THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL BANIAGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. MANUEL BANIAGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Brigido Tagubat, Fernando Dalapa, George Crisostomo, Felipe Guntalilib
and Manuel Baniaga were charged with the complex crime of robbery with
rape in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. Upon arraignment
they pleaded not guilty. As during the trial below, Fernando Dalapa and George Crisostomo
escaped from the provincial jail where they were detained, the trial
proceeded only with respect to (1) Manuel Baniaga, (2) Brigido Tagubat
and (3) Felipe Guntalilib, all of whom were subsequently found guilty
and sentenced as follows:

“En virtud de las
consideraciones arriba expuestas, el Juzgado halla a los acusados
Manuel Baniaga, Brigido Tagubat y Felipe Guntalilib culpables fuera de
toda duda racional del delito de robo cometido en la casa y restoran de
Vicenta Zabat y acompañado de violacion en las personas de las jovenes
Arsenia Caoili y Florencia Bautista, segun se ha alegado en la
querella, y teniendo en cuenta la concurrencia de las circunstancias
agravantes de morada y de nocturnidad, les condena a cada uno de dichos
acusados a sufrir la pena indeterminada de doce (12) años y un (1) dia
como minima a veinte (20) años como maxima, ambas de reclusion temporal,
a las accessorias de la ley, a indemnizar mancomunada y solidariamente
a la Sra. Catalina Santos y su familia la suma de P90.00 y a la Sra.
Vicenta Zabat la suma de P231.00, cuyas cantidades representan el valor
de los objetos y dinero robados y no recobrados, a indemnizar
mancomunada y solidariamente a Arsenia Caoili la suma de P3,000.00 y a
Florencia Bautista la suma de P6,000.00; sin prision subsidiaria en
caso de insolvencia; y a mantener las proles que tuvieran las citadas
Arsenia Caoili y Florencia Bautista como resultado de las violaciones
de que fueron objeto, y a pagar la parte proporcional de las costas del
juicio.”

From the above decision (1) Manuel Baniaga and (8) Felipe Guntalilib
appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the latter’s appeal was dismissed
by said court on March 28, 1958 due to his failure to file his brief
within the reglementary period.

After a review of the
evidence, the Court of Appeals agreed with the judgment of conviction
rendered by the trial court, but in view of the fact that the penalty
prescribed by law for the crime of robbery with rape should be imposed
in its maximum period, namely, reclusion perpetua, considering
the presence of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and
nighttime, not compensated by any mitigating circumstance, the case was
elevated to Us in accordance with the provisions of Section 17,
paragraph 3, of the Judiciary Act of 1948.

The evidence for
the prosecution shows the following facts: Vicenta Zabat owned a
combination store-restaurant located at Bato Ferry, Busilac, Bayombong,
Nueva Vizcaya, managed by the spouses Paulino Santos and Catalina
Santos. Arsenia Caoili, Florencia Bautista, Pacita Buen and Rosita
Gauan were employed thereat its waitresses.

On the evening
of September 8, 1954, Arsenia, Florencia and Pacita slept together on
top of two tables joined together inside the restaurant, while Rosita
slept on a cot inside the store. The Santos spouses occupied a separate
room. The store, the restaurant and the room of the Santos spouses were
all in one building. Between 11 and 12 o’clock that evening, Arsenia,
Florencia and Pacita were awakened by a kick at the bamboo door of the
restaurant, followed by the entry of six masked men, some of whom
carried firearms. Two of them put out the Coleman lamp that lighted the
restaurant and then proceeded to the room of the Santos spouses, while
a third one went to the store. The other three stood guard over
Arsenia, Florencia and Pacita, threatening to kill them if they moved.
One of the two men who entered the room of the Santos spouses—whom his
companions addressed as “Commander”—pointed a gun at Mrs. Santos and
ordered her to bring out her money. When Catalina answered that she
forgot where she placed the key to her aparador, the “Commander”
pointed his flashlight at a post where the key hung together with a
wrist watch and a bracelet. He took the articles and handed the key to
Mrs. Santos, ordering her to open her aparador—which she did. From it
she brought out a box and gave it to the “Commander”. It contained a
pair of earrings value at P60.00, a chain valued at P6.00, a ring with
pearls valued at P20.00, and cash amounting to P45.00, all belonging to
Mrs. Vicenta Zabat, the, owner of the restaurant. The robbers also
dispossessed Paulino Santos of his wrist watch valued at P120.00 and
P100.00 in cash. They then ordered Mrs. Santos to lie on her face,
while Mr. Santos, who tried to get out of the room, was likewise
ordered to lie face downwards.

