FIRST
DIVISION
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.
R.
No. L-840
January
12, 1948
-versus-
CESAR
LUNETA, ET
AL.,
Defendants
CESAR
LUNETA,
Appellant.
D
E C I S I
O N
PARAS,
J :
This is an appeal from
a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Capiz finding the
appellant,
Cesar Luneta, guilty of robbery with rape and sentencing him to an
indeterminate
prison term ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 14 years, 8 months and 1
day, to indemnify the offended spouses, Leon Gonzales and Segunda
Fuentes,
in the sum of P375, with the accessories of the law, and to pay
one-half
of the costs.
At about three o'clock
in the afternoon of January 5, 1946, while Leon Gonzales and his wife
Segunda
Fuentes were walking along an uninhabited place in the sitio of
Mahayag,
barrio of Maloloc, municipality of Ivisan, Province of Capiz, they were
stopped by the appellant and one Dominador who is still at large. The
appellant
and his companion were both armed with revolvers and represented
themselves
as MP soldiers. Leon Gonzales was asked whether he was an army man to
which
he answered in the negative, whereupon appellant's companion gave him a
fist blow on the stomach and another blow with his revolver. In the
meantime
the appellant was an onlooker with his revolver pointed at the spouses.
Dominador ordered Leon and his wife to take off their clothes, a
command
which was obeyed. Dominador thereupon asked the appellant to take away
and kill Leon Gonzales, and after the two had gone, Dominador, by means
of force, succeeded in having carnal intercourse with Segunda Fuentes.
Leon Gonzales, however, was able to escape from the appellant who then
returned to the place where Dominador and Segunda Fuentes were. Upon
learning
that Leon Gonzales had fled, Dominador went to look for him, whereupon
the appellant, left alone with Segunda Fuentes, and also by means of
force,
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the woman. The appellant
and
Dominador thereafter left the scene, carrying with them the clothes of
Leon Gonzales and Segunda Fuentes and several other articles having a
total
value of P375. The spouses did not meet each other again until the next
day and, in their scanty clothes, they proceeded to the municipality of
Ivisan and reported the incident to the chief of police. Accompanied by
the latter and two policemen, the spouses went around in the hope of
meeting
their assailants. The search proved to be successful, as they were able
to recognize the appellant in the house of a lady doctor. Thus
identified,
the chief of police arrested and investigated him. Appellant's defense
consisted of a denial ad of the allegation that he was on the day in
question
in the house of his relative in the Municipality of Ivisan.
We have no hesitancy
in concluding that the appellant committed the offense for which he was
sentenced in the appealed judgment. The promptness with which the
offended
spouses reported the incident to the authorities, and the short
interval
between the time of the commission of the offense and the time when
said
spouses identified the appellant readily lead us to the belief that
they
were not concocting an imaginary story. They would not, to say the
least,
complain of acts that would bring disgrace on their honor, and
considering
the facts that the offense was committed in full daylight and that the
outrage listed long enough for the appellant and his companion to have
left a good impression of their identity, said spouses could not have
possibly
made a mistake in recognizing the appellant. It is noteworthy that
there
is absolutely no showing that the offended spouses could have any
motive
for testifying falsely against the appellant. Upon the other hand,
their
testimony coincides essentially with their statements before the Chief
of Police, a circumstance lending force to the theory of the
prosecution.
Much less could the Chief of Police have any reason for incriminating
the
appellant who admitted before said officer that the wound on
appellant's
forehead resulted from a quarrel with his companion over the division
of
the spoils. At any rate, We are not inclined to disregard the advantage
of the trial judge in hearing and seeing the witnesses for both sides
testify.
Contrary to the
contention
of appellant's counsel de oficio, the weight of the evidence
for
the prosecution has not been adversely affected, much less overcome, by
the circumstance that the offended woman did not submit herself to a
physical
examination and that her soiled chemise was not presented in evidence.
While said details are useful, they are not essential, especially
where,
as in this case, there is already sufficient evidence establishing
appellant's
guilt.
We cannot, however,
agree with the Solicitor General in his contention that the offense is
aggravated by the circumstance that it was committed in an uninhabited
place, because it has not been proved that the appellant and his
companion
purposely chose said place as an aid either to an easy and
uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs or to a surer concealment of
the
offense. [U. S. vs. Vitug, 17 Phil. 1]. On the contrary, it is not
improbable
that the offended parties were casually encountered, there being no
evidence
that the accused had previously sought the former for any purpose
whatsoever
[U. S. vs. Vitug, supra], or that said offended parties were
known
by the accused to be habitual travelers in that vicinity.
The offense committed
is robbery with rape and penalized under Article 294, paragraph 2, of
the
Revised Penal Code with reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion
perpetua. In the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
said penalty should be imposed in its medium degree, or from 17 years,
4 months and 1 day to 20 years. The maximum of the indeterminate
sentence
imposed by the trial Court is below this range.
It being understood,
therefore, that the appellant shall suffer an indeterminate prison term
carrying a maximum of 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal,
the appealed judgment is in all other respects affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.
Moran, C.J.,
Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, Briones, Padilla and Tuason, JJ.,
concur. |