THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSEFINO G. SELFAISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appellants Josefino G. Selfaison, Nemesio Dalisay, Domingo Ureta and
Bernardo Bautista—in company with Arsenio Amacio, Reynaldo Bautista,
Domingo Salde and Amrafil Dalisay who were alleged to be still at
large—were accused in an amended information of the crime of robbery
with rape in the Court of First Instance of Capiz. After trial,
Josefino G. Selfaison was found guilty of the crime charged and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
indemnify the complainants, Angelita Sinag and Angelina Maghibon, the
amounts of P212.50 and P110, respectively, and to pay one-fourth of the
costs. The other three accused, namely Nemesio Dalisay, Domingo Ureta
and Bernardo Bautista, were found guilty of the crime of rape and
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal,
plus proportionate costs. From the judgment of conviction, the four
named accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, but in view of the
penalty imposed, that court certified the case to this Court.

The evidence for the prosecution shows that on April 6, 1954, the
complainants Angelina Maghibon, 19 years old, and Angelita Sinag, 16,
of barrio Jibon and Kumalaskas, respectively, of the town of Nabas,
Capiz, boarded the “S.S. General del Pilar” bound for Capiz. The young
girls, who worked for three years as housemaids in Manila, were going
home with their savings, Angelina during that period having been able
to save P110 and Angelita, P206. At 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the
following day, the ship arrived at the port of New Washington, Capiz.
At the dock, the two girls saw an old acquaintance, Josefino G.
Selfaison, and boarded the passenger truck he was driving, which was
bound for the town of Nabas. The truck started its journey at about 5
o’clock and passed through several towns picking up and letting out
passengers along the way. At barrio Ondoy, municipality of Ibajay,
Selfaison stopped the truck, got off and went to his house. After a
short while, he returned accompanied by four men who accommodated
themselves on top of the truck. These men were later identified as
Domingo Ureta, Domingo Salde, Amrafil Dalisay and Reynaldo Bautista.
The two complainants wanted to be taken to their respective barrios,
but Selfaison informed them that they would have to pay an additional
fare of P5 each. The girls agreed, giving him the money, and Selfaison
saw them extract the money from bundles of paper bills hidden in the
garments over their breasts.

With Selfaison still at the
wheel, the trip was resumed. In the vehicle then, aside from the two
complainants, and Selfaison at the driver’s seat, were two lady
passengers, Nemesio Dalisay (the conductor), Bernardo Bautista (the
“washing”) and the four men on top of the truck. At about 10 o’clock in
the evening, the truck arrived at the poblacion of Nabas. It
was in this town that Arsenio Amacio boarded the truck. After
discharging his two other lady passengers, Selfaison turned the truck
and drove towards the direction of barrio Ondoy. When the girls noticed
this, they became apprehensive and protested. Selfaison, however, drove
very fast saying that he had to get something from his house.

At sitio
Pulang Data of Barrio Solido, a mountainous and isolated place,
Selfaison suddenly stopped the truck. He and the other men then
alighted and went to the rear of the truck. After a while, they
returned and forced the girls to go down. Josefino G. Selfaison,
Amrafil Dalisay, Reynaldo Bautista and Domingo Ureta pulled Angelita
Sinag to one side of the truck, while Bernardo Bautista, Nemesio
Dalisay, Arsenio Amacio and Domingo Salde dragged Angelina Maghibon to
the other side.

Angelita was pushed by Selfaison to the
ground. She struggled to free herself and shouted for help, but her
hands were pinned down above her head by Reynaldo Bautista. Domingo
Ureta took hold of one of her legs, and as Amrafil Dalisay held the
other, Josefino G. Selfaison raised her clothes, pulled down her
panties and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. When he
was through, he groped for Angelita’s remaining P200 and slapped her,
saying that she was arrogant (“suplada”). Reynaldo Bautista, Domingo
Ureta, Amrafil Dalisay and, finally, Arsenio Amacio then took turns in
raping her. Exhausted and with her genitalia bleeding, Angelita slowly
stood up, put on her panties and climbed back to the truck.

