, when Inocentes and Efreniano emerged from
the house, Inocentes commenced the attack on Noli, participated in, according to
Inocentes, by Efreniano and the two brothers.”

. . .                   . . .                   . .
.

Although no previous agreement to kill Noli was evidently proven, the
existence of conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of appellants tending to
show a community of criminal purpose. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct
evidence and may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
committed. As correctly stated by the lower court the rule is that for an
accused to be held liable as conspirator:

. . .                   . . .                   . . .

“. . . it must be established that he performed an overt act in furtherance
of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual commission of
the crime, or by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the scene of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest
of the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspiracy. . . .” (People
v. Peralta, 25 SCRA 759)

This principle—all too evidently applicable in this case—sustains the finding
that all the four accused-appellants must be held liable for the killing of Noli
Grajo.

The lower court summarized the circumstances of the killing as follows:

“As to the killing of Noli Grajo, we find an appreciable degree of
significance in the character of the wounds sustained by the deceased. Also, we
consider of much help the opinion given by the medico-legal officer on how these
wounds could have been inflicted, and on the possibility of the number of
attackers that may have been involved, especially considering the admissions
made by the accused in their sworn statements. Thus, Eriberto Giba’s and Romeo
Giba’s admissions are corroborated by findings Nos. 2, 5, and 6. Finding No. 2
is an incised wound, 4 inches long, cutting the right elbow joint, which Dr. De
Vera characterized as a defense wound, or inflicted while the victim was in the
act of defending himself. Finding No. 5 refers to three wounds at the back of
the right hand and the lower portion of the right forearm. And finding No. 6
describes wounds cutting the left small finger, right finger and middle finger.
In other words, in defending himself Noli Grajo necessarily had to raise both
arms to his front, since these were tied together, thus receiving the wounds on
the parts of the hand where they should really be if the two arms are raised
upward in front of the victim’s body.

“Now, the question is: Who dealt these injuries on Noli Grajo? Inocentes
Balane, in Exhibit ‘C’, admits that all the four of them had bolos in going to
Noli Grajo’s house, but that he hacked Noli Grajo only once at the right side of
the body near the ribs. He also avers that Berting (Eriberto Giba), Romeo and
Efren (Efreniano Balane) also helped in killing Noli Grajo. The accused Eriberto
Giba denied having had a bolo with him on the occasion although, as previously
stated, he admitted having tied the hands of the deceased in front, with his
brother Romeo helping him. On the other hand, Romeo Giba admitted that all the
four of them had bolos and that he tied Noli Grajo and brought him some distance
away from the house where he and his brother guarded him while Inocentes was up
the house, but that except for this he and his brother did not lift any finger
against Noli Grajo. However, he saw Inocentes strike the victim with his bolo
four times; on the neck, the head, the shoulder and the body. For his part,
Efreniano Balane testified that after he and Inocentes had gotten inside the
house Noli Grajo was brought out by them and thereafter held by Eriberto Giba
and Romeo Giba and brought to a dark place behind the house with Berting and
Romeo guarding him. Afterwards he and Inocentes went down, found Noli Grajo
already tied and guarded by Berting and Romeo, while Noli was begging Romeo not
to kill him. He also saw Inocentes hacked Noli on the neck. As to where else
Noli was hit and who struck him further, Efreniano could not tell because he
claimed to have turned his head away ‘for one hour’ before leaving the
scene.

“Lending support to the theory of the prosecution that more than one of the
accused cooperated in the killing of Noli Grajo is the testimony of Noli’s
father, Luis Grajo. He declared that he was awakened by Adelina Sambajon who
pleaded, ‘Please help us, Father, because Noli is being tied up and being
attacked’ (TSN, February 19, 1975, p. 11). While this declaration of Luis Grajo
given on the direct examination is a significant piece of evidence, yet it is
not as pregnant with meaning as that which he gave on cross-examination when
asked on the same point by the defense counsel Luis Grajo said that Adelina
awakened him by saying, ‘Pay, pag mata kay si Noli yadto guinapos nan inpara
baraodan nira Centes’ (TSN, ibid, p. 18). As translated, this means,
‘Father, please get up because Noli has been tied and being repeatedly clubbed
by Centes and companions.’

“Finally, we have the mute but incontestible evidence offered by the piece of
wood (Exh. ‘C’) measuring about 1-1/8 inches in diameter at one end, and 1-1/8
inches in diameter at the other end and 34-1/2 inches long, as well as a length
of rope, 15-1/2 feet long, and 5/8 of an inch thick (Exh. ‘H’). This piece of
rope is actually made up of two pieces knotted together at the center. These
were found about five armlengths away from the house. And on the surface of the
piece of wood can be clearly seen spots of blood practically all along its
entire length. The rope is also discolored, although one cannot tell whether it
is because of its age or bloodstains.”

