THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. LONGENOS PEÑAFIEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Peñafiel

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Longenos Peñafiel, Emilio Porras, and Glicerio Pawag for the complex crime of robbery in band with rape committed in a family home in Iloilo. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean illustration of three things examiners love to test together: the credibility of a lone but unrehearsed victim of sexual violence, the weakness of alibi as a defense, and the correct penalty for robbery with rape under the Revised Penal Code, including the effect of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nocturnity. It also shows the Court distinguishing the liability of an accused who was not shown to have known of the rape committed by his companions.

Procedural History

The three accused were charged before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. After trial, Emilio Porras and Glicerio Pawag were found guilty as charged and each was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty and ordered to indemnify the offended party in the aggregate sum of 3,368 pesos and 55 centavos. Longenos Peñafiel was found guilty only of robbery and sentenced to a lesser indeterminate penalty with an indemnity of 368 pesos and 55 centavos. All three appealed. The Court of Appeals did not decide the appeal on the merits but certified the case to the Supreme Court, on the ground that under the evidence the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The case therefore reached the Supreme Court by certification rather than by ordinary appeal.

Facts

On the evening of June 8, 1958, Paz Presidente was in her house in barrio Layahan, Pototan, Iloilo, with her three minor children, her aunt Epifania Comoda, her sister Peregrina Patosa, Peregrina's husband Casimiro Patosa, and a young herder. Her husband Eliodoro was away working in Iloilo City. At about eight o'clock, while Paz was washing clothes on the back porch, she heard a voice say "Don't move," and saw Emilio Porras pointing a revolver at her, with a bolo at his waist. She ran to the kitchen and closed the door, calling Casimiro for help. Casimiro and Peregrina helped hold the door, but they could not keep it closed. Porras, holding a revolver and followed by two unidentified persons, entered through the kitchen, ordered Casimiro to lie flat on the floor, and tied his hands behind his neck.

Porras then ordered Peregrina to light a lamp, slapped her, and made her lie face down. The intruders ransacked a trunk in the sala and took 15 pesos and two eyeglasses belonging to Epifania Comoda. Paz gave Porras 5 pesos and 55 centavos wrapped in paper. Porras demanded the 300 pesos she intended to give her lawyer, warning that he would kill her, and she told him to take everything provided he did not kill her. One of the unidentified culprits carried Paz's locked trunk to the back porch and Longenos Peñafiel was asked to watch it. Porras then ordered Paz to hand her three month old baby to her aunt and to lie on the bamboo bed. She resisted, but he forced her down at gunpoint, slapped her, and had intercourse with her. An unidentified person then raped her, and after him Glicerio Pawag, armed with a bolo, boxed her on the mouth and also raped her.

The intruders opened the locked trunk and took 250 pesos and 35 centavos, a bamboo tube of documents, suiting material worth 32 pesos, two gold necklaces, two rings, two pairs of earrings, and a bolo. An unidentified culprit then approached Peregrina and told her to lie down or he would kill her, but at that moment the dogs barked and the malefactors fled. The next morning Paz reported the incident to the chief of police and identified the appellants. Dr. Andres Guanco examined her and found multiple superficial contusions on her lips, a superficial laceration on the right labia majora, and dead spermatozoa in her vagina. The appellants set up alibi, each claiming he was elsewhere that evening, and presented witnesses to corroborate them.

Issues

• Whether or not the appellants were sufficiently identified as the perpetrators of the robbery and rape, despite their defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the testimony of Paz Presidente on the rape, uncorroborated by other witnesses, is credible.
• Whether or not the crime committed is robbery with multiple rape punishable under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and whether the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nocturnity raise the penalty to its maximum period.
• Whether or not Longenos Peñafiel is liable for the rape committed by his companions.

Applicable Provisions

Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the Court, provides:

Robbery with rape, when the rape is committed on the occasion of the robbery, shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

This is the provision that fixes the crime and the range of the penalty, and it is the reason the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, since the imposable penalty of reclusion perpetua lies within the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appellants were clearly identified. The prosecution witnesses, namely Paz Presidente, her sister Peregrina Patosa, and her brother-in-law Casimiro Patosa, could not have been mistaken because the malefactors were not masked, there was light in the house, and the appellants were known to them as residents of the same neighborhood. On the defense of alibi, the Court ruled that alibi is the weakest defense an accused can put up because it is easy to fabricate, and that it prospers only when the evidence to support it is clear and convincing enough to preclude the possibility of the accused's presence at the scene, while the evidence of identification is weak and insufficient. Here the identification was strong, so the alibi failed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the lack of corroboration of the rape did not detract from Paz Presidente's credibility, because the raping occurred in one room while the other witnesses were in another. Her testimony was eloquently corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Guanco the following morning. The Court also rejected the claim that she had an axe to grind, reasoning that it cannot be conceived that a married Filipino woman would concoct a story exposing her honor and dignity to public contempt merely to satisfy a feeling of revenge, as such an attitude is repugnant to the character and innate modesty of a Filipino woman.

On the third issue, the Court held that the crime is robbery with multiple rape punishable under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, with the penalty ranging from reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Because the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nocturnity and with no mitigating circumstance, the penalty must be imposed in its maximum period, which is reclusion perpetua.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Longenos Peñafiel is not liable for the rape. The trial court found that he was not aware of the outrage committed by his companions on the offended party, and since the evidence on this point was not clear, the Supreme Court was inclined to agree with that finding. His conviction for robbery alone was therefore affirmed.

Doctrine

First, alibi is the weakest of defenses because it is easily fabricated; it succeeds only when the evidence for it is clear and convincing enough to preclude the accused's presence at the scene, and the evidence of identification is weak and insufficient. Second, the testimony of a rape victim, standing alone, may be sufficient to convict, especially where it is corroborated by prompt medical examination; lack of eyewitness corroboration of the sexual act does not impair credibility where the act occurred in a room apart from the other witnesses. Third, robbery with rape is punished under Article 294, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, and where the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nocturnity attend the crime without any mitigating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its maximum period, which is reclusion perpetua. Fourth, an accused who was not shown to have known of the rape committed by his companions is liable only for the robbery.

Disposition

The decision of the trial court was modified: Emilio Porras and Glicerio Pawag were each sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify Paz Presidente in the sum of 3,000 pesos and 356 pesos and 90 centavos, while the penalty imposed on Longenos Peñafiel was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize this line: alibi is the weakest defense, and it crumbles against clear identification by witnesses who knew the accused and saw them in a lighted place. Examiners use this case to test the penalty for robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 2, the effect of dwelling and nocturnity in raising it to reclusion perpetua, and the rule that a companion who did not know of the rape is liable only for the robbery.