Meanwhile, one of the three
men who stood guard over the girls inside the restaurant, took Arsenia
Caoili to where Rosita Gauan was lying down. After telling Rosita to
leave, he poked gun at the stomach of Arsenia and ordered her to lie
down on the cot. After she had obeyed the order, appellant kissed her,
fondled her breasts and finally placed himself on top of her and
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. The chemise which
Arsenia wore (Exhibit A) was torn and stained with blood. She was also
deprived of her wrist watch worth P55.00. In the meantime, the two
other men who were left watching Florencia Bautista and Pacita Buen
left the restaurant and, upon their return a short while later, took
Pacita Buen with them. One of the men returned to the place where
Florencia Bautista was and pointed a gun at her. He then unmasked
himself and started kissing her, finally raping her. Florencia
recognized the accused Brigido Tagubat as her offender. After Brigido
Tagubat left, another companion likewise abused her. Florencia was able
to identify him as the accused Fernando Dalapa. A third companion took
Florencia to the bathroom where he also succeeded in raping her. Having
also removed his mask in kissing her and because of the lighted lamp in
the store, she was able to recognize the accused Felipe Guntalilib as
her third abuser. Florencia Bautista then passed out and upon coming to
she discovered that her gold-filled earrings worth P20.00 were gone.
Another accused, George Crisostomo, also raped Rosita Gauan.

The following morning, Florencia Bautista, Arsenia Caoili and Rosita
Gauan were brought to the provincial hospital in Bayombong for physical
examination. The attending physicians, Dr. Raymundo Bernardo, chief of
the hospital, and Dr. Florentino C. Bernardo, resident therein, found
that the girls had been raped.

The girls later proceeded to
the PC headquarters at Bayombong where they were made to identify the
offenders from among a group of persons presented to them. Arsenia
Caoili readily pointed to Manuel Baniaga as her abuser and Brigido
Tagubat as one of those who participated in the robbery that night.
Florencia Bautista identified Fernando Dalapa, Brigido Tagubat and
Felipe Gutalilib as the persons who raped her, while Rosita Gauan
pointed to George Crisostomo as the person who raped her.

Appellant denies having participated in the commission of the crime in
question and relies upon an alibi, claiming that at 12:00 p.m. of
September 8, 1954 he left Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya bound for Diffun,
Nueva Vizcaya, to fetch some pigs, which, his mother was going to buy,
arriving at Diffun at about 6:30 p.m. in the afternoon of the same day;
that upon his arrival at Diffun he was taken to the municipal building
by the Chief of Police of Diffun, Francisco Gonzales, for questioning
on suspicion of being a Huk; that the investigation lasted up to 7:45
that evening and that upon his release he went to the home of Juan
Asis, where he and his mother passed the night; that at 7:00 o’clock
the following morning he and his mother left Diffun for Bayombong in a
bull-cart, arriving at Bayombong at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon
of the same day, September 9, 1954.

Appellant’s defense is
unconvincing. In the first place, his testimony is insufficient to
overcome the clear and straightforward testimony of Arsenia Caoili who
positively recognized and identified him as one of the malefactors who
entered the restaurant in the evening of September 8, 1954 and raped
her. It must be borne in mind in this connection that Arsenia had seen
appellant in the marketplace a few days before the date aforesaid and
that she had full opportunity to recognize him “because when he abused
me (her) and kissed me (her), I (she) took or remembered of his marks.”
(Transcript, page 9, May 27, 1955). To this must be added the
circumstance that when on September 9 several persons were shown to
Arsenia at the PC barracks in Bayombong, she readily pointed to
appellant Baniaga and Brigido Tagubat as among those who committed the
crime the night before. Lastly, there is nothing at all in the record
to show that Arsenia had any motive to perjure herself and incriminate
appellant. In the second place, it is well known that alibi is a
defense easily concocted and must be received with caution. Where
nothing supports it except the testimony of relatives, and friends it
deserves scant consideration—more so in a case like the present where
the prosecution evidence positively established the presence of
appellant at the time and place of the commission of the offense.

In view of all the foregoing, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that
the guilt of appellant Baniaga has been established beyond reasonable
doubt. The penalty for the offense committed—robbery with rape—is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
There being present in the present case the aggravating circumstances
of nighttime and dwelling, with no mitigating circumstance to offset
them, said penalty must be imposed in the maximum period. Consequently,
the penalty imposed by the trial court upon appellant Manuel Baniaga is
modified and elevated to reclusion perpetua.

Modified, as above indicated, the decision appealed from is affirmed in all other respects.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.