El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santos

Robbery in band is established when more than three armed malefactors concur in the robbery; and in robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, with no mitigating circumstance, requires the penalty to be imposed in its maximum degree, which cannot exceed reclusion perpetua.

Guillermo de la Cruz and Ester Payoyo were spouses residing in an open-country house in Sto. Tomas, San Jose, Nueva Ecija. The accused—Jacinto Santos, Alfredo Asuncion, Romualdo Reyes, and Guillermo Mapoy—were known to Guillermo de la Cruz. The charges arose under the Revised Penal Code’s provisions on robbery with rape, specifically Article 294, paragraph 2, and the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band.

At late night on August 30, 1946, Guillermo de la Cruz and Ester Payoyo were asleep in their house in open country in Sto. Tomas, San Jose, Nueva Ecija, with their two-month-old infant; a lamp was lit. Dogs barking woke them, and they heard men trying to force the door, which was barred. Two men entered through a window and opened the back door, through which two more entered; all were armed, while others remained around the house. Guillermo recognized the entrants as Jacinto Santos, Romualdo Reyes, Pablo Asuncion, and Alfredo Asuncion alias Eustaquio Asuncion, all old acquaintances. At the robbers’ orders, the spouses lay face down. Romualdo Reyes turned off the light, but with a flashlight some opened the trunk and took what they wanted while others ransacked the house. After Guillermo’s hands were tied, he was brought downstairs, blindfolded, and tied to a post.

Romualdo Reyes and Alfredo Asuncion, together with Manuel Villasenor and Guillermo Mapoy, went back upstairs. Ester was thrown to the floor by Romualdo Reyes with intent to rape her. She resisted and pleaded, “Favor, no me hagais eso, que es malo; acabo de dar a luz,” but Manuel Villasenor threatened her with a revolver and Jacinto Santos held her. Overcome by force and threat, Ester was raped by Reyes and Mapoy, one after the other. The accused then threatened the spouses with death if they revealed what had happened and left with the loot. Ester went downstairs and untied her husband. Exhibit A listed the stolen effects, valued at P442, including blankets, carburo, a fishing lantern, bolos, hens, roosters, a fighting rooster, ducks, rice, diapers and baby clothes, adult clothing, face powder, cash, and a document for a male carabao.

At dawn Ester sought refuge at her parents’ house, while Guillermo went to barrio lieutenant Angel Dalusong to report the incident. The lieutenant accompanied him to the chief of police, who took their written statements on August 31. On September 2, a complaint for robbery in band was filed with municipal mayor Basilio M. Duran, in the absence of the justice of the peace, against Jacinto Santos, Romualdo Reyes, Alfredo Asuncion alias Pedong, Pablo Asuncion, and others. On the same day, Romualdo Reyes, Jacinto Santos, Guillermo Mapoy, Alfredo Asuncion alias Eustaquio Asuncion, and Roberto Roque were arrested; a revolver (Exh. C), the same weapon with which Manuel Villasenor had threatened Ester, was found in Guillermo Mapoy’s possession. On September 3, the chief of police filed an amended criminal complaint for robbery in band with rape, adding Guillermo Mapoy, Roberto Roque, and John Doe as accused. At trial, Manuel Villasenor and Pablo Asuncion had not yet been apprehended.

The accused presented alibi defenses. Guillermo Mapoy claimed he had stayed overnight on August 30, 1946 at Eduardo Balabat’s house because he had helped Cresencio Iresosa elope with Emilia Ventura; Crisanto de los Santos, however, testified that the eloping couple had stayed at his house that night. Jacinto Santos claimed he was with his wife Angelita Villamor at his sister Amparo Santos’s house in Sicsican, Talavera, Nueva Ecija, and that the truck he drove was left at his owner Paquito Gabriel’s house in Sicsican, 24 kilometers from Sto. Tomas. Romualdo Reyes claimed he was in Manila on August 30, 1946 and could not return to Sto. Tomas because of the curfew, so he stayed at his sister-in-law Lucio Atayde’s house. Alfredo Asuncion claimed he was at Pedro Toalla’s house in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija and stayed there overnight.

The trial court disbelieved the alibi defenses and the evidence offered in the motions for new trial. It found that Ester had been raped and that the four accused who entered the house were armed, and it gave credence to the prosecution’s account over the defenses. The new-trial evidence consisted of affidavits by Leonardo Tolentino and Juan Villa, neither of whom testified; testimony of three persons that Tolentino and Villa existed and had admitted participation; the retracted affidavit of Maximo Mateo; and the testimony of Lieutenant Richard Hill, who said Tolentino had admitted being one of the authors of the robbery with rape. The trial court found these insufficient and noted that the alleged authors were not presented as witnesses.

