THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. MARIANO OBTINALIA, TEOLY UBALDE ALIAS “JORGE”, AND JIMCE UBALDE, ACCUSED.

Automatic review of the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Pangasinan (in its Criminal Case No. 23133)
imposing upon therein accused Mariano Obtinalia, Teoly Ubalde alias
“Jorge”, and Jimce Ubalde
the supreme penalty of death.

In the information filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Mariano Obtinalia, Teoly Ubalde alias
“Jorge”, and Jimce Ubalde,
together with three other persons referred therein as “Gaudia“,
“Freddie” and “John Doe” who remained at large, were
accused of the crime of robbery in band with rape, allegedly committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 5th day of June, 1968, in the
municipality of Agno, province of Pangasinan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, who were also charged of the same offense before the
Municipal Court of Agno, this province, but that
their identities are still unknown, conspiring together and mutually helping
one another, armed with guns and bolos, taking advantage of the nighttime and
of their superior strength, entered the house of the spouses Clemente Fontanilla and Rufina Pitalbero, and once
inside, with violence against and intimidation of persons, with intent of gain
and against the will of the owners thereof, and in band, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry away
therefrom, the following:

all valued at TWO HUNDRED THIRTY (P230.00)
PESOS Philippine Currency and all belonging to the said spouses, Clemente Fontanilla and Rufina Pitalbero, to their damage
and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of P230.00; and that on the occasion of
the above-mentioned offense and under the same circumstances aforecited, conspiring together and mutually helping one
another, by means of violence and intimidation of persons, did, then and there,
with lewd designs, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of Rufina Pitalbero, against the latter’s will and consent.

“Contrary to Art. 296 in relation with Art. 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111.”

The accused having pleaded not guilty to
the charge, the prosecution tried to establish its case through the testimonies
of complainants Clemente Fontanilla
and Rufina Pitalbero.

CLEMENTE FONTANILIA declared in court that at about 8 o’clock in
the evening of 5 June 1968, six men entered their house in sitio
Pateng, barrio Macaboboni,
municipality of Agno in Pangasinan.  Of the group, he recognized Mariano Obtinalia, who was carrying a .22 caliber paltic, Teoly Ubalde and Jimce Ubalde, who were both armed with bolos more than 1 foot
long.^[1]
The three other men, equally armed with 2 firearms and a bolo, were unknown to
him.  Once they were inside the house,
the intruders beat Fontanilla and tied his hands with
a rope, tore his undershirt and used a piece thereof for gagging him.  Then the group confronted Fontanilla’s
wife, Rufina Pitalbero, and
demanded money from her.  Rufina delivered to them the proceeds of the sale of a carabao, in the amount of P180.00, which she extracted from
between the bamboo slits holding the cogon roofing of the house^[2].  Thereafter, the accused Mariano Obtinalia, Teoly Ubalde and Jimce Ubalde held Rufina and one after
the other criminally abused her.  Fontanilla witnessed the outrageous violation of his wife
because the house was lighted by a kerosene lamp and there was no obstruction
between where he lay and the part of the house where his wife was dishonored,
first, by Mariano Obtinalia, followed by Teoly Ubalde and then by Jimce Ubalde^[3].  Witness had known the accused Mariano Obtinalia, Teoly and Jimce Ubalde for about 5 years
before the incident because they used to go fishing in their place.  Fontanilla further
declared that he also heard one of those who abused his wife address their
other companions as “Gaudia” and
“Freddie”.  Thereafter, the
group left but not before they had taken two pairs of his pants worth P30.00
and five chickens worth P20.00.  That
same evening, when the robbers had gone, he went to the Chief of Police to
report the incident.^[4]

RUFINA PITALBERO testified that in the evening of 5 Tune 1968,
while her family was inside their dwelling in sitio Pateng, Macaboboni, Agno, Pangasinan, six men armed
with firearms and bolos entered the house. 
Some of them beat her husband, bound his hands and feet, and stuffed his
mouth with a piece of cloth torn off his (the husband’s) own undershirt.^[5]
Then the men took their P180.00, the proceeds of the sale of a carabao, 2 pairs of pants belonging to her husband worth
P30.00 and 5 chickens worth P20.00. 
Afterwards, by means of force, Mariano Obtinalia,
Teoly Ubalde and Jimce Ubalde were able to have
sexual intercourse with her, one after the other.^[6]
Immediately after the incident, her husband went to the Chief of Police to
report the matter.  On the following day,
she and her husband executed sworn statements about the incident before the
Municipal Judge of Agno.^[7]

The defense of the accused was alibi.