The killing of Noli Grajo was characterized by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. There is treachery when the offenders employ means, methods, and
forms in the execution of the crime which tend directly and specifically to
ensure its execution, without risk to themselves arising from the defense which
the offended party might make. Noli Grajo, when he was subjected to attack, was
entirely defenseless and his attackers were totally unexposed to any risk that
might have come from him since he was not at all in a position to retaliate.

Nocturnity is absorbed in treachery and cannot be separately appreciated as
an aggravating circumstance. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that
it was especially sought for to facilitate the commission of the crime.

Although there were four persons cooperating against Noli Grajo, we disregard
this numerical superiority because it is absorbed in treachery.

Relative to the third assignment of error, the accused-appellants contend
that it is error for the lower court to hold that their extrajudicial
confessions were made voluntarily. The accused-appellants maintain that all of
them were subjected to physical punishment and that their constitutional rights
guaranteed by Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution were violated and that
Exhibits “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F” are inadmissible as evidence for the
prosecution.

This contention was answered by the appellee in the People’s brief:

“The records show that each of the appellants first made statements and
declarations upon investigation by members of the Bulan Police Force. Thus, Pat.
Raul Gabad took the sworn statement of Inocentes Balane; Pat. Rodolfo Deduque
took the sworn statement of Berting Giba and Pat. Serafin Gibas took the sworn
statement of Romeo Giba. In the case of accused, Efren Balane, his statements
were taken anew before Judge Avelino Deyto, upon the former’s declaration that
some of the statements contained in his first declaration were not true. In all
the above cases, the appellants were rightfully informed of their constitutional
rights, . . . Thus, Pat. Raul Gabad testified, as follows:

“FISCAL PERALTA:
“Q.	Who were present when you took this sworn statement of Inocentes Balane?
“A.	The accused, and Pat. Legronio, Jr.
. . .                   . . .                   . . .
“Q.	Before taking his testimony, what did you do?
“A.	Well, I just informed him of his constitutional rights, and told him about the constitutional rights.
“Q.	What rights did you tell him?
“A.	The right to have an attorney as his counsel, and that he cannot be forced to answer the question which will incriminate him.
. . .                   . . .                   . . .
“Q.	After explaining to you your rights under the law, that you cannot be forced to give answers to question being asked you if you think it will prejudice your interests; that you have a right to counsel because everything that you say might be used for or against you. Now will you swear to tell only the truth in this investigation?
“A.	Yes, sir.’ (tsn., December 16, 1974, pp. 5-7).

Pat. Rodolfo Deduque for his part gave the following testimony, to wit:

“Q.	Mr. Deduque, you investigated the accused Berting Giba. In what particular place did you take his statement?
“A.	At the Office of the Chief of Police, Bulan Police Dept.
“Q.	And who were present, if any, when you took his statement?
“A.	Chief Raymundo and M/Sgt. Ascaño.
“Q.	Before you propounded to him the questions what did you tell him?
“A.	I informed Giba of his constitutional rights that he may not answer questions which may incriminate himself, and that he may avail himself of the services of counsel.
“Q.	Did you tell him that before asking questions?
“A.	Yes, sir.
“Q.	And what was his answer?
“A.	He said that he is willing to give the statement. (tsn., December 16, 1974, pp. 18-20)

Patrolman Serafin Gilbas who examined accused Romeo Giba testified, thus:

“Q.	Besides you and the accused Romeo Giba, who else was present, if any during the investigation that you conducted?
“A.	I remember, one Sgt. Escaño of the Philippine Constabulary was present.
“Q.	Now, before taking the statement of accused Romeo Giba, what did you do, if anything?
“A.	Before taking the statement of the accused Romeo Giba, I told him of his constitutional rights, his right not to answer any question or to give any statement if he does not like, and his right also to be represented by any counsel.
. . .                   . . .                   . . .
“Q.	Now, having informed Romeo Giba that it is his right under the law and under the constitution that if he chooses not to speak or give any statement he can and that he is entitled to counsel if he wants a counsel, what did he say to you?
“A.	The moment he submitted for investigation. He voluntarily submitted for investigation. (tsn., December 17, 1975, pp. 3-5)

On the claim of the appellants that their constitutional right to counsel was
not adequately respected, we also quote the ruling of the trial court:

“Finally, even in their claim attempting to show involuntariness in the
giving of their statements as well as irregularity in the execution of their
declarations the accused are shown to have entangled themselves in
contradictions. Thus, in the face of their claim that they were not apprised of
their constitutional rights, Efreniano Balane admitted that the judge asked him
whether he wanted to be assisted by a lawyer and that if he chose to, he could
be given a lawyer to assist him. In fact upon the repudiation by Efreniano of
the prepared statement made by the police, Judge Deyto discarded it altogether
and investigated him all over again. Yet, according to Eriberto Giba, this was
the same judge who did not inform him of his right to counsel and his right
against self-incrimination, or advised him that the statement would be used in
evidence against him. This, too, was the same judge who, according to Romeo
Giba, read to him his statement in the English language, explained to him also
in English the contents of his statement, and likewise asked him in English
whether the answers he gave were correct, to which query Romeo also replied in
English, ‘yes’.

