THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANATALIO PRADO, RICARDO PELGRIN AND JUANITO EULOGIO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
finding defendants Anatalio Prado, Ricardo Pelgrin and Juanito Eulogio
guilty of the complex crime of robbery with rape, with the aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling of the offended party, and
sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
the three of them jointly and severally to indemnify Priscilla Forro in
the sum of P4,000, also to indemnify the offended parties Hermenegildo
Pillo and Priscilla Forro in the sum of P553.00, the value of carabaos
and articles taken away, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay 1/3 of the costs each.

On and before August 7, 1956, spouses Hermenegildo Pillo and
Priscilla Forro lived in a small house in the barrio of Nalibugan,
Municipality of Calinog, Province of Iloilo. They bad two children of
minor age. In the night of August 7, 1956, one Jesus Laviste was also
at their house because he had come to collect from them payment of a
loan of palay borrowed by the spouses. The house was only 5 meters by 3
meters in size. The floor was less than a meter from the ground and
access there to was by means of a bamboo stair with two steps. The door
was closed by a shutter. This was fastened by a small string in the
upper corner. The house had also a window at one side. The kitchen was
in a small corner of the house.

At about 8:00 that evening of August 7, when the family and the
guest were still awake, a voice was heard at the foot of the stairs
near the window, calling “pare, pare, pare,” (friend, friend, friend).
Hermenegildo immediately stood up, went to the window and opened it,
and saw five individuals in front of the house. His older child went to
the door to open the shutter, but in trying to do so the shutter fell
down. Thereupon Hermenegildo approached the door, and as he did so,
defendant Juanito Eulogio pulled him down below to the ground. There he
was hogtied, boxed and kicked by Juanito and his companions. He saw
that the five persons down below were, aside from Juanito, Anatalio
Prado, Ricardo Pelgrin, Agustin Cepeda and Luciano Pelgrin. After
having hogtied him, two of the five persons went up. They were the
accused Juanito Eulogio and Luciano Pelgrin. The other three were left
behind to guard Hermenegildo. Of the three who were left behind, one
held a carbine, which he pointed at Hermenegildo, while the other two
carried fighting boloes. Juanito Eulogio was carrying a revolver, while
Luciano his companion was unarmed. Juanito immediately ordered Laviste
to lie down flat on the floor, face downwards, and Laviste did as
ordered. He also ordered Priscilla to sit down in a corner. They then
proceeded to ransack the room and the personal belongings of the
spouses, putting the clothes, jewels and rice that they wanted to take
in two small sacks.

Once the ransacking was over, Juanito ordered Priscilla to lie down
flat on the floor, face upwards, and after giving his pistol to Luciano
Pelgrin, he placed himself on top of her and had carnal intercourse
with her against her will. This was done while Pelgrin directed the
revolver at Priscilla. After Juanito had satisfied his carnal desire,
he took the revolver from Pelgrin and the latter also lay down flat on
Priscilla and satisfied his bestial desires on her. When Pelgrin stood
up, Juanito again gave the revolver to Pelgrin and had a second
intercourse with Priscilla, and after this was done, Pelgrin in turn
handed the revolver to Juanito and also had a second intercourse with
her. After this was done, they went down the house, and together with
the three left downstairs went away, bringing Hermenegildo with them.
As they went away, they also took a female carabao of Hermenegildo
together with its two calves. After continuing along with them for some
distance, Juanito untied Hermenegildo and told him to say his prayers
as he was going to kill him, but instead of doing so he ran to his
companions and all went away.

The above story is testified to by Hermenegildo Pillo and his wife
Priscilla Forro, and Jesus Laviste. Pillo recognized the three members
who stayed down below as Anatalio Prado, Agustin Cepeda and Ricardo
Pelgrin. However, the only ones who could be charged as accused are the
defendants-appellants Anatalio Prado, Ricardo Pelgrin and Juanito
Eulogio, as the others have not yet been apprehended.

The day after the incident, Hermenegildo Pillo proceeded to the
barrio lieutenant to inform him of the robbery. The barrio lieutenant
accompanied him to the Chief of Police, who sent three policemen with
them to the house of Hermenegildo Pillo to investigate the robbery.
However, Hermenegildo did not at that time disclose the names of the
persons who had committed the robbery.

