THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ILUMINADO MANASES, ET AL., DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

LABRADOR, J.:

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Leyte, Honorable S. C. Moscoso, presiding, finding
Iluminado Manases guilty of robbery with rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to pay one-fifth of the costs.

The evidence submitted by the prosecution shows
beyond question that at about 7 o’clock in the evening of August 26,
1954, five persons armed with different kinds of firearms, suddenly and
unexpectedly forced their way into the house of one Pio Magno, situated
in the barrio of Dumalag, municipality of Burauen, province of Leyte.
At that precise time, the people inside the house were Cresencia Magno,
26, single, Maxima Magno, 28, single, daughters of Pio, Rosita Magno,
13, single, granddaughter, Daniela Leona, 45, widow, and three nephews.
Pio Magno was not in the house, for the had gone to work in a field
some distance away from the house. The five persons forced open the
doors and once inside they pointed their firearms at the inmates of the
house, demanding money, and threatening to shoot them if they did not
give up their money. Manases placed himself at one door of the house
and another at another door, while the other three, after being told by
the inmates that they had no money to give, began ransacking the trunk
in the house. The trunk was owned by Pio Magno and was not locked. Upon
searching it they found two 100-peso bills wrapped in a piece of paper.
Pio Magno testified that this sum of money had been received by him in
payment of a loan.

When the robbers came, some of the inmates were
still awake and an oil lamp was still burning. Of the five persons who
came in only one of them was recognized, the defendant-appellant
Iluminado Manases, cousin of Cresencia and son of a sister of her
mother. Manases lived in a house nearby, but in the afternoon he was
not seen in the house. Cresencia, Maxima and Rosita Magno recognized
him, as he made no attempt to mask his face or cover his identity.
Daniela Leona also declared in an affidavit that she also recognized
him, but at the trial she denied having recognized him.

The inmates of the house could not shout or cry for
help as the firearms of the robbers were pointed at them, and they were
afraid to make any outcry. When the robbers were through with
ransacking the house for money, appellant Manases again stood as guard
while his four companions held Cresencia Magno by the hands. They tore
her dress, from the top downwards, and laid her on her back, and one
after another had intercourse with her while the others held her down
on the floor by the arms and legs. After they were through with their
brutal act, they released her and went out of the house. As Cresencia
was being raped, Daniela Leona and Maxima Magno were able to run away
from the house and escape. Once the robbers were outside of the house,
they fired some four or five shots, and then went away and disappeared.

Later in the evening, Maxima Magno was able to go
back to her house alone. Pio Magno also arrived. Nobody else came to
the house as evidently the people leaving nearby had been frightened
away by the shots that the robbers had fired before leaving the
house. When Pio Magno arrived, the fact of the robbery and the rape of
his daughter Cresencia was reported to him. So the following morning
he went to the barracks to report to the Constabulary what had taken
place in the house. Report was also made to the barrio lieutenant, who
came and learned of the details of the robbery. The Constabulary also
came the following morning and found four empty shells and one live
shell near the house. Cresencia Magno was also brought before the
municipal, health officer who examined her private parts and the latter
found two lips of her vulva inflamed (Exhibit “B”). The affidavits of Daniela Leona and Rosita Magno were also taken down before the justice
of the peace, marked Exhibit “D” and Exhibit “1”.

The defense does not question the fact of the
robbery or of the rape; but it claims that appellant Manases was not
one among the five who had committed the robbery in question and abused
the inmate Cresencia Magno. One cf the witnesses presented by the
appellant is Eladio Cadano who testified that after hearing some three
shots in the evening at around 7 o’clock, he went down his house; while
staying in the yard of his house he saw Pio Magno and Maxima Magno who
invited him to go along with them to Pio Magno1s house; that on their
way they passed by the house of Iluminado Manases and that he saw
Iluminado in his house with a kerosene lamp; that they proceeded to the
house of Pio and there found that all the things inside the house had
been ransacked; that he was not able to investigate Cresencia but that
he was able to ask Maxima.