MARIANO OBTINALIA took the witness stand and declared that
between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon of 5 June 1968 he went to his father’s
place in barrio Ranao to tether his carabao, and left the place at past 7 o’clock.^[8]
He admitted having known Clemente Fontanilla
for a long time, because they used to go diving at sea.  He believed Clemente
and his wife were implicating him in the alleged robbery and rape, because
about a year before that incident he had refused to sell for Fontanilla a carabao that did not
have a cattle certificate.

VICENTE OCHAVEZ, a neighbor, tried to corroborate the above
declaration of Mariano Obtinalia.  He testified having seen the accused Mariano Obtinalia between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon of 5
June 1968 walking toward the direction of the house of Mariano’s father; that
he saw Mariano again returning from his father’s place at about 7:30 in the
evening;^[9]
that they even talked about the forthcoming marriage of his (the witness’)
daughter.  While this witness could seem
to remember 5 June 1968 and his seeing Obtinalia
walking toward his father’s house, he could not recall the date when his
daughter’s marriage took place.^[10]

BENJAMIN DARAGAY, a neighbor of the father of Mariano Obtinalia, declared in court that at about 6 o’clock in the
evening of 5 June 1968 he was in the house of Toring Obtinalia, Mariano’s father, when the latter arrived; that
he and Mariano left the place at about 6:30 in the evening, with Mariano going
to the direction of his house; that he remembered 5 June 1968 because in the
morning of that day he plowed his field and at 5 o’clock in the afternoon he
went to the house of Toring Obtinalia
to ask for tobacco leaves for smoking. 
He admitted, however, that he had planted several days that season, and
of those days, he remembered only 24 May and 5 June.^[11]

TEOLY or JORGE UBALDE, for his defense, testified that in the
evening of 5 June 1968 he had a stomach ache; that his wife called on her
father for help, and the latter brought to their house Silvestre Cariño, a “quack” doctor.  He was made to take hot water that was
previously boiled with scraped roots of a plant; that he never went out of the
house that evening; that Cariño, his father-in-law,
his father and mother, his wife and children were all in the house with
him.  This accused proclaimed ignorance
why Clemente Fontanilla and
his wife would point to him as one of those who committed robbery and rape in
their house when he (the accused) was then having stomach ache.  He even denied knowing the couple.^[12]

PETRONILA GAMBOA, Teoly’s wife, JOSE
UBALDE, his father, and the “quack” doctor, SILVESTRE CARIÑO
attempted to corroborate his declarations. 
They declared in effect that the accused Teoly
Ubalde was in the house, suffering from stomach ache,
between 7 and 9 o’clock in the evening of 5 June 1968.  It was brought out, however, that Teoly had had several attacks of stomach ache and the wife,
Petronila, could hardly remember the other dates when
he had them.^[13]
Silvestre Cariño, who declared having treated Teoly Ubalde on 5 June 1968 and
leaving the latter’s house only at about 9:30 in the evening, could not
remember the dates when he treated his other “patients”.^[14]

Accused JIMCE UBALDE stated in court that on 5 June 1968 he was
in Manila (Barangka, Marikina,
Rizal) looking for a job; that in the evening of 6
June 1968 he was accompanied by his brother-in-law, Leocadio
Olivo, to the Pantranco
station to get a ride back home; that he actually got a ride and arrived in Bani at about 4 o’clock in the morning of the following day
(7 June).  He declared he was never at
odds with Clemente Fontanilla,
neither with his wife nor with the Agno Municipal
Judge, or with the Chief of Police of Agno.  In fact, he did not even know the complainants
Clemente Fontanilla and Rufina Pitalbero.^[15]

