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

People versus Corpin

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Marciano Corpin and Honorio Gayrama for the grave crime of robbery with rape, committed in the municipality of Naval, in the province of Leyte, on the night of November 28, 1964. The accused do not deny that the terrible events of that evening occurred; they deny that they were the men who did them. The case therefore turns on the sufficiency of the evidence of identity, and on the strength of the defense of alibi. It matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court weighs positive identification against alibi, it shows how an alibi is tested by the distance between the place of the crime and the place where the accused claims to have been, and it shows how the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons is fixed under the Revised Penal Code as amended.

Procedural History

The two accused were charged in the Court of First Instance of Leyte with robbery with rape. After trial, that court found them guilty and sentenced each of them to reclusion perpetua, with all the accessories provided by law, to indemnify Lydia Layon in the sum of 5,000 pesos and Pilar Mondelo in the sum of 1,000 pesos, jointly and severally, and to pay the costs. The trial court also convicted them of slight physical injuries. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning two errors: that the trial court erred in finding them sufficiently identified and in disregarding altogether the evidence for the defense, and that it erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in sentencing them accordingly.

Facts

At about half past ten in the evening of November 28, 1964, Pilar Mondelo and her granddaughter Lydia Layon were asleep in Pilar's house in sitio Panimbangan, Catmon, Naval, Leyte. Lydia was awakened by the noise of a window being opened. Frightened, she covered her face with her blanket, but when she heard footsteps inside the house she uncovered her face and saw the two appellants approaching her grandmother. Corpin awakened the old woman by kicking her and demanded money. When she said she had none, she was boxed, and the appellants then tied her hands and made her lie face downward.

Gayrama ransacked the house and found 25 pesos in a small cardboard box. He also took a guitar worth 9 pesos, a pair of pants valued at 8 pesos, a mat worth 4 pesos, and a chicken, all of which he handed to a companion who had remained downstairs. Gayrama then tied Lydia's hands with a rope and, having rendered her helpless, started mashing her. Both appellants later brought her downstairs, where Corpin, through force, succeeded in felling her to the ground, grabbed and pulled out her panty, and, despite her resistance, had sexual intercourse with her. Gayrama and their other companions then took turns raping her. Afterward the appellants took Lydia upstairs and left with their loot, not without first warning her and her grandmother not to tell anybody what had happened.

Shortly afterward, Avelino Liquiran, the son-in-law of Pilar Mondelo, arrived. After being told what had happened, he took both women to his house, one and one-half kilometers away, and early the following morning accompanied them to file the complaint with the authorities. In the afternoon of that same day, Pilar Mondelo was examined at the Naval General Hospital and was found to have a hematoma in the scapular region. Two days later, Lydia was examined at the same hospital and was found to be suffering from, and was treated for, fading linear petechiae on both wrists and, on internal examination, bleeding from the vaginal orifice with laceration of the hymen and vaginal lip. For their part, the appellants relied on alibi, claiming that on November 28 they attended the barrio fiesta of Villacaneja in the same municipality, went home to barrio Caray-Caray between five and six in the afternoon, and remained in their respective houses the whole night.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution evidence sufficiently identified the appellants as the men who committed the robbery and the rape.
• Whether or not the defense evidence was sufficient to establish the defense of alibi.
• Whether or not the conviction for slight physical injuries may stand, when the information charged only robbery with rape.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 4111, fixes the penalty for rape and provides:

Whenever the crime of rape is committed by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

This provision bears directly on the case because the evidence showed that Lydia Layon was raped not by one man alone but by several, the appellants among them, so that the higher range of the penalty applies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the identity of the two appellants as the perpetrators of the crime charged had been established beyond question. Lydia Layon saw them from the moment they entered her grandmother's house through the window, and she could not have been mistaken as to their identity because there was a big petroleum lamp inside the house at the time. Her grandmother likewise recognized them, and both women told the son-in-law what had happened when he arrived shortly after the malefactors departed. Moreover, the two women gave the authorities the names of both appellants the very day following the commission of the crime, and lodged the complaint on the same day. Lydia also made a sworn statement before the Philippine Constabulary detachment pointing to the two appellants as the robbers and as the first to rape her. The Court added that there was absolutely no evidence of bias or malice on the part of the old woman, her granddaughter, or the son-in-law sufficient to impel them to falsely charge the appellants with so grave a crime.

On the second issue, the Court found the alibi unworthy of belief. The appellants claimed they had gone to the barrio fiesta on board a passenger jeep, yet they could not even give the name of the driver. Their barrio of residence, Caray-Caray, was only one and one-half kilometers away from the scene of the crime, and that circumstance did not make it physically impossible for them to have committed the crime after reaching home. Their testimony, the Court said, was not supported by any other solid and credible evidence.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General that the conviction for slight physical injuries should be disregarded, because the information charged the appellants only with robbery with rape.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, whenever rape is committed by two or more persons the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. As the record did not show conclusively the existence of any aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the offense, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was in accordance with law. The Court also reduced the indemnity to the offended parties to 58 pesos, the total value of the cash and articles taken.

Doctrine

Positive identification by eyewitnesses who had ample opportunity to see the malefactors, made under sufficient illumination and promptly reported to the authorities, prevails over the defense of alibi. Alibi, to succeed, must show that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission; residence a short distance away does not establish that impossibility. A conviction cannot rest on an offense not charged in the information, so a conviction for slight physical injuries must be disregarded where the information charged only robbery with rape. And where rape is committed by two or more persons, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, and reclusion perpetua is correct in the absence of a proven aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in all other respects, modified only by disregarding the conviction for slight physical injuries and reducing the indemnity to 58 pesos, so that the appellants stand convicted of robbery with rape and each sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

Remember the single line: alibi must prove physical impossibility, and identification under a lighted lamp, promptly reported, defeats it. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of alibi and the rule that rape committed by two or more persons carries reclusion perpetua to death.