Daniela Leona, who was at the house of Pio Magno in
the evening in question, testified that she did not recognize anyone of
the five who entered the said house in the evening in question. When
she was confronted with the affidavit that she executed before the
justice of the peace on August 31, 1954 (Exh. “D-l”), she explained
that they had forced her to make the affidavit, and upon further
questioning she declared that it was Maxima Magno who had asked her to
print her thumbmark on the affidavit. Maxima Magno on rebuttal however,
denied that she had forced Daniela to make the affidavit, and the
justice of the peace of the municipality of Burauen, before whom the
affidavit was acknowledged, also declared in rebuttal that there was no
force of any kind used to compel her to affix her thumbmark to her
affidavit.

Another witness introduced by Iluminado Manases was
Enrique Abordo who also testified that he was in the house of Manases
around 7 o’clock that evening; that he heard shouts coming from the
house of Pio Magno but as he met Maxima Magno that evening, and when he
asked her if she could recognize any one of those who assaulted the
house that evening, Maxima told him that she recognized “Dandoy,” the
appellant Manases; and that he asked her how it could be that “Dandoy”
had been recognized when he was at his house.

The defendant-appellant curtly denied having
participated in the robbery and explained that the accusation against
him was caused by some trouble between his family and the family of
Cresencia about a piece of land. According to him, and according to a
witness presented, the mother of Manases had denounced Cresencia
Magno’s sister for grabbing this land and denounced the matter before
the authorities, but the mother of Cresencia Magno did not heed the
authorities when they called her for investigation.

The evidence presented by the defense to prove that
defendant-appellant did not participate in the robbery is subject to
the following objections: when witnesses Abordo and Cadano saw Manases
in his house, the robbers had already gone away and disappeared. Both
of these witnesses testified they were attracted by the shots and
shouts that were heard from the house of Pio Magno; and as the shots
and shouts took place when the robbers were already going away from the
house, the fact that they then saw Manases in his house is no proof
that he had not participated in the robbery as his house is very near
that which was robbed. Besides, one of them, Cadano, positively
declared that he left his house about one hour after he heard the
firing of the shots, which declaration goes on to show that it was
around 8 o’clock already when he and the other witnesses were in the
house of Manases and there saw the latter at home.

A second circumstance indicating the positive
identification of the defendant-appellant by the inmates of the house
is the fact that defendant-appellant was the one pointed out by the
inmates to the authorities and he was arrested on the night following
the day of the robbery, which shows that none of the inmates had ever
come to doubt that Manases was one of the robbers.

A third circumstance is the admission by Cadano
himself that when he saw Maxima Magno on the evening of the robbery,
after the robbery had been perpetrated, Maxima had assured him that one
of the robbers was Dandoy, defendant appellant Iluminado Manases.

Lastly, the explanation given by the
defendant-appellant about the existence of some misunderstanding
between appellant’s mother and the mother of Cresencia Magno about a
parcel of land, could not be any motive at all for the witnesses for
the prosecution to have falsely accused Iluminado Manases. According to
the latter, it was his mother who had a grievance against the mother of
Cresencia Magno, because the latter had taken some land or part thereof
which should belong to defendant-appellant’s mother, It was the
defendant-appellant, therefore, that had a grievance against the
offended party, not the latter against defendant-appellant’s mother.
This is the reason why defendant-appellant must have conspired with
some persons unknown to the family of the offended parties to rob the
latter and to allow Cresencia Magno, his cousin, to be rapei even in
his presence, without his objection and evidently at his insinuation or
encouragement.

By and large, we have examined carefully the record
and we find that the identity of appellant Iluminado Manases as one of
those who committed the robbery has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt, the evidence submitted by him of his denial not being enough to
overcome the positive testimonies of the inmates of the house that was
robbed. The conclusion of the trial court that the crime was committed
is, therefore, correct. However, we find that aside from the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, which was found by the trial
court, another aggravating circumstance, that of in band, was also present, as the five persons who committed the robbery were each and every one of them armed with firearms.

For the foregoing considerations, the court finds
the defendant-appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with rape and
affirms the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed, upon him
by the trial court, and further sentences him to indemnify Pio Magno in
the amount of P200.00, to pay to offended party Cresencia Magno the
amount of P2,000 as damages, and to pay the costs of this appeal.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.