LEOCADIO OLIVO was presented in court and testified that from 1
June to 6 June 1968 Jimce Ubalde
was staying with him in Marikina, Rizal;
that having failed to land a job, Jimce took a bus
for Pangasinan at the Pantranco
station at 8:30 in the evening of 6 June 1968; that he remembered 6 June
because that was the day after their payday.^[16]

The defense also presented the municipal judge of Agno, Pangasinan, who declared
that Rufina Pitalbero
subscribed before him two affidavits, one executed between 9 and 10 o’clock in
the morning of 6 June 1968, wherein she denied having recognized the men who
robbed them and abused her (Exhibit “3”), and another, executed
between 11:30 and 12 o’clock noon, wherein she gave the identity of the
offenders (Exhibit “D”);^[17]
that after Rufina had executed the first statement,
feeling that she was withholding the identity of the malefactors because of
fear, he told her to go back to the chief of police and give the real statement
and to request also for protection.^[18]
This accounted for the second statement, Exhibit “D”, executed on the
same day by complainant Rufina Pitalbero.

JUANITO PECSON, the Chief of Police of Agno,
was placed on the witness stand, and this witness testified that he took two
statements of Rufina Pitalbero,
one after the other that there were investigators who went to the scene of the
crime in the early morning of 6 June 1968;^[19]
and that Exhibit “3”, the statement wherein Rufina
appeared to have failed to identify her tormentors, was not kept by him, but
was with the municipal judge all along.^[20]
The municipal health officer was likewise presented to establish that Rufina Pitalbero submitted to a
physical examination on 8 June 1968,
and the sample of her vaginal secretion was found without evidence of sperm.^[21]

In its decision of 18 January 1968, the court found the charges
against the accused proved by the positive testimonies of the victims.  Consequently, said accused were declared
guilty of the crime of robbery with triple rape, and each of them sentenced to
the penalty of death; to pay, jointly and severally, to Clemente
Fontanilla and Rufina Pitalbero the sum of P230.00, to indemnify Rufina in the amount of P2,000.00, and to pay the costs.

It is now contended for the accused in this proceeding that the
lower court erred (1) in finding them guilty of the crime of robbery in band
with rape based alone on the testimonies of complainants Fontanilla
and Pitalbero; (2) in giving due course to the
information without including the other culprits; and (3) in finding them
guilty of “robbery with triple rape” pursuant to Article 296 in
relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, although they were charged
in the information with the crime of “robbery in band with rape”
under Article 296, in relation to Article 335, of the same Code.

With his Honor, the trial judge, We find the charge of robbery
with rape proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
Not only the victim, Rufina Pitalbero, testified on her being dishonored by the three
accused after being compelled to deliver the P180.00 paid for the sale of a carabao, but her declaration was corroborated by the
husband, Clemente Fontanilla,
who had witnessed the outrage committed on Rufina,
and their testimonies withstood the extensive cross-examination by counsel for
the accused as well as the questionings by the court.  It has also been shown that immediately
thereafter, Clemente Fontanilla
reported the incident to the Chief of Police; that investigators repaired to
the scene of the crime early morning of the following day (6 June 1968); that
on that same morning complainants executed their sworn statements naming
Mariano Obtinalia, Teoly
and Jimce Ubalde as among
the group of armed men that forced their way into their dwelling the night
before and had abused Rufina; that as a result of the
police investigation the corresponding criminal complaint against the three
named individuals was filed by the Chief of Police of Agno
on 6 June 1968.  The fact that Mariano Obtinalia was known to the complainants, which could have
enabled his recognition by the couple as one of the intruders, was admitted by
him.  Of course, Mariano claimed that Clemente and Rufina might have
pointed to him as one of the offenders because about a year prior to the
incident, he refused to sell for the couple a carabao
that had no covering certificate of ownership.^[22]
Such motive appears to be flimsy and unbelievable.  There is nothing on record to indicate that Clemente Fontanilla is such a
vindictive and ruthless person that he would stop at nothing, even to the
extent of exposing his own wife to shame and ridicule, just to get even with a
supposed enemy.  On the other hand, while
Teoly and Jimce Ubalde (who were represented by another counsel) made no
similar admission — in fact, they denied knowing Clemente
and Rufina at all — no reason has been given why the
latter would implicate them in the commission of the crime if indeed they were
not so involved.  Furthermore, the
Municipal Judge and the Chief of Police of Agno, who
appeared to have no personal motive to testify falsely against the accused,
attested to the spontaneity and voluntariness of
their identification by the complainants as perpetrators of the crime.  Certainly, the defense of alibi, the weakest
of defenses, put up by the accused and their witnesses, who were close relatives
and friends, can not overcome the aforementioned positive evidence of the accused’s liability.

