People vs. Hamiana

Where rape is committed by one member of a robber band at a place away from the scene of the robbery and without positive proof that the other members were aware of or abetted the rape, only the rapist is liable for the complex crime of robbery with rape; the others are liable only for robbery in band. Additionally, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by their victims, particularly where the distance between the accused's claimed location and the crime scene does not preclude their presence.

The appellants — Alfonso Hamiana, Silvino Jabin, Ceferino de la Cruz, Norberto de la Cruz, Ceferino Parcon, and Anastacio Blancada — were residents of or near Hacienda Sta. Rita and Dulao in Bago, Negros Occidental. They were charged in three separate criminal cases before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for a series of armed robberies committed in the early morning hours of April 1, 1947, and on the evening of April 9, 1947, targeting rural households in the same vicinity. The cases were tried jointly and resulted in convictions for robbery in band, with an additional conviction for rape against Blancada in Criminal Case No. 1257.

At about one o'clock in the morning of April 1, 1947, Vicente Piadoche was awakened by a noise while sleeping in his house in Hacienda Sta. Rita, Bago, Negros Occidental. Upon opening the door as ordered, he recognized appellants Ceferino Parcon and Norberto de la Cruz. Their companions included Blancada, Ceferino de la Cruz, Emiliano de la Cruz, Alfonso Hamiana, and Silvino Jabin. Hamiana and Jabin each carried a bolo, while Parcon and Blancada were armed with rifles. Parcon, Norberto de la Cruz, Jabin, and Hamiana entered the house; while Parcon trained his rifle at Piadoche's wife, Norberto de la Cruz took nine gantas of palay valued at P4.50 from a receptacle near the kitchen. Ceferino de la Cruz and Emiliano de la Cruz remained below and took chickens worth P8.

At about two o'clock of the same morning, the appellants proceeded to the house of Fortunata Nobleza in the same vicinity. A member of the gang ordered Nobleza to open the door, but she first hid her oldest daughter. Hamiana, armed with a rifle, and Jabin and Emiliano de la Cruz, armed with bolos, demanded palay. The appellants seized three cavanes of seedlings. Norberto de la Cruz climbed the roof and took ten chickens, which he gave to Parcon, also armed, while the others watched. Thereafter, the appellants proceeded to the house of Porfirio Lorenzo in the same hacienda. Lorenzo, awakened by his dog's barking, saw the appellants from his window, six of whom approached him. Parcon inquired about the hacienda overseer's name and, aiming his gun at Lorenzo, demanded palay and chickens. The appellants took palay worth P4.50, two chickens worth P4, and cassava worth P8, while Lorenzo was guarded by Blancada with a gun.

On the evening of April 9, 1947, Rosita Colantro, residing at the crossing of Atipuluan, Bago, Negros Occidental, heard one of the appellants call for "uncle, uncle." When she did not reply, the appellants hammered at the walls of her house. Colantro asked what they wanted and was ordered to light her lamp and not to move. She saw rifles aimed at her from outside her low house. The appellants demanded palay; Colantro answered that she had only a few seedlings. She was ordered to go down, and with lamp in one hand and her small child in the other, she met Hamiana with a bolo, Emiliano de la Cruz and Ceferino de la Cruz with rifles, and Jabin with a bolo. When she attempted to flee, Blancada caught her arm and, at gunpoint, ordered her to put her child down. Blancada took Colantro to a place away from the house and raped her at gunpoint. After the rape, Colantro proceeded to the house of Federico Nava, where she stayed overnight. The next morning, accompanied by Nava, she returned home and found that the appellants had carried away her palay worth P35.

The appellants raised the defense of alibi. Jabin claimed he was in Dapdap, Silay, in the house of his employer Eufrocino Iligan on the nights in question, but Iligan could not be certain whether Jabin slept on those nights since they slept in separate rooms. Parcon claimed he was in Hacienda Vista Alegre, Silay, on April 1, 1947, and in Dulao, Bago, from April 8 to 11, 1947, visiting his sister Dionisia Parcon; however, Dionisia could not account for his whereabouts during the interval when she was asleep. Blancada testified he was at his house in Abuanan on the nights in question, but his residence was only about two kilometers from Hacienda Sta. Rita. Norberto, Emiliano, and Ceferino de la Cruz alleged they were at their house in Dulao, about three kilometers from Hacienda Sta. Rita. Hamiana claimed he was at his house in Dulao, five kilometers from Hacienda Sta. Rita. None of these distances absolutely precluded their presence at the crime scenes. The defense also presented Antonio Palmes, a prisoner serving 38 years, who admitted that he and the Bravo gang committed the robberies in question; the Court found this confession hardly credible, noting that any additional penalty would add at most two years to his existing confinement.

• Two Separate Offenses in Criminal Case No. 1255: The Solicitor General contended that two separate offenses of robbery in band were charged in Criminal Case No. 1255, since the house of Fortunata Nobleza was different and separate from that of Porfirio Lorenzo, and the offenses were committed on different occasions.
• Complex Crime of Robbery with Rape: The Solicitor General recommended that all appellants be convicted in Criminal Case No. 1257 of the complex crime of robbery in band with rape, on the ground that there was no showing that the rape committed by Blancada was prevented by the other appellants.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The Solicitor General contended that the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were present in all three cases, without any mitigating circumstances to offset them.

• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: Whether the defense of alibi can prevail over the positive identification of the appellants by their victims.
• Credibility of Third-Party Confession: Whether the confession of Antonio Palmes, a convicted prisoner, that he and the Bravo gang committed the robberies should exonerate the appellants.
• Number of Offenses in Criminal Case No. 1255: Whether Criminal Case No. 1255 charged one or two separate offenses of robbery in band.
• Liability for Rape: Whether all appellants should be convicted of the complex crime of robbery in band with rape in Criminal Case No. 1257, or only Anastacio Blancada.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were present.

• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: No. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the victims, who were certain in recognizing the appellants and had no motive to make false imputations.
• Credibility of Third-Party Confession: No. Palmes's confession was not credible, as he was already serving 38 years and any additional penalty would add at most two years to his confinement, providing a clear incentive to falsely assume responsibility.
• Number of Offenses in Criminal Case No. 1255: One offense. The information charged only one offense of robbery, and construing the case favorably to the appellants, they cannot be convicted of two separate offenses they were not explicitly charged with or put on notice of.
• Liability for Rape: Only Blancada. The rape was committed at a place away from the house where the robbery occurred, and there was no positive proof that the other appellants were aware of or abetted the rape.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Yes. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were present in all three cases, without any mitigating circumstances to offset them.

• Alibi vs. Positive Identification: The victims positively identified the appellants, and the appellants could not attribute to the prosecution witnesses any motive that could have prompted them to make false imputations. Rosita Colantro, in particular, knew Hamiana well as her neighbor and recognized Blancada by face even before the commission of the crime. The relatively short distances between the appellants' claimed locations and the crime scenes — two kilometers for Blancada, three kilometers for the de la Cruz appellants, and five kilometers for Hamiana — did not absolutely preclude their presence and participation. Where alibi is not physically impossible and is corroborated by witnesses whose testimony is uncertain or inconsistent, it cannot overcome positive identification.

• Credibility of Third-Party Confession: Antonio Palmes was a convict undergoing 38 years of confinement with another pending case. Under the rule that the maximum penalty for multiple offenses may not exceed three times the sentence corresponding to the most severe penalty — which may not exceed forty years — even if convicted of the robberies in question, only two years would be added to his pending period of confinement. This provided a clear incentive for Palmes to falsely assume responsibility, rendering his confession hardly believable.

• Number of Offenses in Criminal Case No. 1255: The appellants had not objected to the sufficiency of the informations, which charged only one offense of robbery, nor to the evidence presented, which was not explicit in distinguishing testimony for one offense from testimony for another. Construing the matter favorably to the appellants, the Court declined to convict them of two separate offenses of robbery in band when the information charged only one and the evidence did not clearly segregate the two incidents into separate charges.

• Liability for Rape: The evidence showed that Blancada caught Colantro while she was trying to escape and committed the rape at a place away from her house, where the robbery was committed. There was no positive proof in the record that the other appellants were aware of, much less abetted, the criminal act committed by Blancada against Colantro. Absent such proof, the other appellants could not be held liable for the complex crime of robbery in band with rape; only Blancada was liable, and his penalty was modified to reclusion perpetua.

• Aggravating Circumstances: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that in all three cases the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were present, without any mitigating circumstances to offset them. The robberies were committed during the early morning hours or at night, and the offenders invaded the dwellings of the victims.

• Alibi as a Defense — Alibi is the weakest of all defenses and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses, especially where the accused have not shown that the witnesses had any motive to falsely impute the crimes. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that the accused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the crime scene. The relatively short distance between the accused's claimed location and the crime scene does not absolutely preclude his presence and participation.

• Liability for Robbery with Rape — In the complex crime of robbery with rape, all members of the band are liable for the rape if it is shown that they were aware of or abetted the rape. Where the rape is committed by one member at a place away from the scene of the robbery and there is no positive proof that the other members were aware of or abetted the act, only the rapist is liable for the complex crime; the others are liable only for robbery in band.

• Credibility of Third-Party Confessions — A confession by a third party already serving a long sentence is viewed with suspicion where the additional penalty that may be imposed is minimal relative to the sentence already being served, providing a clear incentive to falsely assume responsibility for the crimes charged.

• "The defense of alibi set up by the appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimony of their victims." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the insufficiency of alibi where victims have positively identified the accused and no ill motive is attributable to the witnesses.

• "There is no positive proof in the record that the other appellants were aware of, much less abated, the criminal act committed by appellant Anastacio Blancada against the person of Rosita Colantro." — This passage articulates the controlling rule limiting liability for robbery with rape to the actual perpetrator where the other band members' awareness or complicity in the rape is not proven.

• "We are inclined to take the view favorable to the appellants." — This passage reflects the Court's approach of construing the charging information favorably to the accused where the information charged only one offense and the evidence did not clearly segregate testimony into separate offenses.

• Article 70, Revised Penal Code — Governs the successive service of penalties imposed for distinct offenses. The Court ordered that the sentences in the three criminal cases be served one after the other, subject to the provisions of this article.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Jugo, JJ., concurred.