A certain Jose Fernandez, who lived near the road leading to the
house of Pillo, had seen five men on the evening in question, four of
whom were armed, one with carbine, another with revolver and two others
with fighting boloes, but he did not recognize any one of them except
Luciano Pelgrin. He noticed that they were going into the direction of
Pillo’s house. On August 22, Priscilla Forro went to the Municipal
Health of Calinog for the purpose of having her private parts examined.
The physician made the following findings:

“Physical examination:
	General Survey: Fairly nourished and fairly developed female subject
	External Findings:
		1. Breasts………………………………………………………..	Rounded, soft in consistency, globular in outline, slightly sagging; nipples protruding and lactating.
		2. Abdomen ……………………………………………………..	Presence of Lina Gravidarum
		3. Pubic Hair……………………………………………………..	Abundant and evenly distributed
		4. Labia Majora………………………………………………….	Fleshy and supple with reddish coloration with the presence of an old healed laceration on it’s posterior aspect corresponding to 6:00 o’clock on the face of the clock
	Internal Findings:
		1. Vagina…………………………………………………………	Admits 2 fingers easily with evidence of slight bleeding
		2. Labia Minora …………………………………………………	Inflamed, congested and tender with erosion on the right lateral fornix
		3. Hymen…………………………………………………………	Ruptured irregularly with presence of carancula myrtiformis
		4. Cervix…………………………………………………………	Markedly tender with minute erosions reddish in color from which punctiform hemorrhages occur.

CONCLUSION: “SEXUAL INTERCOURSE PREVIOUSLY CONSUMMATED.”

After the investigation of the robbery by the police authorities of
Calinog, Pillo went to the barrio of Luag with his wife. Pillo was then
suffering from stomachache and he went there for treatment. After
treatment, he and his wife went to the barrio lieutenant to report the
robbery. Barrio Luag belongs to the municipality of Dueñas, far away
from Calinog. Pillo had brought his children with them because they
were afraid they may be killed by the persons who had robbed them.
Twenty days after their transfer to Luag, Pillo and his wife again went
to the Municipality of Calinog and then reported to the police
lieutenant the names of the three robbers, namely, Anatalio Prado,
Agustin Cepeda and Luciano Pelgrin, So the corresponding affidavits
against these were executed. Jesus Laviste and Jose Fernandez were also
investigated and they signed affidavits.

The arrest of Juanito Eulogio was accidental. While Pillo was going
aboard the truck from Pader to the town of Duenas, he recognized among
the passengers one of the robbers who took part in the robbery on
August 7, in their house. The truck stopped at the municipal building
of Duenas, at the request of Pillo, and once there, Pillo alighted from
the truck, went to the police and pointed out to him (Juanito) as one
of those who had committed the robbery in the night in question. The
man thus pointed to was arrested and he gave his name as Juanito
Eulogio, one of the defendants-appellants. The criminal complaint was
filed before the justice of the peace court of Calinog on August 29,
1956. In that court the defendants waived the preliminary
investigation, so the record Was forwarded to the Court of First
Instance for trial. In this court the story as above described was
testified to by the spouses, Jesus Laviste, Jose Fernandez, the police
corporal of Calinog and the physician who examined Priscilla Forro. The
spouses testified that the things taken away were three carabaos, three
fighting boloes, three trousers, one blanket, one pair of earrings,
eight gantas of clean rice, one pair of slippers, ten ladies dresses
and P4.00 in cash, all of which were valued at P553.00.

On the basis of the facts above set forth as testified to by the
witnesses for the prosecution, the court below rendered judgment of
conviction, from which the appeal has been taken by the
defendants-appellants. In this Court, various issues of fact have been
raised, each of which will now be considered.

The first issue is the supposed lack of experience on the part of
the physician who examined the private parts of Priscilla Forro. The
physician admitted that that was the first instance in which he had
examined a victim of the crime of rape. We find no merit in the
objection to the supposed lack of experience on the part of the
physician. The finding about the inflamed condition of the private
parts of the victim required no past experience because the incarnation
was visible to the naked eye and nothing could have produced it but the
rape perpetrated on her by, the defendants-appellants. The inflamation
could not have been produced in the ordinary course of cohabitation
with the husband who would not have used force, as the assailants did,
to have intercourse with her.