In its decision, the court below explained why it disbelieved the
alibis of herein accused-appellants, saying:

“‘Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defense of
alibi is the weakest defense because it can easily be concocted.  And in this particular case, this Court
cannot believe the alibi interposed by each one of the three accused as they
are only supported by oral testimony of witnesses who are either their
neighbors or the relatives.  And against
this alibi of the accused, we have the strong evidence in favor of the
prosecution to the effect that immediately after the incident on the early
morning of 6 June 1968, the said Clemente Fontanilla went to report the matter to the office of the
Chief of Police, and then, he and his wife went to the Chief of Police who,
after conducting an investigation, filed the corresponding complaint with the
municipal court.  This Court has no
reason to doubt the testimony of the two offended parties, for they are rural
folks, practically, unsophisticated, and they would not be courting trouble,
and engaging in a litigation if they have not been the victim of a crime of
mischief.  Most especially is this true
with respect to Rufina Pitalbero,
because a woman who is already attached to a man would not dare to expose her
dishonor and reputation, and tell to the public that she has been abused three
(3) times.’ (pages 191-192, Record)”

To which it can only be added that the witnesses for the accused,
while allegedly remembering clearly where the accused were on the 5th of
June 1968, were unsure as to the dates of other events and experiences, a
peculiarity that must adversely affect their credibility.

The defense challenges the testimony of the complainants by
pointing out that in their affidavits sworn to before the Municipal Judge Noguera, it is only stated that they were robbed and
“abused” but sexual intercourse is not mentioned.  It should be noted in the first place that
the witnesses only knew Ilocano and not English, and
were not responsible for the use of the vague term “abuse”.  That the corresponding word actually employed
by the complainants indicated that Rufina was raped,
and that the Chief of Police so understood it, is proved by the terms of the
complaint filed by him in the municipal court, wherein he charged that the
“accused took them (turns) abusing Rufina
Pitalbero by having sexual intercourse with
her against her will” (Record, page 4, emphasis supplied).

Furthermore, in her first affidavit (marked as Exhibit
“3” for the defense) Rufina clearly showed
that she was raped:

“Q   How
many abused you?

 A    Three, sir.”

xxxxx                        xxxxx               xxxxx

“Q   What
did you do to defend your honor at the time they were abusing you?

 A    I moved and struggled to get free, but two
of them held my hands, one of my hands each, and one of them said, “Don’t
move or I will make your ear fly”. 
I crossed my legs but they tore my half slip and placed the point of a
bolo on my leg.  They were able to subdue
me when my strength give in.” (Record, page 122)

True it is that in this first affidavit Rufina
claimed she recognized only one of the robbers and did not know his name.  At the trial, however, she explained that she
was then afraid to give the names of the accused because they had threatened to
come back and kill her and her husband if they reported to the police; and this
version was confirmed by the testimony of judge Noguera,
that he believed she knew who raped her, for he told her to return to the Chief
of Police and give the names of the accused and to request for protection (v. ante,
page 5).  As a result, Rufina executed her second affidavit, naming the
accused-appellants (Exhibit “D”, Record, page 26).

The defense also stresses that in the certificate issued on 23
June 1968 by the Municipal Health Officer, Dr. Sison
(Exhibit “E”, also marked Exhibit “4”), on the result of
his examination of complainant Rufina Pitalbero on 8 June, it was certified that there was no
evidence of spermatozoa in her vagina. 
But the doctor also declared that if the woman washed her organ or if
her natural secretion was strong, the spermatozoa could be washed out in two
days’ time, and the rape had occurred on the 5th of June.  Hence the absence of sperm on 8 June was not
incompatible with the rape three days previously.

