People vs. Cabural

Robbery with rape is a crime against property penalized under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, not a crime against chastity under Article 335, because the accused is charged with a crime against property and should not be convicted of a crime against chastity, which is a private offense.

The accused—Timoteo Cabural, Ciriaco Yangyang, Benjamin Lasponia, and Leonide Cabual—were charged with robbery in band with rape committed against the Kim San Milling Company in Iligan City. The prosecution's case rested substantially on the extra-judicial confessions of three of the accused and the in-court identification of Cabural as the rapist by the victim, Agripina Maglangit. At the time of the offense (September 14, 1960), Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code penalized robbery with rape with reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua, while Article 335 penalized rape as a separate offense against chastity. A persistent division within the Court had beclouded the question of which provision governs when rape occurs on the occasion of robbery, a uncertainty the decision sought to resolve.

At about 2:00 in the morning of September 14, 1960, three masked men entered the building of the Kim San Milling Company in Palao, Iligan City, through an opening in the roof above the kitchen that was under repair. They forced their way into a room where Pua Lim Pin, Bebencio Palang, Sy Chua Tian, and Siao Chou were sleeping. At gunpoint, the intruders hogtied all four occupants, ordered them to lie face down on the floor, and covered them with blankets. The victims heard their cabinets being ransacked. One of the men asked Pua Lim Pin whether he could open the safe; Pua Lim Pin answered that he could not, being a mere employee. An hour later, another man approached Sy Chua Tian and threatened: "now is 3:30, if by 4:00 the safe is not open we will kill you."

Simultaneously, in the adjacent room where the maids slept, Restituta Biosano, Panchita Maghanoy, and Agripina Maglangit had retired at about 10:00 in the evening of September 13, 1960. At around 2:00 the following morning, they were awakened by two persons—one armed with a pistol, the other with a hunting knife. The maids were likewise hogtied, made to lie face downward, and covered with blankets. The two men then left the room. About two hours later, one of them reappeared and discovered that Agripina Maglangit had freed her hands. Angered, he announced he would separate her from the rest. With his pistol pointed at her, he led her outside the building to a secluded place within the Kim San compound. There, with her hands still tied, she was made to lie flat on the ground face upward. He raised her skirt, removed her panties, and had sexual intercourse with her. She was unable to resist because she had lost her strength and her hands were bound. After consummating the rape, he pulled her left arm to help her stand and then left. Agripina Maglangit recognized her rapist's features and later identified him in open court as the accused Timoteo Cabural.

At about 4:00 that morning, the intruders departed. The hogtied men in the other room noticed the silence, struggled free, and discovered that cash and personal belongings totaling ₱9,435.50 had been taken. Among the items stolen were an Omega automatic wristwatch valued at ₱385.00 and a wallet containing ₱264.00 from Sy Chua Tian, and an Alosa 15-jewel wristwatch worth ₱65.00 from Panchita Maghanoy. The incident was reported to both the local police and the Philippine Constabulary stationed in Iligan. In the course of investigation, PC soldiers found a .30-caliber carbine with four magazines and a .45-caliber pistol, wrapped in a banca at the shore behind the house of accused Benjamin Lasponia. Lasponia was investigated and subsequently admitted participation, implicating his companions.

On September 18, 1960, Lasponia signed a confession before Assistant Fiscal Leonardo Magsalin at the PC headquarters in Iligan, detailing his role and that of his co-accused. On September 19, 1960, Leonide Cabual subscribed to an affidavit before the same Fiscal Magsalin. Ciriaco Yangyang followed, subscribing his confession before Special Counsel Dominador Padilla in the Office of the City Fiscal of Iligan on September 26, 1960. All three confessions interlocked, describing how the group planned and executed the robbery and identifying Cabural as the mastermind who controlled the vehicle used in the crime. On September 21, 1960, seven accused—including Cabural, Lasponia, Cabual, and Yangyang—were charged before the CFI of Lanao del Norte with the crime of robbery in band with rape under Article 294(2) and Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code. Three co-accused were later dropped on petition of the City Fiscal, and trial proceeded against the remaining four, who pleaded not guilty.

Cabural testified that from 2:00 in the afternoon of September 13, 1960 to 3:00 in the early morning of September 14, 1960, he was playing mahjong at a store in Maigo, Lanao del Norte, approximately 37 kilometers from Iligan City—a distance negotiable in about one hour by car. He claimed he was brought to PC headquarters on September 15, 1960, subjected to torture including the "7-Up treatment," and induced to sign an affidavit after being told that if he obeyed he might go free. Yangyang denied participation, stating that at the time of the crime he was in Barrio Mentering attending the counting of votes for the muse of the barrio fiesta, reading ballots over the microphone, and only returned to Maigo the following morning. The trial court rejected these defenses, convicted Cabural of robbery with rape and the others of robbery, and imposed the corresponding penalties.