• Insufficient Proof of Rape: The accused-appellants argued that the trial court erred in finding Ester Payoyo had been raped, maintaining that her testimony was uncorroborated and therefore insufficient.
• Delayed Disclosure and Silence: They argued that if Ester had pleaded with her attackers, her husband, who heard her, would have asked whether she had been raped and would have reported it to the barrio lieutenant and chief of police; his silence and the delayed complaint showed no rape occurred.
• Absence of Hemorrhage: They argued that if Ester had been raped, she would have suffered hemorrhage, and that her statement that she had just given birth was merely a plea for compassion because her child was already two months old.
• Non-Recovery of Stolen Property: They argued that because none of the stolen effects were recovered from them, the robbery was not established.
• Only Two Armed: They argued that robbery in band was not committed because only two of the malefactors were armed.
• Alibi: They maintained that they were elsewhere on the night of August 30, 1946, as detailed in their respective defenses.
• New Trial Evidence: Alfredo Asuncion argued that the trial court erred in not crediting the testimony of Lieutenant Hill and others, and the accused sought new trials based on affidavits and testimony purporting to show that Leonardo Tolentino, Juan Villa, and others had committed the crime.

• Sufficiency of Rape Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in finding Ester Payoyo was raped despite the alleged lack of corroboration, delayed disclosure, and absence of hemorrhage.
• Robbery in Band: Whether robbery in band was established when only two of the malefactors were allegedly armed.
• Non-Recovery of Stolen Property: Whether the failure to recover the stolen effects from the accused negated the robbery.
• Alibi: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the accused’s alibi defenses.
• New Trial Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in not crediting the affidavits and testimony offered in the motions for new trial, including the testimony of Lieutenant Hill.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the penalty should be reclusion perpetua in light of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band.

• Sufficiency of Rape Evidence: No. The trial court did not err; Ester’s testimony was corroborated by circumstances, and delayed disclosure and absence of hemorrhage did not negate rape.
• Robbery in Band: Yes. There is cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors concur in a robbery; the evidence showed all four who entered the house were armed.
• Non-Recovery of Stolen Property: No. Failure to recover the stolen effects did not negate robbery, as the accused could have hidden them; the revolver found on Mapoy corroborated the crime.
• Alibi: No. The alibi defenses were properly rejected as easily fabricated and insufficient against positive identification.
• New Trial Evidence: No. Affidavits whose affiants did not testify lacked probative value, and the failure to present the alleged authors gave rise to a presumption that their testimony would be adverse.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Reclusion perpetua. Robbery with rape under Article 294, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code, with dwelling as aggravating and no mitigating circumstance, required the maximum penalty, which could not exceed reclusion perpetua.

• Sufficiency of Rape Evidence: The Court reasoned that Ester’s testimony was not uncorroborated. Guillermo de la Cruz heard her plead, “Favor, no me hagais eso, que es malo; acabo de dar a luz,” and the attackers had tied him downstairs, which showed their intent was not merely to rob. The husband’s failure to immediately reveal the rape was explained by the shame and difficulty of the situation; his silence was not proof that no rape occurred. The absence of hemorrhage was not a necessary consequence of rape, and Ester’s statement about having just given birth could have been a plea for compassion. The chief of police learned of the rape only when Ester revealed it, so the delayed amended complaint did not show fabrication. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding rape.
• Robbery in Band: The Court held that there is cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors concur in a robbery. Although Ester testified that one of those who went upstairs was armed and that Villasenor threatened her with a revolver, Guillermo de la Cruz testified that all four accused who entered the house carried firearms and flashlights. Ester’s fear may have caused her to notice only the one who pointed a gun at her, but this did not weaken Guillermo’s testimony; rather, it showed each witness testified to what he or she actually saw. The Court also considered Guillermo’s initial answer that “Two of them” carried arms, but his subsequent testimony clarified that the other two who entered through the door also carried guns. Therefore, all four who entered were armed, and robbery in band was established.
• Non-Recovery of Stolen Property: The Court held that the failure to recover the stolen effects from the accused did not necessarily mean they did not commit the robbery; they could have hidden the items. The discovery of the revolver (Exh. C) in Guillermo Mapoy’s possession, the same weapon used by Manuel Villasenor to threaten Ester, further corroborated the crime.
• Alibi: The Court upheld the rejection of the alibi defenses. Alibis are easily invented and cannot prevail over the positive identification and the prosecution’s evidence. The trial court did not err in disregarding them.
• New Trial Evidence: The Court found no error in the trial court’s refusal to credit the new-trial evidence. The affidavits of Leonardo Tolentino and Juan Villa were not supported by their personal testimony; the affiants did not appear and could not be found. The three witnesses who testified only established that Tolentino and Villa existed and had admitted participation, not the truth of those admissions. The chief of police testified that one alleged author retracted his affidavit, saying he had been intimidated by civilian guards and had nothing to do with the robbery. Maximo Mateo, barely 18 and described as weak and timid, retracted his affidavit and had previously been presented to assume responsibility in another case. Lieutenant Hill’s testimony added nothing to the affidavit, which lacked probative value; as a government agent, he should have reported the alleged admission to the provincial fiscal instead of merely presenting an affidavit to secure the accused’s acquittal. Since the accused did not present Tolentino, Villa, and Mateo as witnesses, the presumption was that their testimony would have been adverse to the accused. Thus, the new-trial evidence was properly rejected.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: The Court held that the crime committed was robbery with rape, punished by Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling, with no mitigating circumstance, required the penalty to be applied in its maximum degree. The circumstances of nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band, when concurring, may constitute a single aggravating circumstance, but the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether they should be treated as one or three because the additional concurrence of one, two, or three circumstances did not alter the penalty; the penalty could not exceed the maximum degree of reclusion perpetua. Accordingly, reclusion perpetua was imposed.

