THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. FAUSTO LINDE AND MANUEL PRISNO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

People versus Linde

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Fausto Linde and Manuel Prisno, a criminal appeal from a conviction for robbery with multiple rape. The two appellants were among five armed men who entered a barrio lieutenant's house at night, robbed the family of their valuables, and then, one after another, ravished two young women. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the classic rules on alibi, on the credibility of a lone but positive identification, on the weight of an extrajudicial confession claimed to have been extracted by force, and on the reach of a conspirator's confession against his co-accused.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the Court of First Instance, which found both Linde and Prisno guilty of robbery with multiple rape. Finding the aggravating circumstance of band, with no mitigating circumstance to offset it, the trial court sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua with the accessories of the law, ordered them to indemnify Leocadio Planillo in the sum of 64 pesos and 80 centavos, the aggregate value of the properties robbed, and to pay two-fifths of the costs. From that judgment the two accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the appeal in January 1961.

Facts

At about ten o'clock in the night of April 27, 1955, several people were sleeping in the house of Leocadio Planillo, the barrio lieutenant of Gibaca-an, Palo, Leyte. Among them were Margarita Planillo, Francisca Planillo, Federico Requiez, Sixta Cadaves, Catalina Rafalda, and six small children. Someone downstairs called out to Cadio, saying they were not bad men but peace officers. Sixta lighted a lamp and told the thirteen-year-old Federico to open the door. Five men entered. One was called Gen, or sergeant, by his companions and carried a revolver and a carbine. Linde carried a bolo, Prisno a carbine, and the rest bolos.

Linde grabbed Sixta by the arm that held the lamp and told Gen, here she is. On Gen's order the light was put out. Gen, Linde, and Prisno tried to drag Sixta downstairs, but she clung to the shutter, so they brought her to the kitchen. There Gen pulled her down, Linde pointed his bolo at her, and Prisno held her by the feet. Gen then had carnal access of her. When he was through, Prisno took his turn, and then Linde ravished her as well. All the while Sixta struggled, but in vain. Meanwhile, in the living room, the two other companions ransacked a trunk, taking two gold rings, three pairs of earrings, a bracelet, trousers, a shirt, two flashlights, and cash. They then dragged Francisca, a girl of sixteen, to the kitchen and raped her.

On May first, a physician examined both women. He reported that their genital organs were negative of sperm cells because of the time that had elapsed, and that Francisca's hymen was no longer intact. During the preliminary investigation before the justice of the peace, Linde's extrajudicial confession was read and translated to him, and he admitted its contents and swore to their truth. At trial, Linde claimed he was asleep at his aunt's house that night, and that soldiers boxed and kicked him until he confessed. Prisno claimed he was in the ricefield that day and asleep at home that night. Both were convicted, and both appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence of record is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi can prevail against the positive identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not Linde's extrajudicial confession is admissible, given his claim that it was obtained through force and intimidation.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial confession of Linde may be considered against his co-accused Prisno.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text; it applies the settled rules of evidence and criminal law on alibi, confession, and conspiracy, and cites the doctrine of People versus Piamonte that the confession of one conspirator is admissible against the others.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of both appellants was established beyond cavil of doubt. On the second issue, the Court applied the familiar rule that the defense of alibi has no weight whatsoever when the perpetrators have been positively identified by eyewitnesses for the prosecution. Sixta, Francisca, Federico, and Margarita all knew Linde before the incident, being first-degree cousins of his wife, and they recognized him. The crime was committed scarcely one and a half kilometers from Linde's residence, so it was not physically impossible for him to have been there.

On the third issue, the Court rejected Linde's claim of maltreatment as a figment of his imagination. Had he truly been tortured, he would have complained to the justice of the peace or to his relatives, or submitted to a physical examination, and he did none of these. No motive was shown for the soldiers to harm him, and he never even recognized the faces of his supposed tormentors. The Court reasoned that so detailed a narration could not have been prepared by the soldiers unless Linde had supplied its contents.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that although only Sixta identified Prisno, her testimony describing his participation in detail was credible, convincing, and satisfactory, and sufficient to convict. It was confirmed by Linde's confession, which named Prisno as a companion. Conspiracy among those who entered the house having been clearly established, the confession of one was admissible and could be considered as corroborative evidence against the other.

The Court further found that the offense was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and band, with no mitigating circumstance to offset them, so the penalty imposed by the trial court was in accordance with law and evidence.

Doctrine

First, alibi is unavailing when the accused has been positively identified by eyewitnesses who knew him, especially where the place of the crime was not physically impossible for him to reach. Second, an extrajudicial confession is not rendered inadmissible by a bare claim of force and intimidation where the accused failed to complain, to seek physical examination, or to identify his supposed tormentors, and where no motive for fabrication appears. Third, the detailed contents of a confession are taken as coming from the accused himself. Fourth, where conspiracy is clearly established, the extrajudicial confession of one conspirator is admissible and may be considered as corroborative evidence against his co-accused. Fifth, a lone but positive, detailed, and credible identification of an accused is sufficient to convict.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, with costs, so the People won and both appellants stood convicted of robbery with multiple rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

Remember the line that the confession of one conspirator, conspiracy being established, is admissible as corroborative evidence against the other. Examiners use this case for alibi against positive identification, for attacking a confession allegedly extracted by force, and for the conspirator's confession rule.