THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE MATELA (ALIAS JOTE), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This
appeal has been brought to reverse a judgment of the Court of First
Instance of Leyte, finding the appellant, Jose Matela, guilty of the
offense of rape with homicide and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for twenty years, reclusion temporal, with the
accessories prescribed by law, and requiring him to indemnify the heirs
of Rosario So Puaco in the amount of one thousand pesos, and to pay the
costs.

The soul stands transfixed in contemplating the
horror of this crime. The victim was an innocent girl of sixteen years,
who lived with her maternal grandmother, Gregoria Agosto, just out of
the limits of the poblacion of the municipality of Alangalang, Leyte. Not far away in the same municipality, but in the poblacion
of Alangalang, lived the family of the appellant, Jose Matela, whose
wife, Emilia Alcober, was an aunt of Rosario. On the morning of
November 29, 1931, Emilia Alcober went over to visit at the house of
Gregoria Agosto, who was her own mother. Upon departing for her own
home, Emilia asked Rosario to go along to carry Emilia’s baby. This
Rosario did. Having arrived at Matela’s house, Rosario there took
luncheon and passed the siesta.

The appellant, Jose Matela,
had that day received a message from an uncle, Cornelio Morales, asking
him to come out to the house of Morales to harvest maize. This
invitation Matela accepted; and at about two o’clock, or sooner, he set
out for Morales’s place taking Rosario along with him. This place is
distant two hours by foot from the poblacion of Alangalang.
On the way Matela and Rosario were joined by other three persons bound
on the same mission, and the five proceeded together on their way.
Arriving at their destination, the visitors went into the field and
began gathering the corn. It was noticed by some of those present that
Jose Matela was very attentive to Rosario during the afternoon,
remaining constantly close by her side. As the afternoon wore off,
Matela, pretending to have some occasion for early departure, took
Rosario and left, notwithstanding the fact that some of the others
insisted that Matela should wait and all return together. But the
appellant left, carrying a sack of corn, while Rosario carried camansi
fruit in a bundle. The two reached Alangalang, and were seen on
Blumentritt Street about nightfall. Nothing more was ever seen of
Rosario So Puaco alive, to be reported by any living witness. But at
about eight o’clock Jose Matela returned alone to his home. On arriving
he threw into a corner the sack of corn in ear which he had brought,
and asked immediately for a coconut shell with which to dip up water.
As the appellant received this utensil, Remedios So Puaco, a
14-year-old sister of Rosario, stood near him with a lamp in her hand,
and she took note of the fact that his hands were then stained with
blood. Meanwhile Emilia Alcober asked where Rosario was, and the
appellant replied that she had gone home to her grandmother’s house, by
taking a short cut from Blumentritt Street.

It appears that
Rosario was an exceedingly timid girl and especially afraid in the
dark, so much so that she could not be induced willingly to go fifty
yards in the dark without some one with her. Knowing this fact and
possibly divining that something was wrong, Emilia at once sent Jose So
Puaco, a young brother of Rosario, to ascertain whether the girl had
arrived at her grandmother’s house, directing him on return to bring
some of the camansi fruit which Rosario had brought from the
country. When Jose arrived, he learned from his grandmother that
Rosario had not been there, and the boy at once went back to Jose
Matela’s house, accompanied by Gregoria Agosto. The alarm was then
given among the neighbors that Rosario was lost, and many friends
turned out to search for her in Alangalang. It was noticed that the
appellant did not go with the others on this search, but he went alone
appearing nervous and worried; and he returned from the search sooner
than the others.

Meanwhile what had become of Rosario? The
evidence reveals her fate only too certainly. As she arrived in
Alangalang in company with her uncle, the appellant Jose Matela, he
took her aside into a clump of shrubbery and raped and murdered her by
strangulation. The girl evidently resisted to the limit of her
strength. Her body, when found the next morning, contained numerous
bruises in various places. The face was stained with blood issuing from
the nose, and on the chin there was a horizontal wound with irregular
borders one and a half inches long, an inch wide, and a half inch deep.
This wound reached the bone. The upper part of the chest was swollen
and the skin blue. The genital organ showed clearly that the crime of
rape had been consummated. The external parts of the organ were
scratched and torn, and the hymen broken. Death had been caused by
choking.

On the other hand, the extent of the resistance
made by the unfortunate girl appeared in the numerous scratches made by
her hands and finger nails on the body of the appellant as she writhed
under his superior strength. Having accomplished his purpose, the
appellant left the girl dead on the scene of the crime and proceeded to
his home, as already stated. We have already mentioned the fruitless
search that was made for the girl that night, but another incident is
revealed by Alipio Villamor, one of Matela’s neighbors. This witness
had occasion to arise at about ten o’clock and go out. Passing the
house of Matela he overheard Emilia Alcober saying to her husband, “For
the sake of God, Jose, tell where Rosario is.” Jose replied, “Shut up,
wench (h. de p.), or I will include you in the slaughter.” Attracted by
the unusual tenor of these words, Villamor approached close to the
house and overheard the mother of Jose address to him these words, “For
God’s sake, Jose, tell us at once where Rosario is, (so that) if you
have killed her, her body may be found and putrefaction prevented.” To
this Jose replied, “What am I to do, mother? Rosario is already dead.”

After this Villamor, evidently deeply impressed, went on to his own
house, where he found it impossible to sleep. Before long he went out
again and, as he passed up the road, he saw the appellant going in the
direction of Blumentritt Street, but he soon turned off and crossed a
small stream, entering an area covered by shrubbery. A few moments
later the witness, standing at the side of the path, saw Jose Matela
emerge, carrying under his right arm a bulky object which the witness
took to be the body of the dead girl. The witness was frightened and
did not accost the appellant, and as the latter recrossed the branch,
the witness went home. Early the next morning the body of Rosario was
found on the side of a path or cross-road not far from where Villamor
had seen the appellant bringing the body out.

We incline to
credit the testimony of Alipio Villamor, for it fits in well with the
other incidents in the case. The body of the girl was evidently not in
the place where it was found when search was made on the night of her
disappearance, because several persons had passed along that way in the
course of the search, and as it was a moonlight night, if the body had
then been there, it would probably have been found.

A
careful review of the evidence leaves no doubt in our mind that the
appellant is guilty. The crime committed consisted of the double
offenses of rape and homicide. In connection with the crime of rape is
to be estimated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence,
due to the fact that the victim was a niece of the appellant’s wife,
was a frequent visitor in his home, and on the afternoon in question
was confided to his care. In connection with the homicide is to be
estimated the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
No mitigating circumstance was present; and we are of the opinion that
the appellant merits the extreme limit of the penalty provided by law
for each of the two crimes committed, namely, twenty years, reclusion temporal.

We note that the rape and homicide are here treated as separate
offenses, because, while it is certain that both crimes were committed,
there is nothing before us to show that they were so connected as to
constitute a complex crime under article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
The appellant therefore receives separate sentences for two distinct
offenses.

It being understood, therefore, that the appellant is sentenced to twenty years, reclusion temporal,
for the crime of rape, and to a further period of twenty years for the
crime of homicide, the judgment appealed from is in other respects
affirmed. So ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Abad Santos, Vickers, and Butte, JJ., concur.