• Robbery with rape — Under Article 294, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, robbery with rape is a single crime. In this case, the Court held that the accused committed robbery with rape and imposed reclusion perpetua, the maximum penalty not exceeding reclusion perpetua.
• Cuadrilla (robbery in band) — There is cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors concur in the commission of a robbery. The Court applied this rule after finding that all four accused who entered the house were armed, notwithstanding Ester’s testimony that only one pointed a gun at her.
• Aggravating circumstance of dwelling (morada) — Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. When present with no mitigating circumstance, it requires the penalty to be imposed in its maximum degree. The Court applied it to impose the maximum penalty on the accused.
• Nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band as aggravating circumstances — When nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band concur, they may be considered a single aggravating circumstance, but they may be appreciated separately when their elements are distinct. The Court did not need to resolve whether they were one or three because the penalty could not exceed the maximum degree of reclusion perpetua.
• Alibi — Alibi is a weak defense, easily fabricated, and cannot overcome positive identification and credible prosecution evidence. The Court upheld the rejection of the accused’s alibis.
• Newly discovered evidence / affidavits — Affidavits of persons who do not testify have no probative value. The failure to present alleged authors of the crime as witnesses gives rise to the presumption that their testimony would be adverse to the party offering it. The Court applied this to reject the new-trial evidence.
• Credibility of rape victim’s testimony — A rape victim’s testimony may be sufficient even without corroboration if credible; delayed reporting and absence of hemorrhage do not necessarily negate rape. The Court found Ester’s testimony corroborated by circumstances and credible.

• "Hay cuadrilla cuando concurren en un robo mas de tres malhechores armados." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of robbery in band, applied after it found that all four accused who entered the house were armed.
• "El delito cometido por los acusados es el de robo con violacion, castigado por el articulo 294, parrafo 2, del CodigoPenal Revisado." — This states the crime for which the accused were convicted and identifies the controlling penal provision.
• "La circunstancia agravante de morada, sin ninguna atenuante, hace que la pena se aplique en su grado maximo." — This states the ratio for imposing the maximum penalty because dwelling was aggravating and no mitigating circumstance was present.
• "Como los acusados no presentaron como testigos a su favor a los tres presunto autores del crimen, Leonardo Tolentino, Juan Villa y Maximo Mateo, la presuncion es que si hubiesen declardo, su declaracion hubiera sido adversa a la pretension de aquellos." — This explains why the new-trial evidence was rejected: the alleged authors were not presented as witnesses, giving rise to an adverse presumption.

• Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de España, 5 de abril de 1897 (2 Viada 274-275) — Cited for the rule that nocturnity and uninhabited place, when concurring, may be treated as a single aggravating circumstance, but may be appreciated separately when their elements are distinct; the Court noted it need not decide because the penalty could not exceed reclusion perpetua.

• Article 294, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — The Court held that the crime committed was robbery with rape, which is punished under this provision. It applied the provision to convict the accused and impose reclusion perpetua.
• Aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band under the Revised Penal Code — The Court applied dwelling as an aggravating circumstance with no mitigating circumstance to impose the maximum penalty. It also considered nocturnity, uninhabited place, and band, but held that their concurrence did not alter the penalty because it could not exceed reclusion perpetua.

Paras (Presiding), Feria, Bengzon, Tuazon, Montemayor, and Labrador.