• Admissibility of Confessions: Appellants argued that the extra-judicial confessions of Lasponia, Cabual, and Yangyang were obtained through force, violence, intimidation, threats, and serious maltreatment by PC soldiers, rendering them inadmissible as evidence.
• Truth of Contents Does Not Cure Coercion: Appellants maintained that even if some personal inconvenience was inflicted by PC soldiers, the truth of the confessions' contents does not render them admissible where they were obtained through coercion.
• Insufficiency of Interlocking Confessions: Appellants contended that interlocking confessions, even if inadmissible, are not enough to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Insufficiency of Identification: Appellants argued that the inadmissible confessions, combined with the identification by victim Agripina Maglangit, did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for Cabural's conviction.
• Alibi: Cabural claimed he was playing mahjong in Maigo, Lanao del Norte, 37 kilometers from Iligan City, from 2:00 PM of September 13 to 3:00 AM of September 14, 1960, making it impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Yangyang claimed he was in Barrio Mentering attending a barrio fiesta vote count and only returned to Maigo the following morning.

• Admissibility of Confessions: The Solicitor General argued that the confessions were admissible, as Cabual and Lasponia were sworn by Fiscal Leonardo Magsalin, who instructed PC investigators to leave the room so the accused could speak freely, and both readily and without hesitation signed their confessions.
• Interlocking Confessions Point to Cabural: The Solicitor General maintained that the interlocking confessions of Lasponia, Cabual, and Yangyang all pointed to Cabural as the mastermind who controlled the vehicle used in the crime, and contained details only participants could provide.
• Improbability of Alibi: The Solicitor General argued that Cabural's alibi was not credible because the 37-kilometer distance between Maigo and Iligan could be negotiated in one hour by car, and the confessions identified Cabural as controlling the vehicle, making his presence at the crime scene more likely than at Maigo.

• Admissibility of Confessions: Whether the extra-judicial confessions of Lasponia, Cabual, and Yangyang were admissible despite appellants' allegations of coercion, violence, and maltreatment.
• Sufficiency of Interlocking Confessions: Whether interlocking extra-judicial confessions are sufficient to sustain the convictions of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Credibility of Alibi: Whether the alibis interposed by Cabural and Yangyang constitute valid defenses against the charges.
• Proper Penalty Provision: Whether robbery with rape should be penalized under Article 294(2) or Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Admissibility of Confessions: Yes. The confessions were admissible, having been sworn before a fiscal who ensured the PC investigators left the room so the accused could speak freely and without hesitation.
• Sufficiency of Interlocking Confessions: Yes. The interlocking confessions contained details only participants could provide, identified Cabural as the mastermind, and were corroborated by the victim's positive in-court identification of Cabural as her rapist.
• Credibility of Alibi: No. The alibis failed because the 37-kilometer distance between Maigo and Iligan was negotiable in one hour by car, and the confessions identified Cabural as controlling the vehicle used in the crime.
• Proper Penalty Provision: Article 294(2) applies. Robbery with rape is a crime against property, not a crime against chastity, and the accused charged with a crime against property should not be convicted of a crime against chastity—a private offense.

• Admissibility of Confessions: The confessions of Cabual and Lasponia were subscribed before Fiscal Leonardo Magsalin, who testified that he instructed the PC investigators to leave the room so the accused could speak their minds freely. Fiscal Magsalin testified that both accused readily and without hesitation signed their respective confessions. Yangyang subscribed his confession before Special Counsel Dominador Padilla. The Court found no sufficient evidence that the confessions were extracted through force or intimidation as to render them inadmissible. The procedural safeguard of having a fiscal conduct the swearing, with investigators excluded, supported the voluntariness of the statements.

• Sufficiency of Interlocking Confessions: The confessions of Lasponia, Cabual, and Yangyang interlocked with each other, indicating how the group would go to the scene of the crime, the manner by which they would enter the premises of Kim San Milling Company, and the role each would play. As the trial court aptly observed, the confessions contained details which only the participants could amply give. The confessions pointed to Cabural as the mastermind. Additionally, Agripina Maglangit positively identified Cabural in open court as the man who raped her, providing independent corroboration of the confessions. The Court agreed with the lower court that Cabural alone was responsible for the rape, there being no evidence that Yangyang or the other malefactors made advances on the victim.

• Credibility of Alibi: Cabural's alibi that he was playing mahjong in Maigo from 2:00 PM of September 13 to 3:00 AM of September 14 was insufficient to preclude his presence at the crime scene. The 37-kilometer stretch between Maigo and Iligan could be negotiated in one hour by car. Given that the confessions of his co-accused identified him as the one in control of the vehicle utilized in the commission of the crime, the conclusion that his presence at the scene was more likely than at Maigo was inescapable. Yangyang's claim that he was attending a barrio fiesta vote count was likewise insufficient to overcome the prosecution evidence. The appellants failed to demonstrate the plausibility and verity of their alibis.