Judge Deyto testified during the trial and stated that not only did he inform
the accused of their constitutional rights but he even suggested the names of
lawyers who were around and who could be called if the accused wanted them. The
Judge testified that he informed the accused that the services of these lawyers
would be free of charge. The accused, however, told the judge there was no need
for these. Judge Deyto, when the statements taken by the police were brought to
him, asked the affiants whether the same were voluntarily given. They also swore
to the truth of their statement. Only then were the oaths administered by the
Judge.

We agree with the trial court that the constitutional requirements were
satisfied.

We find no merit in the contention of the accused-appellants that they were
subjected to physical punishment during the custodial investigation. We apply
the rule stated in People v. Mada-I Santalani, (93 SCRA 317), that
where the defense did not present any evidence of compulsion or duress nor
violence on their persons; where they failed to complain to the swearing
officers; where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action
against their alleged torturers for maltreatment; where they showed no mark of
violence in their bodies; where they did not have themselves examined by a
reputable physician to buttress their claim, all these were considered by this
Court as factors indicating voluntariness.

Furthermore, at the trial, not one of the accused-appellants could indicate
which part of his body had been hurt or injured.

The exculpatory tone which pervaded each of the confessions and the
appellants’ testimonies, with the declarants pointing to the other as the real
culprit in the commission of the crime, is also an index of voluntariness
(People v. Compacion, 93 SCRA 334).

Thus, while Inocentes Balane admitted having raped Adelina Sambajon with the
assistance of Efreniano Balane, he limited his participation in the slaying of
Noli Grajo to one stroke of the bolo delivered on the right side of the body,
and pointed to Eriberto Giba and Romeo Giba as the persons who killed Noli. On
the other hand, Inocentes denied having taken money from Noli Grajo’s house or
having been with the three accused-appellants in going to the house of Juan
Camo. Eriberto Giba while admitting that he guarded Noli Grajo upon the orders
of Inocentes Balane, denied having done anything else or having knowledge of any
robbery in the house of Noli or of what happened in the house of Juan Camo. He
instead pointed to Inocentes Balane as the one who boloed Noli Grajo.
Furthermore, Eriberto Giba disclaimed any participation in what happened in the
house of Juan Camo. He instead pointed to Inocentes Balane as the only person
who forcibly abused Estrella Camo. Romeo Giba, while minimizing his complicity
in the binding of the hands of Noli Grajo, squarely laid the killing on
Inocentes Balane. While admitting that there was robbery in the house of Noli
Grajo and that Inocentes had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with Adelina
Sambajon aided by Efreniano Balane, Romeo disclaimed any knowledge of any
robbery in the house of Juan Camo and also denied having touched Estrella Camo
after Inocentes Balane had ravished her. While Efreniano Balane admitted having
helped Inocentes while the latter raped Adelina Sambajon, he denied having
struck Noli Grajo and put the blame on Inocentes alone for the murder of Noli
Grajo.

In their fourth assignment of error, the three accused-appellants, Efreniano
Balane, Eriberto Giba and Romeo Giba, argue that while complaining witness
Estrella Camo testified that the crime of rape charged in Criminal Case No. 411
was allegedly committed with the use of force, failed to present the alleged
bloody and torn panty and dress. They argue that the alleged struggle between
Estrella Camo and the three accused-appellants is belied by the prosecution’s
own expert witness, Dra. De Vera, when she testified that she did not find any
signs of injury on the body of Estrella Camo. Appellants, however, forgot the
lacerations in the hymen. The expert witness for the prosecution found the
following injuries:

1. Pubic hair scanty

2. Contusions on both labia majora and labia minora

3. New lacerations of the hymen at 3, 7, 9, and 12 o’clock.

(Exhibit “A”, Rollo, p. 4).

There was a purplish discoloration on both the labia majora and labia minora.
The lacerations were new and still oozing blood during the examination.

As to the non-presentation of the blouse and the panty of the complainant
which were allegedly torn, the omission is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution because their case had already been built up firmly, unshaken by the
evidence presented by the accused-appellants.