To contradict Rufina’s testimony why
she could not be examined in 6 June, the defense offered to prove that Dr. Sison was in Agno, Pangasinan, on that day, but the court refused to allow the
proposed testimony to be given.  We think
this issue is of no moment, for the doctor could have been in Agno on 6 June and Rufina be
unable to contact him on that day.

Finally, it has also been shown through the declarations of both
complainants, that the three accused, with three other unidentified companions,
entered together and left the house of the victims in a group; that the three
accused raped Rufina Pitalbero
one after the other — two of them holding her hands and feet, while the third
was committing the vile act.  The actions
of the accused sufficiently point to unity of their purpose and to their
collective and common design; in short, to a conspiracy to commit the crime^[23],
making each and all of them collectively responsible for the acts thus
perpetrated.

The accused challenge the correctness of the lower court’s
judgment sentencing each of them to the penalty of death.  It is claimed that having been accused of the
crime of robbery in band with rape, which is penalized by reclusion temporal
in its medium period to reclusion perpetua by
Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, they can not be sentenced to the
penalty provided under Article 335 of the same Code, as amended by Republic Act
4111.^[24]

There is no merit in the contention.  As pointed out by the trial Court, if a rape
alone, when committed by two or more persons, is penalized with death, it would
be highly illogical and irrational to hold that when such rape is committed
with the addition of a robbery, the offense should only be punishable with life
imprisonment.  Thus the reclusion perpetua prescribed by Article 294(2) of the Revised
Penal Code, for robbery with rape, must be understood as limited to cases where
there is a single rapist, and that in those cases where the rape on occasion of
the robbery is committed by two or more persons, the death penalty provided by
Republic Act No. 4111 must apply.  All
the more so because the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances
of its being perpetrated in the dwelling of the complainant victims, and with
attendant ignominy, since the rapes were done in the presence of the woman’s
husband.

WHEREFORE, the accused Mariano Obtinalia,
Teoly Ubalde alias Jorge Ubalde, and Jimce Ubalde are declared guilty of the crime of triple rape,
aggravated by the circumstances of commission in the dwelling of the victims
and ignominy; and each of them is sentenced to the penalty of death.  The accused are also ordered, jointly and
severally, to pay the victims P230.00, value of the things stolen, as well as
to indemnify Rufina Pitalbero
in the sum of P5,000.00, and to pay the costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., did not take
part.

^[1]
Page 22, t.s.n., hearing of 16 September 1968.

^[2]
Page 24, ibid.

^[3]
Page 27, t.s.n., hearing of 16 September 1968.

^[4]
Pages 23, 35-36, t.s.n., ibid.

^[5]
Page 10, ibid.

^[6]
Page 39, ibid.

^[7]
Pages 40-41, ibid.

^[8]
Pages 82-83, t.s.n., hearing of 10 December 1968.

^[9]
Pages 74-76, idem.

^[10]
Pages 80, idem.

^[11]
Pages 25-26, t.s.n., hearing of 20 November 1968.

^[12]
Pages 25-26, t.s.n., hearing of 20 November 1968.

^[13]
Pages 95-96, t.s.n., hearing of 12 December 1968.

^[14]
Pages 57-58, t.s.n., hearing of 28 November 1968.

^[15]
Pages 99-101, t.s.n., hearing of 12 December 1968.

^[16]
Pages 62-64, t.s.n., hearing of 28 November 1968.

^[17]
Page 3, t.s.n., hearing of 19 November 1968.

^[18]
Pages 10-11, idem.

^[19]
Page 17, idem.

^[20]
Page 24, idem.

^[21]
Page 8, t.s.n., hearing of 20 November 1968.

^[22]
Page 85, t.s.n., Hearing of 10 December 1968.

^[23]
People vs. Tapac, L-26491, 20 May 1969, 28 SCRA 191; also People
vs. Pagaduan, L-26948, 25 Aug. 1969, 29 SCRA 54; People vs.
Peralta, C-19069, 29 Oct. 1968,
25 SCRA 759, and cases therein cited.

^[24]
“x x x Whenever
the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
to death.  x x x.”