Angelina Maghibon suffered the same ordeal. After she was forcibly
thrown to the ground, Arsenio Amacio held both of her hands over her
head, while Bernardo Bautista and Domingo Salde held her legs. Helpless
and pinned to the ground, Angelina Maghibon made desperate struggles
and frantic calls for help, but her efforts proved futile. Nemesio
Dalisay pulled out her “pedal pusher” and panties and then ravished
her. When he was through, he held the girls hands, while Arsenio Amacio
took his turn. Bernardo Bautista followed Amacio. Then Josefino G.
Selfaison came and also had carnal knowledge of her. When he had
finished, he felt for and took Angelina’s money amounting to P105,
which was wrapped in a handkerchief fastened to her brassiere.

After everybody had given vent to his lust, Josefino G. Selfaison asked
Angelita for the key to her trunk, but the latter refused. Thereupon,
Selfaison broke the trunk open with a stone and took away six pieces of
dress materials worth P9, a can of biscuits and a dozen oranges all
worth P3.50. Thereafter, Selfaison drove the girls back to the town of
Nabas and threatened them with death should they say anything about the
whole affair. The girls went to the house of one Emma Dalisay and spent
the night there.

In the following morning, Angelita Sinag,
accompanied by her brother, reported the incident to the Chief of
Police of Nabas. The latter, however, was skeptical. Just then a PC
lieutenant arrived to whom Angelita narrated her story. After the other
complainant, Angelina Maghibon, was fetched, the officer brought them
to the municipal building for questioning. In the course of the
interrogation, Josefino G. Selfaison, who was then driving his
passenger truck, was called by the PC officer and was promptly
identified by the girls. When he was asked why he abused the girls, the
latter even heard him say that “devil must have entered his head.” On
that same day, the girls were examined by a physician. The physical
examination on Angelina Maghibon showed “recent laceration of the
hymen” and “contusions of the wall of labia minora.” The
findings on Angelita Sinag showed “slight laceration at the posterior
commissure.” Three days later, the girls were again examined at the
provincial hospital and the examining physician made similar findings
on their genitals.

On April 21, 1954, Angelita Sinag and
Angelina Maghibon filed separate complaints in the Justice of the Peace
Court of Nabas for robbery with rape. Named as defendants were Jose G.
Selfaison, Raymundo Dalisay, Arsenio Amacio, Reynaldo Bautista, Domingo
Martinez, Berling Bautista, Amrafil Dalisay and alias Mengoy.
After preliminary investigation, warrants of arrest were issued against
the eight accused. As the returns on the said warrants stated that
there were no persons answering to the names of Jose G. Selfaison,
Raymundo Dalisay and alias Mengoy, the private prosecutor filed
a joint motion to correct the complaints asking that the names of the
accused Jose G. Selfaison be changed to Josefino G. Selfaison, Raymundo
Dalisay to Nemesio Dalisay, Domingo Martinez to Domingo Salde and alias
to Domingo Ureta. The motion was granted by the Justice of the Peace
Court of Nabas. Thereafter, Josefino G. Selfaison, Nemesio Dalisay,
Bernardo Bautista and Domingo Ureta were arrested, but the other
accused remained at large.

After the records of both cases
were elevated to the Court of First Instance of Capiz, the provincial
fiscal there filed the corresponding informations, but on motion of
defense counsel, the cases were consolidated under one amended
information.

