THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NORBERTO SILERIO, FLORO LAPIZ, AND CORNELIO ATIENZA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

In the evening of February 6, 1946, four men armed with rifles entered the
house of Alejandro Flores in Barrio Mabacan, Calauan, Laguna. Posing as officers
of the law, they required Flores to surrender “his revolver. He replied he had
none. Then they asked him about the money he had obtained through the sale of
his carabao. He answered he had already used it. Thereupon the intruders —
sufficiently identified as the herein accused Norberto Silerio, Floro Lapiz and
Cornelio Atienza, and the fugitive from Justice Loreto Maghirang — ransacked the
house and took therefrom money, clothes and jewels amounting t P788. But that
was not all: after bringing Alejandro Flores outside of the house to be guarded
by Floro Lapiz, the bandits dragged Felicidad downstairs only to be abused at
the point of a gun first by Norberto Silerio and later by Cornelio Atienza.
Another woman in the house, Pilar Porciuncula escaped the men’s bestiality by
pleading her physical condition — her menstruation period.

The next morning the outrage was reported to the authorities; and the three
accused were arrested on February 8, 1946. After a short investigation by
Corporal Oculto of the military police they all admitted having taken part in
the robbery. Silerio furthermore admitted that he and Maghirang had raped the
woman. On the other hand Atienza and Lapiz pointed to Maghirang as the sex
offender. The three detainees signed — or thumbmarked — and swore their
statements before Pastor Timog, justice of the peace of Calauan, Laguna, on
February 10, 1946. During the investigation Norberto Silerio indicated the place
where a portion of the loot was kept. It was immediately retrieved, its items
being listed in Exhibit D, valued at P80.

There is no question as to the happenings in Mabacan that night of February
6. The identity of the robbers is sworn to by the occupants of the house and by
the ravished woman. These have no reason falsely to impute to herein prisoners
the commission of so grave a wrong. The immediate apprehension of the
malefactors, the prompt start of proceedings against them, the discovery in
their possession of part of the looted articles, plus the confessions they have
subscribed, all make out the case for the prosecution.

In a way that case is strengthened by the poor alibi they tried to set up.
They attempted to prove that during the whole month of February they were in the
neighboring town of Pila engaged in the harvest of palay. However, they
presented no one to corroborate their story. And Mabacan being a barrio between
Calauan and the neighboring town of Pila, it is not impossible that in the
evening of February 6 — when harvesting was not done — they went to Calauan to
perform what they actually performed.

To be sure there are deficiencies in the declarations of the eyewitnesses and
offended parties. The attorney for the defendants has diligently specified them.
Yet they are obviously owing to the manner in which questions were asked, and
the inexperience of the witnesses, what with the impressive solemnity of court
proceedings. And considering that such oral testimony is not the only evidence
against appellants — note the confessions and other circumstances hereinbefore
related — we are not inclined to ascribe such deficiencies to simple perjury or
harmful insincerity. It must be observed specially that one of the accused,
Cornelio Atienza, testifying in court, admitted that he and his co-accused had
raided Flores’ house on the eventful night — although he exculpated himself by
alleging that he had accompanied the others through fear and intimidation.

A procedural incident is the subject of the principal assignment of error:
when the case was called for hearing in the court of first instance on October
23, 1946, the accused appeared without counsel. The judge appointed Attorney. De
Leon as counsel de oficio. After a conference with his charges said
attorney made the following remarks:

“I have talked to the accused * * * and told them to get their attorney
because I am always busy. That is why I am not prepared for the
trial”.

The judge, however, ruled that the trial could proceed. Witnesses were
presented for the people. Counsel de oficio cross-examined them. A
two-hour recess was had. Then the three accused testified upon his direct
examination. They were in turn cross-examined by the fiscal.

As everything appears to have been normally conducted, we can not say that
under the circumstances there was prejudicial error. It must be remembered in
this connection that the first complaint was filed against these accused on
February 10, 1946, before the justice of the peace of Calauan. The preliminary
investigation was held there, and these defendants were represented by Atty.
Damaso Tengco. The fiscal filed his information in the Court of First Instance
on August 31, 1946. They were arraigned on October 9, 1946. Trial was set for
October 23, 1946, the court advising the parties of its desire to proceed with
the case without fail on that day. Then when the case was called on October 23
these accused appeared without counsel. It was therefore no abuse of discretion
for his Honor to insist on holding the trial, the accused having had enough time
to prepare for it, had the benefit of counsel’s assistance and apparently were
bent on delaying the termination of the proceedings, they having on a previous
occasion failed to show up and were consequently arrested by the court’s order.
Anyway, it is not shown in what manner their representation by counsel de
oficio had substantially impaired their defense.

The offense was robbery with rape (article 294, paragraph 2, Revised Penal
Code) aggravated by the circumstances of night time and band. Wherefore,
inasmuch as the appealed judgment imposing on them the penalty of life
imprisonment and requiring indemnity to the offended parties is in accordance
with law (U.S. vs. Tiongco, 37 Phil., 951; U.S. vs. Bretana,
49 Phil., 444) it is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Parás, Feria, Perfecto, and Tuason, JJ., concur.