THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CATALINO ORTEZA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Convicted of robbery with rape by the Court of First Instance of Quezon, and
sentenced to suffer eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
prision mayor to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law,
and to pay the costs, Catalino Orteza appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
found upon the facts that the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua
because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and
dwelling, and that appellant should be ordered to indemnify the offended party
in the amount of P5,000.00, plus P52.00 actual damages. The case was certified
to us in view of such imposable penalty.

The evidence presented by the prosecution has established the following
facts:

At about 9:00 o’clock on the night of January 5, 1957 Eufemio Romantico went
with some companions to the public market of Infanta, Quezon, to slaughter a
carabao, leaving his wife Marianita Ruidera and their four-year old foster-child
in their house on Plaridel St. of said town. At about midnight Marianita was
suddenly awakened from her sleep, and noticed that appellant, wearing a white
shirt, was at her side. She recognized him by the light of the flourescent
electric bulb in the sala of the house. Holding an open balisong
against her throat, he whispered to her, “Bigyan mo ako ng isang bagay!”
Stricken with fear, all she could say was “Diyos Ko, Panginoon ko po.” He pulled
up her skirt and tried to remove her panties. In her effort to keep them in
place he wounded her hands with his knife. Through the use of force, he
succeeded in placing the woman’s thighs apart and, with the knife still held
against her throat, in satisfying his carnal lust.

After consumating the act appellant warned his victim not to tell her husband
or the authorities about it, otherwise he would come back and kill everyone in
the family. He also ordered her not to shout, because he was a Huk commander and
her house was surrounded by his men. He then demanded money, and Marianita had
to give him the two pesos hidden under her pillow. After appellant left
Marianita went to another room of the house and found that the aparador
there had been ransacked, the clothes scattered and the sum of P50.00
missing.

Very early the following morning Eufemio Romantico returned home and found
his wife distraught, her dress smeared with blood and her panties torn. She told
him that a man had come, robbed and abused her. However, remembering appellant’s
threat and afraid that her husband might kill him, Marianita did not reveal his
identity.

One hour later Eufemio reported the incident to the chief of police, who
immediately proceeded to the victim’s house. She narrated the incident and gave
him a general description of her assailant, but still did not reveal his
identity. In a short while the municipal health officer arrived, examined
Marianita and found abrasions on her cheeks and neck and wounds on her hands and
arms.

That same morning the chief of police saw appellant, in underwear, washing a
white shirt at the faucet opposite the municipal building some forty meters from
appellant’s house. For several days thereafter, appellant continued to loiter in
the premises of the municipal building. Noting that it was rather unusual for
him to do so and knowing that he had been prosecuted in the past for robbery,
physical injuries and assault with the use of a bladed weapon, the chief of
police became suspicious and called appellant for investigation. His statement
was reduced to writing but Orteza refused to sign it. Nevertheless, the result
of the investigation was reported to the constabulary. On January 23, 1957 both
Marianita and appellant were summoned to the PC headquarters at Sta. Cruz,
Laguna, and there the victim revealed for the first time that he was the
perpetrator of the crime. Considering the evidence thus far gathered as
insufficient, the commanding officer did not order the detention of appellant,
who promptly went into hiding.

Meanwhile, sergeant Alejandro Borja, the PC investigator assigned to the
case, gathered additional evidence. On April 10, 1957 appellant was arrested in
Gumaca, Quezon. The next day he was taken to Sta. Cruz where, after being shown
Marianita’s affidavit attributing the crime to him, he admitted its commission.
That afternoon he executed an extra-judicial confession, which he ratified
before the justice of the peace of Sta. Cruz, Laguna the following day. He was
later on taken to Marianita’s house, where he staged a reenactment of the crime,
of which photographs were taken and subsequently presented as evidence at the
trial.

On April 15, 1957 the complaint for robbery with rape and physical injuries
was filed against appellant with the Justice of the Peace Court of Infanta.
After preliminary investigation the case was elevated for trial to the Court of
First Instance, where the corresponding information was filed by the Provincial
Fiscal on May 25, 1957.

