THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCIANO CORPIN AND HONORIO GAYRAMA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal taken by Marciano Corpin and Honorio Gayrama from the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte finding them guilty of the crime of robbery
with rape committed in the municipality of Naval, Leyte
on November 28, 1964 and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, with all the accessories provided
for by law; to indemnify, jointly and severally, Lydia Layon
in the sum of P5,000.00 and Pilar
Mondelo in the sum of P1,000.00, and to pay the
costs.  They now urge us to re­verse said
decision claiming that the trial court committed the following errors:

“I.       THE COURT A QUO
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED AND DISREGARD­ING
ALTOGETHER THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE;

“II.      THE COURT A QUO
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CHARGE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND
SENTENCING THEM ACCORDINGLY.”

The prosecution evidence has conclusively established the
following facts:

At about 10:30 in the
evening of November 28, 1964,
while Pilar Mondelo and her
granddaughter Lydia Layon were asleep in the former’s house located in sitio Panimbangan, Catmon, Naval, Leyte, Lydia
was awakened by the noise produced by the opening of a window. Frightened, she
covered her face with her blanket, but when she heard footsteps inside the
house she uncovered her face and then saw the appellants approaching her
grandmother.  Corpin
awakened the latter by kicking her and once she had been awakened, he demanded
money from her.  When she told him that
she had no money, she was boxed, and thereafter appellants tied her hands and
made her lie face downward.  Appellant Gayrama
then ransacked the house and found P25.00 in a small cardboard box, took a
guitar worth P9.00, a pair of pants valued at P8.00, a mat worth P4.00 and a
chicken, all of which he handed to a companion who had remained downstairs.  Thereafter, Gayrama
also tied the hands of Lydia with a rope and, having thus rendered her
helpless, started mashing her.  She was
later brought downstairs by both appellants and once there Corpin,
through force, succeeded in felling her to the ground.  He then grabbed and pulled out her panty and,
inspite of Lydia’s resistance, succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her.  Thereafter,
Gayrama and their other companions took turns in
raping her.  After thus satisfying their
lust, appellants took Lydia upstairs and then left with their loot not without
first warning her and her grandmother not to tell anybody of what had happened.

Shortly after the events just stated, Avelino
Liquiran, son-in-law of the old woman Pilar Mondelo, arrived and after
being told of what had happened, he took both women to his house, one and
one-half kilometers away, and early the following morning, he accompanied them
to file the corresponding complaint with the authorities.  In the afternoon of the same day (November
29) Pilar Mondelo was
examined at the Naval General
Hospital and was found to have been
suffering from a 2 by 1 centimeter Hematoma in the
scapular region.  Two days later Lydia
was also examined at the same hospital and was found suffering from, and was
treated for the following injuries –

“1.     Fading
linear petechiae both wrist on lateral medial &
dorsal surface, 1 cm. maximum width.

“2.     INTERNAL EXAMINATION:
Bleeding from vaginal orifice moderate in amount with fleshy smell.  Lacera­tion of the hymen & vagina lip at 6:00 o’clock 2 cm. in length at posterior
end.  (Exh. A, B; pp. 87, 88 t.s.n., Aug. 10, 1965).”

Appellants rely on an alibi claiming that on November 28, 1964
they attended the barrio fiesta of Villacaneja,
within the same municipality of Naval, having stayed there until they went home
to barrio Caray-Caray between five and six o’clock in
the afternoon; that both of them remained in their respective house the whole
night of November 28.

The only issues before us are, on the one hand, the sufficiency of
the prosecution evidence identifying appellants herein as the men who committed
the acts mentioned heretofore, and, on the other, the sufficiency of the
defense evidence to prove the defense of alibi.

After going over the record, We are
fully convinced that the identity of the two appellants as the perpetrators of
the crime charged has been established beyond question.  Lydia Layon saw
them from the moment they succeeded in entering the house of her grandmother
through the window.  She could not have
been mistaken as to their identity because at that time there was a big
petroleum lamp inside the house.  Her
grandmother likewise recognized them and she, as well as her granddaughter,
informed her son-in-law of what had happened when the latter arrived in the
house shortly after the departure of the malefactors.  Moreover, Pilar Mondelo and her granddaughter gave the authorities the
names of both appellants herein as the perpetrators of the crime charged the
very day following the commission of the crime, and lodged the complaint on the
same day.  On December 2, 1964 Lydia made
a sworn statement before the P.C. Detachment, pointing to the two appellants
herein as the ones who had committed the robbery and that they were the first
to rape her on that tragic evening.

Upon the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence showing bias
or malice on the part of the old woman Pilar Mondelo and her granddaughter, nor on the part of the former’s son-in-law, sufficient to have impelled them to
falsely charge appellants with such a grave crime as that of robbery with rape.

In connection with their defense, appellants claim that they had
gone to barrio Villacaneja to attend the fiesta on
board a passenger jeep, but the truth is that they could not even give the name
of the driver of the vehicle.  Moreover,
the barrio of their residence, Caray-Caray, was only
one and one-half kilometers away from the scene of the crime and it is obvious
that this circumstance does not make it physically impossible for them to have
committed the crime after they had reached home.  Besides, their testimony is not supported by
any other solid and credible evidence.

The information filed against appellants charges them only with
robbery with rape.  The lower court,
however, found them guilty of the crime of robbery with rape, and slight
physical injuries.  We agree with the
office of the Solicitor General that the conviction for slight physical
injuries should be disregarded. 
Likewise, the indemnity awarded to the offended parties should be reduced
to the sum of P58.00 which, according to the evidence, is the total value of
the cash and articles of which the victims were robbed.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4111, whenever the crime of rape is
committed by two or more persons as in the present case – the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.  As the record does not show conclusively the
existence of any aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the
offense charged, We are of the opinion that the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is in accordance with
law.

WHEREFORE, modified as above indicated, the appealed
decision is affirmed in all other respects.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., took no part.