THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DONATO DAZO AND FILOMENO TIANGZON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appellants
were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for rape. They
were tried, found guilty and each sentenced to fourteen years, eight
months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory
penalties provided by law, but with credit for one-half of the period
of his preventive imprisonment, and to pay one-half of the costs. They
were also sentenced to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P500,
and to support the offspring should there be any.

In support
of this appeal, the appellants contend that the trial court erred in
accepting the testimony of the complaining witness and in disregarding
the testimony of the witnesses for the defense. While it is true that,
aside from the complaining witness, there were no other witnesses to
the commission of the crime, yet the circumstances of the case fully
corroborate the testimony of the complaining witness, which is clear
and free from any serious contradiction. “Where the testimony of the
prosecutrix is not inherently improbable or contradictory, it is not
essential to a conviction that there be corroboration.” (Day vs. State, 232 Pac, 122; see also People vs. Tanilloso, G. R. No. 33514, not reported, promulgated February 4, 1931; People vs. King, 205 Pac., 703; State vs. Jones, 245 Pac., 101.)

The crime committed falls under article 438 of the Penal Code, and the penalty prescribed is reclusion temporal.
We are unable to agree with the Attorney-General that the aggravating
circumstances of ignominy and of nocturnity were present in the
commission of the crime. It does not appear that the defendants took
advantage of the night-time to commit the offense; and as to the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy, the facts of the present case are
not so aggravated as those in United States vs. Iglesia and
Valdez (21 Phil., 55), cited by the Attorney-General in his brief. In
that case the crime was committed against a married woman after
separating her from her husband.

The judgment appealed from
is, therefore, within the limits prescribed by law and must be affirmed
with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.