At the trial of the case, the appellants put up the defense of alibi.
Josefino G. Selfaison testified that when the truck arrived at barrio
Ondoy, he ordered one Doming Martinez to relieve him as driver of the
truck because he was feeling tired, sick and hungry and that after the
truck left, he went to bed to rest. Domingo Ureta, on the other hand,
declared that he was the driver of another truck belonging to Josefino
G. Selfaison and that after he returned his truck to the garage at
about 9 o’clock in the evening, he went to the house of one Ramon Solis
at barrio Ondoy and spent the night there. Nemesio Dalisay, on his
part, testified that he was the conductor of the truck driven by
Domingo Ureta and that he was included in the charge because he is the
brother-in-law of Josefino G. Selfaison. The other accused, Bernardo
Bautista, testified that on April 7, 1954, he was in his house in
barrio Ondoy the whole evening and that while he was then a helper in
the truck driven by Selfaison, his work began only from 6 o’clock in
the morning and ended at 12 noon.

The trial court, however, discredited their defense of alibi,
and believing the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution,
rendered the judgment of conviction which is now before us on appeal.

After going over the records of the case, we find that the guilt of the
accused, as found by the trial court, has been established by the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of alibi
interposed by the appellants cannot be allowed to prevail over the
testimony of the offended parties, who positively identified them as
four of their assailants. Josefino G. Selfaison was well known to the
complainants because they had previously ridden in his truck when they
went to New Washington in 1951 where they boarded a ship for Manila.
They were not personally acquainted with Nemesio Dalisay and Bernardo
Bautista, but these two accused as the conductor and “washing” of the
truck, respectively, were constantly seen by them during the whole
trip. With respect to Domingo Ureta, the two girls were able to
recollect his features and recognize him as one of the four men who
boarded the truck at barrio Ondoy. The complainants’ recognition of the
appellants as their attackers cannot be doubted, for aside from what
has already been said, they had during the carnal acts ample
opportunity to scrutinize the faces of the men who did them wrong.

There is no merit in the contention that, on account of the excitement
and horrors of the moment, the complainants could not have identified
their attackers and remembered the sequence in which they were raped.
It is a natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to
know the identity of their assailants and the manner in which the crime
was committed creates a lasting impression which cannot easily be
erased in their memory.

Appellant Josefino G. Selfaison
claims that he was included among the accused because the offended
parties knew that he was the owner of three trucks and that they would
get nothing if the charge were brought only against the others. The
evidence shows, however, that the complainants knew him only as a truck
driver, and not as a wealthy man. Hence, the charge that the said
complainants were prompted by mercenary motives is without basis.

Citing Dr. Anzures’ “Lectures on Legal Medicine” which states that an
examination within 3 days after intercourse would reveal the presence
of spermatozoa, the appellants underscore the fact that the physical
examinations to which the complainants were subjected to were negative
as to the presence of spermatozoa. The absence of such spermatozoa,
however, does not necessarily mean that the complainants had not in
fact been raped. The very authority cited states that such absence does
not necessarily mean that the girl subject of the examination has not
had any sexual intercourse. It need hardly be said here that in the
crime of rape, the slightest penetration is enough. In the case of the
complainants, we agree with the trial court that the recent lacerations
in the hymen and the contusions on the walls of the labia minora
of their genitals—together with the evidence adduced during the
trial—sufficiently show that the copulative act had been performed by
means of force and violence. (U. S. vs. Huertas, 39 Phil.,
440). In fact, it is not even necessary that there be a medical
examination of the victim in cases of rape. Whether or not the charge
will prosper depends upon the evidence offered and so long as such
evidence convinces the court, a conviction for rape is proper. At any
rate, it is not improbable that the complainants washed or flushed
themselves not only for the sake of cleanliness but more particularly
in order to avoid possible conception. It is, indeed, difficult to
believe that the complainants, who are very young and unmarried, would
tell a story of defloration, allow the examination of their private
parts, and thereafter permit themselves to be the subject of a public
trial, if they were not motivated by an honest desire to have the
culprits apprehended and punished.