Furthermore, this Court has, time and again, observed that it is hard to
believe that an artless and guileless barrio girl, a mere teenager would
publicly disclose that she had been raped by three men, one after the other,
thereby practically foreclosing the probability of a blissful married life,
exposing herself to the ordeal and embarrassment of public trial, subjecting her
private parts to examination, allowing her honor and reputation to be sullied,
and heaping upon herself untold humiliation, unless she is motivated by a strong
desire to bring to justice the culprits who had grievously wronged her. As
correctly stated by the lower court, “. . . We have here the case of a
sixteen-year old barrio lass, a virgin, unschooled and uninitiated to the ways
of the world, who finds herself by force of necessity compelled to lay bare in a
public trial matters that would subject her to humiliation. Without any
compelling reason a girl of her kind would not have the courage to come to court
as a complainant in a charge involving a sordid offense”.

With respect to the robbery charged in Criminal Case No. 411, the appellants
argue that there are inconsistencies in the testimonies of both Juan Camo and
Socorro Campasano, such as (1) the amount taken varying from P61.80 to P62.80;
(2) the number of trunks from which Juan Camo got the money; (3) the number of
lights inside the house; and (4) exactly what places they were at the time of
the commission of the robbery.

The above inconsistencies refer only to minor and collateral matters that do
not impair the credibility of Juan Camo and Socorro Campasano. As correctly
pointed out in the People’s brief, more important than these inconsistencies,
Juan Camo, his wife Socorro, and daughter Estrella, affirmatively testified to
the unlawful taking of their money by the accused, particularly Efren and Romeo
who struggled for the money after the same was counted. Furthermore, the victims
herein were caught by surprise and frightened. Possessed with different
capacities for observation, the witnesses cannot be expected to recall with
accuracy or uniformity matters connected to the main overt act (People v.
Cabiling, 74 SCRA 285).

We apply the rule reiterated in People v. Reyes (69 SCRA 476) that
inconsistencies in minor and collateral matters with respect to the testimonies
of two witnesses may signify that the two witnesses did not deliberately pervert
the truth in their narrations. The discordance in their testimonies on
collateral matters heightens their credibility and shows that their testimonies
were not coached nor rehearsed. Far from being evidence of falsehood, they could
justifiably be regarded as indices of telling the truth.

Under the facts of these cases, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty
of death for the offenses as charged but for lack of the necessary votes to
impose the death penalty, we are constrained to reduce the penalty to
reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the judgments appealed from are MODIFIED in that
the penalty of DEATH is REDUCED to RECLUSION PERPETUA. In all other respects,
the judgments are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Concepcion Jr., Guerrero,
Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin and Relova, JJ.,
concur.
Teehankee, Makasiar and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., in
the result.
Aquino, J., see dissent.
De Castro and
Vasquez, JJ., on leave.

AQUINO, J.:

With all due deference to the opinion of Mr. Justice Gutierrez, I dissent as
to the penalty.

In Criminal Case No. 411, the conspirators Efreniano Balane, Eriberto Giba
and Romeo Giba are guilty of robbery with multiple rape, the crime charged, and
should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua under article 294(2) of the
Revised Penal Code before it was amended by Presidential Decree No. 767
effective on August 15, 1975.

The trial judge, Hon. Aquilino P. Bonto, imposed the death penalty in said
cases because he applied article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. He convicted the
three accused of qualified rape, following People vs. Obtinalia,
L-30190, April 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 651.

The charge, being a crime against property, Judge Bonto cannot convict the
accused of a crime against chastity. The majority has abandoned the
Obtinalia ruling (People vs. Cabural, L-34105, February 4,
1983).

In Criminal Case No. 412, the charge was robbery in band with homicide
and rape. The facts recited by the Solicitor General in his brief show the
commission of robbery in the sum of P1,000 and, on the occasion of such robbery,
the killing of Noli Grajo and the rape of his common-law wife, Adelina
Sambajon.

But Judge Bonto found that no robbery was committed (p. 60, Appendix
to Appellants’ Brief).

So, Judge Bonto convicted Inocentes Balane and Efreniano Balane of “rape with
homicide” under article 335 of the Revised Penal Code most probably because on
the occasion when Adelina was raped Grajo was killed. He imposed the death
penalty pursuant to the last paragraph of article 335.

Judge Bonto then convicted Eriberto Giba and Romeo Giba of murder
for the killing of Grajo “in conspiracy with the accused Inocentes Balane and
Efreniano Balane” and sentenced the Gibas to death under article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code because the murder was aggravated by dwelling.

Since the Solicitor General in Criminal Case No. 412 found that the crime
committed is robbery with homicide and rape, the four accused, the Balanes and
the Gibas, as conspirators, should be held guilty of this offense and sentenced
to death.