Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-31012 August 15, 1973
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ARTURO CARANDANG, MARIO BUISER, MONTANO CARAAN and DIOMEDES ESTRELLA, defendants-appellants.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting Assistant Solicitor, General Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and Solicitor Tomas M. Dilig for plaintiff-appellee.
Pastor B. Timog for defendant-appellant Arturo Carandang.
Magno T. Bueser for defendants-appellants Mario Buiser, et al.
FERNANDO, J.:
The appeal in this case from a judgment of conviction by the four accused, Arturo Carandang and Diomedes Estrella for the crime of robbery with rape, with the other two defendants Montano Caraan and Mario Buiser being held liable only for robbery, raises no significant legal question. The reliance for the reversal sought is made to rest on the plea that the trial judge could have appreciated the evidence differently. It is therefore premised on the credibility accorded the witnesses for the prosecution, primarily the offended parties themselves. It becomes apparent then why the burden assumed by appellants is far from easy, considering furthermore that for exculpation, they would rely on the defense of alibi. We cannot reverse.
From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, relied upon by the lower court, the offense in question occurred in the early evening of November 28, 1968, while the spouses Gutierrez and Socorro Familiar and their children were taking their supper, their house being located at Barrio Sta. Veronica, San Pablo City.1At that time, there was the sudden appearance of a man, with his face partly covered with a handkerchief and armed with a gun.2He ordered the persons inside the house not to make any noise and to go to the sala; then he put out the light of the Coleman lamp inside the house. While the Gutierrezes were being taken to the sala, another person, with his face likewise partly covered with a piece of cloth from the nose down, arrived. The first thing he did was to ask Eugenio Gutierrez for his gun.3 A negative response so enraged him that he kicked the latter on the face, asked him to kneel, and said "Your gun or your life."4 The presence of a light in the room of the house caused one of them to blindfold the members of the household.5Then the house was ransacked and cash amounting to P130.00, a radio valued at P280.00, and a watch valued at P70.00 taken.6The two individuals thus perpetrating such acts were recognized by Gutierrez as the accused Arturo Carandang and Diomedes Estrella. Moreover he heard talk coming from below the house, asking them to hurry up so they could leave.7He did identify the source as the other two accused Montano Caraan and Mario Buiser, both of whom were known to him for several years, as they were hired to pick coconuts in the plantation which he was supervising at the time.8Not satisfied with what they had done, one of the accused, Arturo Carandang, approached the wife of Gutierrez, Socorro Familiar, then praying, and pulled her to the kitchen.9It was there where her panties were immediately ripped off and she was asked, at the point of a gun, to lie down.10Socorro pleaded to Carandang to desist from what he intended to do as she had just given birth, all to no avail.11After he was through with the sexual act, the accused Diomedes Estrella approached her, and, at gun point, was also able to have carnal knowledge of her.12During such assault by Estrella, her blindfold did not conceal things as she kept moving her head; thus she saw the other accused, Montano Caraan, seated near the stairs.13He was also about to do the same thing as his companions, but Socorro asked him to have pity on her informing him as she did the other two that she had just given birth, and Caraan voluntarily desisted.14Thereafter, the party left the house, before leaving, they threatened the occupants with death, should they report the incident to the authorities.15Gutierrez was able to follow them surreptitiously, and upon reaching the road, he saw that the four accused, the three aforementioned and also Mario Buiser, going to the house of Otilio Diones. Then and there, he reported the happening to the barrio captain, Isabelo Guevarra. He made sure that the identities the culprits were revealed.16
The version for the defense rejected by the lower court was set forth in the brief for appellant Carandang in these words:ℒαwρhi৷ "That on November 28, 1968, and a year prior thereto, he has been living in the house of spouses Otilio Diones and Jacinta Saba in barrio Santa Veronica, San Pablo City; that on morning of November 28, 1969, appellant Arturo Carandang went to the ricefield he was farming for spouses Otilio Diones and Jacinta Saba, and returned home for lunch at 11:00 A.M. In the afternoon, he also worked in the ricefield. On his way home he went to a [place] and gathered fodder for his carabao, returning home at about 4:30 P.M. After he had fed the carabao, he rested in a bamboo bed under the house until he was called by his Ate (Jacinta Saba) as supper then was ready. At about 6:00 P.M., his three co-accused Diomedes Estrella, Mario Buiser and Montano