It is argued that
Josefino G. Selfaison, who is a man of means, could not have robbed the
two complainants, and to impugn the credibility of the said
complainants, the defense points to the lack of corroboration and to
certain inconsistencies in their testimony. Wealth, however, is not
always a badge of good conduct (People vs. Ramps, 85 Phil., 682; 47 Off. Gaz., 4571) and it is not the poor alone that succumb to the impulse to rob. (People vs. Amoco, 89 Phil., 792; People vs.
Llagas, et al., G. R. No. L-5015-17, May 31, 1957.) As to the alleged
inconsistencies or contradictions, we find, after examining the record,
that they exist only in minor details and are not of sufficient
magnitude so as to denote a deliberate intent to utter falsehood. Such
inconsistencies by themselves preclude probable coaching, and far from
detracting anything from the witnesses’ credibility, only tend to
bolster the probative value of their testimony. (People vs. Duldulao, People vs.
Del Prado, et al., G. R. Nos. L-13335-36, November 29, 1960.) In this
connection, the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the complainants on the witness stand, said:

“*
* * Barring slight contradictions which are natural in unrehearsed
witnesses, there was no act of theirs that betray their candor and
which would give rise to doubt their sincerity and veracity. They were
frank and straightforward in answering question, bereft of
artificiality and hesitancy that is easily detected in one who tells a
concocted story * * *”.

On the subject of
corroboration, the rule in this jurisdiction is well-settled that in
crimes of rape the sole testimony of the offended parties is sufficient
to sustain a conviction. (U.S. vs. Ramos, 1 Phil. 81; People vs. Dazo, 58 Phil., 421; People vs. Macaya, et al., 85 Phil., 540; 47 Off. Gaz., 4125; People vs. Ganal, et al., 85 Phil., 743.)

The defense also argues that the second warrants for the appellants’
arrest were illegally issued because the complaints were not actually
amended. It will be recalled that the prosecution sought to amend the
complaints so as to correct the names of some of the accused who were
misnamed therein. The motion to correct or to amend the complaints was
granted by the Justice of the Peace Court, and while no amended
complaints were filed anew, we do not think this is a reversible error,
since no substantial right of the accused were prejudiced thereby.
Indeed. there was never any doubt as to who were the persons meant to
be accused, and in resorting to the argument that the complaints were
not actually amended, the defense is simply availing itself of a small
technicality that does not affect in any manner the rights of the
appellants.

The defense finally contends that the appellants
were deprived of their right to preliminary investigation. The
contention deserves scant consideration, for nothing appears
affirmatively on the record that such preliminary investigation has not
been had. On the other hand, it is presumed that the inferior court
proceeded in accordance with law. (People vs. Silos and Bagano,
G. R. No. L-5158, March 28, 1952.) At any rate, appellants appear to
have waived such right, because immediately after their arrest, they
filed bonds for their release and subsequently proceeded to trial,
without previously claiming that they did not have the benefit of a
preliminary investigation. (People vs. Ricarte, 49 Off. Gaz. 974; People vs. Quinto, 60 Phil., 451; People vs. Moreno, 77 Phil., 548; Bustos vs. Lucero, 81 Phil., 640; 46 Off. Gaz. [Supp.] 445.)

The crime committed by appellant Josefino G. Selfaison, as correctly
found by the trial court, is robbery with rape, for which the law
imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
(Art. 294 [2], Revised Penal Code.) Considering the aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity, use of motor vehicle and superior force
without any mitigating circumstances to offset them, the sentence of reclusion perpetua
imposed upon him plus restitution, is in accordance with law. As to the
other appellants, there being no showing that they took part or were in
conspiracy with appellant Josefino G. Selfaison in robbing the
complainants, they were, likewise, correctly convicted of rape, and
again considering the aggravating circumstances above-mentioned, the
indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal
imposed upon them should, therefore, also be affirmed. As recommended
by the Solicitor General, however, all the appellants should, in
addition to the penalties imposed upon them, also be sentenced to
indemnify, jointly and severally, each of the complainants in the sum
of P5,000. (People vs. Demetrio, et al., 86 Phil, 344; 47 Off. Gaz., Supp. 12, p. 23; People vs. De Asis et al., 61 Phil., 384.)

With the above modification, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects. With costs.

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