• Proper Penalty Provision: The ponente expressed the opinion that in robbery with rape, the accused should be penalized under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code because it is a crime against property and not a crime against chastity—a private offense. The accused was charged with a crime against property and should not be convicted of a crime against chastity. The Court noted that Presidential Decree No. 767, effective August 15, 1975, imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, but this increased penalty cannot be retroactively applied because the offense was committed on September 14, 1960, before the decree's effectivity. The applicable law is therefore Article 294(2) as it stood before its amendment, which prescribes reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua.

• Interlocking Confessions — Extra-judicial confessions that are consistent with and corroborate each other on material details can sustain a conviction, particularly where they contain details that only participants in the crime could provide. In this case, the confessions of Lasponia, Cabual, and Yangyang interlocked, describing the plan, the manner of entry into Kim San Milling, and the role each accused played, and all pointed to Cabural as the mastermind.

• Robbery with Rape as a Crime Against Property — Robbery with rape is penalized under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code as a crime against property, not under Article 335 as a crime against chastity. The rationale is that the accused is charged with a crime against property and should not be convicted of a crime against chastity, which is a private offense. This doctrine resolves the prior uncertainty within the Court on the proper penalty provision.

• Alibi; Physical Impossibility Requirement — For an alibi to constitute a valid defense, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime. Where the distance between the accused's alleged location and the crime scene can be negotiated in a short time (one hour by car for 37 kilometers), the alibi fails, especially where co-accused confessions identify the appellant as controlling the vehicle used in the crime.

• "We agree with the lower court that Cabural alone was responsible for the rape on Agripina. There is no evidence that his co-appellant Yangyang and the other malefactors made advances on her." — This passage establishes that individual liability for rape attaches only to the perpetrator, and co-accused are not liable for rape absent evidence of participation or advances.

• "The writer of this decision is of the opinion that in robbery with rape, the accused should be penalized under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code because it is a crime against property and not a crime against chastity a private offense." — This articulates the ratio decidendi on the proper penalty provision for robbery with rape, resolving the longstanding division within the Court.

• "Their interlocking confessions indicate how they would go to the scene of the crime, the manner by which they would enter into the premises of Kim San Milling Company and, as aptly observed by the trial court, the details which only the participants could amply give." — This defines the evidentiary basis for relying on interlocking confessions: the presence of details that only participants could supply.

• People vs. Perello, Jr., 111 SCRA 147 — Discussed the division within the Court on whether Article 335 or Article 294(2) applies to robbery with rape. The Chief Justice and Justice Aquino opined that Article 294(2) should apply, while Justices Teehankee, Barredo, and Makasiar believed Article 335 should apply. The present case adopted the view that Article 294(2) governs.

• People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259 — Applied Article 335 to robbery with rape. The present case is distinguishable because Cabural alone committed the rape, so the qualifying circumstances for the death penalty under Article 335 (use of a deadly weapon or commission by two persons) were not present.

• People vs. Olden, 47 SCRA 45 — Affirmed a conviction for robbery in band with multiple rape, imposing reclusion perpetua rather than the death sentence. Cited as supporting the application of Article 294(2) rather than Article 335.

• Article 294(2), Revised Penal Code — Penalizes robbery with rape with reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua. Applied as the proper provision for Cabural's conviction, as robbery with rape is a crime against property.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes rape as a crime against chastity, with penalties ranging up to death when committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. The Court held this provision does not apply to robbery with rape, as the accused was charged with a crime against property and should not be convicted of a crime against chastity.

• Article 296, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes robbery committed by a band. Cited in the information as the basis for the charge of robbery in band.

• Presidential Decree No. 767 — Effective August 15, 1975, imposes reclusion perpetua to death when robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. The Court noted this cannot be retroactively applied because the offense was committed on September 14, 1960, before the decree's effectivity.

• Fernando, C.J. — Concurred fully, expressing gratification that the Court sustained the principle of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege, emphasizing that the definition of a crime and prescription of its penalty is a legislative function, and that the judiciary must apply the law as written where it is clear and categorical.
• Teehankee, J. — Concurred in the judgment, noting that because Cabural alone committed the rape, the qualifying circumstances for the death penalty under Article 335 (use of a deadly weapon or commission by two persons) were absent, making Article 294(2) the proper basis for the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
• Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro, Escolin, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ. — Concurred.

• Makasiar, J. — Dissented, opining that Cabural should be sentenced to death under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, consistent with the view that where rape is qualified by the use of a deadly weapon or commission by two persons, the death penalty should apply.

• Melencio-Herrera, J. — Dissented, voting for the application of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and the imposition of the death penalty.