G.R. No. 12270. March 26, 1918
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RUFO TIONGCO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. RUFO TIONGCO, PEDRO HUERVA, NARCISO CASTAÑO AND CRISTETO LEDESMA, APPELLANTS.
TORRES, J.:
January 12, 1916, in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, charging the
defendants with the crime of robbery in a band, accompanied by rape. On the 25th
of the same month judgment was rendered whereby they were sentenced, Cristeto
Ledesma and Narciso Castaño, to the penalty of cadena perpetua; Pedro
Huerva, to that of 14 years, 8 months, and one day of cadena temporal;
Rufo Tiongco, to that of 12 years’ imprisonment, and all of them to the
accessory penalties, to pay an indemnity equal to the value of the property
stolen from the offended parties, and each one-sixth of the costs of the trial.
Alejo Coloso and Jose Ilisan were excluded from the proceedings. The four
defendants first above named appealed from the sentence.
The facts of the present case are as follows: On or about December 3, 1915,
in the municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, six men, among whom were the
four defendants, Narciso Castaño, Cristeto Ledesma, Pedro Huerva, and Rufo
Tiongco, all carrying arms, entered at night the house of Catalina Balinon and,
employing violence and intimidation upon the inmates thereof, seized and carried
away with them certain articles of personal use, valued at P357.50 and belonging
to Catalina Balinon and Rosario Juaneza. In order to obtain an easy entrance
into the house, one of said defendants wore the uniform of a Constabulary
private, and another was dressed like a policeman. Upon their arrival at the
house and after making known that they were there Pedro Huerva, in reply to the
questions asked him from within, told the inmates of the house that they were
Constabulary inspectors. The defendants and their two companions were then
invited to enter. Pedro Huerva and Cristeto Ledesma went in, and the others
remained outside. When inside the house. Huerva and Ledesma again told the
inmates that they, these defendants, were Constabulary inspectors and had come
to search the house to see whether the people living in it had firearms. Then
they bound the two men they found in the house, an old man and a young man, and
conducted them below where they were left in charge of the rest of the band,
while Huerva and Ledesma reentered the house to see whether they could find any
articles of value.
After the robbers had seized such things as they wished to carry off and when
ready to go out, they took the three women below blindfolded. The band then
headed for the river near by to embark in the banca in which they had
come. When they left the house, Cristeto Ledesma and Narciso Castaño compelled
two of the women, Juaneza and Eusula, to accompany them, and while the band was
on its way to the banca these two men separated from the rest, took
these two women with them to a place near a marsh not far from the river bank,
and there raped them, employing force and intimidation to accomplish their
purpose. Cristeto Ledesma raped Rosario Juaneza, and Narciso Castaño, Nieves
Eusula, after which Cristeto and Narciso went to the banca, where the
other robbers were waiting for them, and all left.
The facts above related, fully proven in this case, constitute the complex
crime of robbery in a band, accompanied by rape committed upon the persons of
two women who resided in the house where the robbery took place. Said crime is
provided for and punished by articles 502 and 503, No. 2, of the Penal Code, and
the facts in this case fall within their provisions, inasmuch as the malefactors
were armed and were more than four men, searched the inside of the house and
some of its furniture, seized money and various other effects, including
important documents, all together valued at P357.50, belonging to the owner of
the house, Catalina Balinon, and Rosario Juaneza, both inmates thereof. Upon
going out of the building, two of the robbers, Narciso Castaño and Cristeto
Ledesma, separated from their companions, took with them the said Rosario
Juaneza and Nieves Eusula to a secluded place near a river not far away, where
they raped them and, immediately after the commission of these outrages,
abandoned their victims and rejoined the other robbers, their companions, who
were awaiting them in a banca moored to the river bank. As the crime of
robbery, with that of the rape of said two women—a crime against chastity
committed on the occasion of the robbery—was perpetrated by the malefactors in
the said house of Catalina Balinon, both crimes should be punished as one single
complex crime, as defined and qualified by paragraph 2 of article 503 of the
Penal Code; for, besides the robbers seizing the money and the other effects
they found in said house, two of them sullied the honor of the two women living
therein, and the companions of the two men who committed the rape made no
opposition nor prevented these latter from consummating this other crime,
apparently unconnected with and unrelated to that robbery, but which, as well as
sanguinary crimes, is often committed on such occasions, and it is for this
reason that the penal law, in odium of such offenses against property and
chastity, has considered them complex and punished them by one single
penalty.
