THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ELPIDIO CORCINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal by Elpidio Corcino from the sentence of the Court
of First Instance of Cagayan finding him guilty of the crime of rape in
accordance with the information, and considering the presence of the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, unlawful entry, and
dwelling-place, imposed upon him the penalty of seventeen years, four
months and one day reclusion temporal, with the accessaries of law, and
costs.

In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following
alleged errors as committed by the court below in its decision, to wit:

“The lower court erred:

“1. In finding that the defendant had confessed by means of Exhibit A that he was guilty of the crime of rape (violacion) of which he had been accused.

“2.
In finding that the defendant quietly approached Maria Tejano, raised
her skirt and abused her by having carnal knowledge of her.

“3. In finding that the accused must have put out the light.

“4.
In finding the defendant guilty of the offense charged against him upon
the evidence presented, which is far from establishing his guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.”

The following facts were proved at the trial beyond a reasonable doubt:

Maria Tejano, the offended party, aged 19, lived
with her husband Rosendo Palacio and a daughter of tender age, in the
municipality of Alcala, Province of Cagayan. A short time before sunset
in the afternoon of June 18, 1928, Rosendo Palacio invited his
neighbors Alfredo Custodio and Fabian Palacio, aged 15 and 8
respectively, to keep his wife company while he was away fishing in a
nearby creek. While Maria Tejano was preparing supper, the defendant
Elpidio Corcino, aged 19, arrived and started playing with matches with
Alfredo Custodio, Fabian Palacio, and a 2-year old brother of the
latter. After a while, the defendant left. After having taken their
supper in the kitchen, the offended party and her companions went into
the main room of the house, closing the door leading to the kitchen and
the four windows, and went to sleep, leaving a small lamp lighted. At
about midnight, while everybody was asleep, the offended party, Maria
Tejano, awoke feeling the weight of a man upon her in carnal
communication with her. Believing he was her husband, she called him by
his name but received no answer. She again called him and he answered
in a low voice, from which she knew that the man on top of her was not
her husband, and she pushed him away. The satyr then held her down by
her forehead. As it was dark, the light having gone out, she woke up
her brother-in-law, Alfredo Custodio, and told him to light the lamp
because there was an outsider in the room. When the lamp was lighted,
the intruder, who turned out to be the defendant, attempted to jump out
through the window, with his drawers down to his knees, but the
offended party caught hold of the tail of his shirt, and so prevented
him from jumping. Segundo Palacio and one Modesto Paguing also ran to
help Maria Tejano. Alfredo Custodio went in search of Rosendo Palacio.
Meanwhile Segundo Palacio, a neighbor who had been called by Alfredo
Custodio, arrived and finding the defendant struggling with Maria
Tejano as the former was but- toning his trousers, asked him why he
fought with her. In answer, the defendant prayed to be pardoned because
he had offended her. At daybreak on June 19, 1928, the barrio
lieutenant, the parents and the father-in-law of the offended party
arrived. Upon being questioned by the officer why he was in that house,
the defendant answered: “Pardon me. I have done wrong.” The barrio
lieutenant asked him what fault he had committed, and the defendant
replied: “I approached the offended party stealthily to lie with her.”
The barrio lieutenant then reduced to writing the defendant’s
declaration, which was an admission of his guilt, and the said
defendant voluntarily signed it in the presence of five witnesses
(Exhibit A). The window through which the defendant attempted to jump
out in order to escape was one of those which the offended party had
shut with a bamboo bolt before going to sleep, and which was afterwards
found open, with the string cut.

The defendant tried to prove that he and the offended party had
sustained illicit relations from the time they were students, such
relations having continued even after Maria Tejano had married Rosendo
Palacio; that he was ready to plead guilty of adultery; that on the
night of the crime he was at home and the offended woman’s husband
invited him to go to his house and play with Segundo Palacio, Modesto
Paguing, Alfredo Custodio, Rosendo Palacio and three others; that after
playing, they went fishing in a creek where they met others; that a
snort time afterwards he went to Maria Tejano’s house with her husband
in order to take the shirt which he had forgotten, in his hurry to take
home the money he had won at the game, but that when he came to the
house, the offended party shouted: “Catch that fellow because he has
done evil here at home;” that on that occasion, Segundo Palacio,
Modesto Paguing and Alfredo Custodio, were in the house, as well as the
barrio lieutenant Daguiuag, who together with Segundo Palacio and
Modesto Paguing ordered the defendant to sign the paper he had
prepared, and which was presented in court as defendant’s confession
marked Exhibit A; and that the defendant was compelled to sign said
document because those who made him do it were armed with bolos.

The defense admits that the evidence establishes beyond all doubt
that the defendant was found in Maria Tejano’s house on the night of
the crime, in the absence of her husband, but contends that he only
went there in order to lie with Maria Tejano as he had done on previous
occasions.

The witnesses for the prosecution unanimously declare that when the
defendant was asked why he fought with the offended party, he begged to
be pardoned because he had offended her. If it were true that the
defendant had illicit relations with the offended party, she would have
known who was on top of her and would not have awakened those who kept
her company calling for help because there was an unknown man; on the
contrary, she would have tried to keep everybody from noticing that the
defendant was in her house.

As to the offended party’s testimony that when she woke up, the
defendant was already on top of her and had inserted his genital organ
into hers, though it may at first seem improbable, is not so, if the
details of her testimony are carefully examined. She said she thought
it was her husband who was on top of her, and she even called him by
name. As he did not answer, she called him again and when he answered
in a low voice, she discovered that it was not her husband, and pushed
him away, thus beginning a struggle during which she woke her
companions that they might help her. The fact that the defendant’s
drawers had fallen down to his knees when he attempted to jump out
through the window by which he had entered, breaking the rope with
which it was tied, corroborates the offended party’s testimony. As the
offended party is a married woman with a daughter, accustomed to the
acts of generation, young, and therefore a deep sleeper in the first
hours of the night, it is not impossible that the accused succeeded in
inserting his organ into her genitals before she awoke. The fact that
she thought the man on top of her to be her husband, warrants the
belief that she had awakened when the defendant had placed himself upon
her, but believing him to be her husband, she let him go on until by
his movements and his weight, she began to doubt and calling him by his
name, discovered that he was another man.

Considering the testimony of the offended party and of the witnesses
for the prosecution, together with all the circumstances of the case,
we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the defendant, taking
advantage of the offended party’s sleep, succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of her.

The facts alleged in the information as proved at the trial
constitute the crime of rape defined and penalized in article 438 of
the Penal Code, the penalty fixed by law being reclusion temporal in
its full extent. In the commission of the crime the presence of the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling-place and unlawful
entry must be taken into consideration, because the defendant took
advantage of the darkness of the night, and committed the crime in the
offended party’s home, passing through a window not intended for
entrance; and there being no extenuating circumstance to offset them,
said penalty must be imposed in its maximum degree.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from being in conformity with the
proof and the law, the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with
costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.