The defense interposed by appellant is alibi. His testimony is to the effect
that on January 5, 1957, from 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon to 7:00 o’clock in
the evening, he was in his house engaged in a drinking spree with one Manuel
Portera; that from the house they went to the public market and there played
cara y cruz; that afterwards they saw a movie until about 10:00
o’clock, when they returned to the market to resume the game; that they went to
the store of Baldomero Larita where they met Celso Claustro, Lauro Rutaquio,
Nerio Ello and Teodoro Peñamante, who were then drinking; that at about midnight
a quarrel arose between Celso Claustro and a soldier; that appellant separated
from Portera and joined the rest of the group, which proceded to the market; and
that after buying meat at the market he went home to sleep at about 2:00 o’clock
the following morning.

The defense deserves no serious consideration. Appellant could not produce
any one of the many persons he mentioned to corroborate his testimony. His claim
that Patrolman Teodoro Peñamante was among them is belied by the police blotter,
which shows that the latter was on guard duty in the municipal building from
7:00 o’clock in the evening of January 5, 1957 to 1:00 o’clock the following
morning. Manuel Fortera testified that after drinking with appellant at the
house of Rosario Ruanto they separated from each other at about 10:00 o’clock,
appellant proceeding in the direction of the post office, which is towards the
house of the offended party. In other words appellant’s own evidence, by the
testimony of said witness, places him within the vicinity of the crime at the
time of its commission. His own uncorroborated declaration cannot prevail
against the offended party’s clear evidence regarding his identification. People
vs. Divinagracia, 105 Phil., 281; People vs. Alban, et al., 111 Phil., 668;
March 29, 1961. Marianita Ruidera stated positively that appellant was the
perpetrator of the crime and no possible motive is shown why she would falsely
impute to him so grave a crime as robbery with rape. She could not have been
mistaken, for she had known appellant for many years and the bedroom was
sufficiently illuminated by the light coming from the fluorescent bulb attached
to the ceiling in the sala. It is the natural reaction of every victim of
criminal violence to strive to know the identity of the assailant; and in this
particular case the assault was such that it took some time before it could be
consummated, affording the victim sufficient opportunity for unequivocal
recognition. Furthermore, the issue here being one of credibility of witnesses,
the findings of the trial court, which saw and heard the witnesses testify and
observed their department and manner of testifying during the trial, will not be
disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing that it overlooked certain facts
of substance and value that, if considered, would affect the result of the case.
People vs. Berganio, et al., 110 Phil., 922.

Appellant assails his conviction despite the absence of medical examination
of the offended party. Medical examination is not an indispensable element in
the prosecution for the crime of rape, because it all depends upon the evidence
offered and as long as such evidence convinces the court, a conviction therefor
is proper. People vs. Belandres et al., 85 Phil., 874; People vs. Suarez, 40
Off. Gaz., 11th Supp., No.11, p. 28; People vs. Selfaison, 110 Phil., 839.

Repudiating his extrajudicial confession, appellant claims that he executed
the same because he was maltreated by the constabulary soldiers. It has not been
sufficiently explained why, if such claim is true, he did not report the same to
the justice of the peace before whom his oath was taken. Besides, the written
statement contains details regarding the commission of the crime which could
have come only from a person who could furnish them of his own free will.
Appellant’s subsequent reenactment of the crime in the presence of a number of
people, among whom were Dr. Rogelio Pradellada, president of the sanitary
division of Burdeos, Quezon, and Crispo Potesta, a photographer from Infanta,
militates strongly against his claim of maltreatment.

The crime committed by appellant is robbery with rape, for which the law
imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua. Article 294 (2), Revised Penal Code. Considering the
presence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling with no
mitigating circumstances to offset them, the penalty should be fixed in its
maximum period.

The decision of the court a quo is modified and appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the offended party in the
sum of P5,052.00, with costs.

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