In the case of a complex crime, like the one here under prosecution, all the
persons who took part in its commission are identically liable therefor and
should be punished with the penalty provided in article 503, paragraph 2, of the
Penal Code. The defendants Rufo Tiongco and Pedro Huerva, who took no part in
the rape of the women Juaneza and Eusula, cannot be excepted from this penalty
for the reason that the penal law does not require the condition that the rape
be committed prior to, or simultaneously with the robbery, it being sufficient
that this crime be perpetrated on the occasion of the robbery. So the law says,
in the definition of the crime, that when the robbery is accompanied by rape or
mutilation caused purposely, all the robbers who took part in the perpetration
of the complex crime are liable for all the offenses falling within the
limitation of certain circumstances specified by the law, committed by the
members of the band.
It is unquestionable that, in the act of the robbery, two of the robbers
conceived the purpose of raping two of the three women whom they forthwith
abducted, and that they therefore compelled them go down from the house and took
them to a secluded site not far from the landing place, where the boat was
moored, in which boat they had crossed the river on their way to the place of
the robbery; that against said forcible conduction, the other robbers made no
remonstrance nor any material opposition to the commission of the crime against
the chastity and the honor of the two women who were raped. Therefore, the
defendants Tiongco and Huerva, for the very reason that they are liable for the
said crime of robbery in a band, are likewise liable for all the other acts
performed on the occasion of the robbery, although they may not actually and
materially have taken any part in the rape committed upon those two women by the
other two defendants, their companions Ledesma and Castaño.
If any of the defendants had wounded or killed an inmate of the house that
they robbed, all the defendants would, under the law, have been punished for the
complex crime df robbery with the infliction of wounds or the commission of
homicide; and, in the present case, because two of the robbers raped two women,
all the malefactors are liable for the compleex crime in question.
In the commission of the crime, due weight should be given to the attendance
of the aggravating circumstances of its having been perpetrated at night, in the
dwelling of the offended parties, in a desolate place, and in a band. There is
no extenuating circumstance to offset or compensate the effects of said
aggravating circumstances. Therefore the defendants have incurred the maximum
penalty fixed by law.
For the foregoing reasons we should sentence, as we hereby do, each of the
defendants Narciso Castaño, Cristeto Ledesma, Pedro Huerva, and Rufo Tiongco, to
the penalty of cadena perpetua and to the accessory penalties of
paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 54 of the Penal Code; and, in case they be
pardoned from the principal penalty, they shall suffer those of absolute
perpetual disqualification, subjection to the surveillance of the authorities
for the remainder of their lives, if these accessory penalties be not remitted
in the pardon of the principal penalty, and they shall make restitution of the
stolen articles, or jointly or severally pay the value thereof to the aggrieved
parties, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, pursuant to
article 51 of the Code. The defendants Cristeto Ledesma and Narciso Castaño are
each sentenced to pay an indemnity of P200 to Rosario Juaneza and Nieves Eusula,
respectively. Each of the four appellants shall pay one-fourth of the costs of
both instances. The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed, in so far as
it agrees with this decision, and reversed, in so far as it does not. So
ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, and Fisher, JJ.,
concur.
Street, J., did not sign.
DISSENTING OPINION
MALCOLM, J., dissenting:
I concur with the judgment in so far as it relates to the defendants Cristeto
Ledesma and Narciso Castaño. They are guilty as charged, of the complex crime of
robbery in a band accompanied by rape. I dissent from the judgment in so far as
it relates to the defendants Rufo Tiongco and Pedro Huerva. They are guilty of
the crime of robbery in a band not accompanied by rape. Tiongco and Huerva were
not present at, and did not take any part in, the rape of the women. It seems
perfectly clear to me that four persons can participate in a robbery, and when
the robbery is finished, two of them can be satisfied, while the other two can
only rest content with taking two of the inmates of the house away with them and
then raping these women. The first two should not be punished for the deeds of
their comrades. The record also discloses that Rufo Tiongco should be the
recipient of executive mercy.