Counsel for appellants next attacks the supposed probability of the
criminal assault in view of the refusal of the victim of the rape to
categorically answer a question supposedly propounded to her by a
police officer in the course of the investigation by the police as to
whether she had been raped or not. The incident to which counsel refers
is the fact that when the police corporal conducted an investigation of
the robbery and rape the following day, Priscilla Forro refused to
answer the corporal when the latter asked her if she had been raped.
Not much importance can be given to this incident. It appears that the
spouses reported to the barrio lieutenant and to the police authorities
that they had been robbed and the wife had been raped. The report as to
the robbery was made to Tomas Castro, the corporal (tsn., p. 130). But
when asked about the rape, Priscilla Forro did not deny that she was
raped, she only cried (tsn., p. 132). This conduct on her part is not a
denial of the rape; the victim must have been ashamed that she had been
the victim of such a heinous offense and all that she could do was to
cry when she was pointedly asked that question.

However, she testified to this fact in court The examination of her
private parts by the physician as well as the testimonies of Jesus
Laviste and her husband, all point out expressly to the commission of
the criminal assault.

The third argument raised by appellants’ counsel is that
Hermenegildo Pillo and his wife did not tell the names of the robbers
the day immediately following the robbery because said spouses perhaps
did not actually identify the robbers. The conduct of the spouses in
leaving the barrio soon after the commission of the crime indicates
that the authors must have been suspected to be their own barrio mates
or neighbors, as the defendants-appellants were. That Pillo knew that
the Pelgrins participated in the robbery may also be gleaned from the
testimony of a witness for the defense, namely, Luis Piz, who declared
that Pillo confidentially disclosed to the witness his suspicion or
perhaps knowledge that the son of Manuel Pelgrin might have been one of
the robbers (tsn., p. 135). The positive fact is, however, when the
spouses transferred their dwelling to a barrio of Duenas, far away from
the residences of defendants-appellants, and decided to have the
malefactors prosecuted, they immediately disclosed the names of at
least four of them, namely, Anatalio Prado, Luciano Pelgrin, Agustin
Cepeda and Ricardo Pelgrin. This is evident from the complaint dated
August 29, 1956 and the affidavits attached thereto Lastly, the manner
in which Hermenegildo Pillo identified Juanito Eulogio while both he
and Eulogio were aboard the truck and the readiness with which Pillo
reported Juanito’s identity to the police indicates that Juanito
Eulogio was recognized beyond question on the eve of the robbery. The
fact that Pillo may not have known the name of Juanito Eulogio is no
reason for holding that there was no identification by Pillo of said
defendant-appellant.

We have carefully read the testimonies of the witnesses both for the
prosecution and the defense and we are satisfied that truth rings in
those of the offended parties and their witnesses. Their testimonies
are direct, positive, reasonable and unimpeached. On the other hand the
defense of defendants is alibi, and this is testified to in a very
general manner by Demetria Prado, wife of one of the
defendants-appellants, and by one Nicanor Bugarin, and by
defendants-appellants themselves. Bugarin testified that from seven
o’clock in the evening of August 5, and during the following Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Ricardo Pelgrin and
Juanito Eulogio were in their house to help them build the same. This
general statement finds no corroboration in any of the evidence
presented. If such actual construction was done in which
defendants-appellants were present why was no corroboration submitted.
Why were the other laborers supposedly working with the other
defendants-appellants not introduced so that the truth as to the
supposed presence of defendants-appellants in that far away place may
be more truthfully explained? Or if there were no other laborers aside
from defendants-appellants, why was this fact not so stated in the
court below? Such general statement, especially when not corroborated
by other people not entitled to credence, can not overcome the
testimony of no less than three persons who saw the robbers, two having
seen them going up the house and by a fourth one who had actually seen
them together armed early in the evening of August 7, before the
commission of the robbery later.

We are therefore fully satisfied that the evidence submitted by the
prosecution clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt that the
defendants-appellants committed the acts of robbery and rape imputed to
them on the night of August 7, 1956. The two aggravating circumstances
found by the court below, namely, dwelling of the offended party and
night time, are correct. There is an additional aggravating
circumstance, namely, that of commission of the crime in. band because
four of the five robbers were armed, one with a carbine, one with a
shotgun and two with fighting boloes. There was no mitigating
circumstance proved by the defense, for which reason, the findings of
the lower court as well as the judgment and sentence rendered, must be
upheld.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against the
defendants-appellants at the rate of one-third each. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.