Caraan arrived. He accompanied Montano Caraan to the house of Miss Oliva Diones, whom Caraan was courting. They stayed in the house of Oliva Diones for about an hour and a half, after which, they returned to the house of spouses Otilio Diones and Jacinta Saba. The three co-accused of appellant Arturo Carandang left at about 10:30 P.M., and appellant retired to bed. Thereafter, policemen Nazario Perez arrived and inquired for appellant Carandang; that he was aroused from his sleep and told that they will bring him to barrio captain who wanted to talk to him; that after patrolman had a brief conversation with the barrio captain, he was told that he will be utilized as guide to locate his three co-accused. However, he was taken to the police headquarters of San Pablo City, and detained."17As noted, the judgment was one of conviction, the appealed decision being notable for the rather detailed analysis of the evidence. After a study of the transcript of testimony as well as the briefs for both the prosecution and the defense, the state being represented by the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice Felix Antonio, aided by the then Assistant Solicitor General, now Judge Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr., who took pains to present quite a fair and objective account of this unfortunate occurrence, we have reached the conclusion, as noted at the outset, that a reversal is not warranted.
1. All four appellants, in the two briefs submitted, one for Carandang by Attorney Salvador B. Timog, and the other for Estrella, Caraan and Buiser by Attorney Magno T. Bueser, did direct their line of fire on what they considered to be a failure of the lower court to appreciate correctly what did really transpire. While the effort to discredit the testimony of the offended parties, the couple Eugenio Gutierrez and Socorro Familiar, evinced their concern to assure that the rights of their clients be fully protected, it cannot be said to possess a persuasive ring. It is not easy to raise doubt as to the guilt of the accused for the offenses for which they were indicted and found guilty. The lower court certainly has not laid itself open to any accusation of being remiss in analyzing the evidence on the part of both the state and the accused. Much less can it be alleged that there was lacking then that measure of impartiality required by law of occupants of the bench in their appraisal of testimony that could lead to the loss of liberty, in the case of heinous offenses, even of the right of the prisoner at the dock to life itself.
Moreover, a recent decision would indicate the difficulty thus faced by appellants in seeking to overturn their conviction on this ground alone. Thus in People v. Angcap,18it was said: "There is need to stress anew that this Court has long been committed to the principle that the determination by a trial judge who could weigh and appraise the testimony as to the facts duly proved is entitled to the highest respect, unless it could be shown that he ignored or disregarded circumstances of weight or influence sufficient to call for a different finding. So it was announced by Justice Moreland in 1915 in the first case of consequence enunciating such a doctrine. As he pointed out, in the event of a conflict in the testimony of the witnesses, "the peculiar province of the trial court is to resolve the question of credibility, and, unless there is something in the record impeaching by fair interpretation the resolution of the trial court in relation to that question, this court will assume that he acted fairly, justly, and legally in the exercise of that function." So it has been since then. In a case reported in the latest volume of the Philippine Reports, Justice Paredes, speaking for this Court succinctly stated "that with respect to the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's findings and conclusions, command great respect and weight." Its more usual formulation was also set forth by Justice Malcolm in these words: "After everything is said and done, we come back, as we invariably do in cases of this nature, to a recognition of the rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing on the credibility of the opposing witnesses, unless there appears in the record some circumstances of weight and influence, which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted."19
Nor is their case for a reversal bolstered by their plea of alibi.7!ᕼdMᗄ7 This is not to lose sight of the fact that the presence elsewhere of the accused would preclude their participation in a crime. Such a fact, if there be such, has to be shown though by evidence that commands assent. Unfortunately for appellants in this case, they were unable to do so. The categorical nature of the identification made by the offended spouses placed a burden on them too difficult to overcome by the allegation that they could not have been the perpetrators of the foul deed. In this connection, an excerpt from People v. Tapitan20is relevant. Thus: "In a 1908 opinion by Justice Torres, the first time the defense of alibi was paid considerable attention, this Court correctly ruled that such a plea could not prevail against the positive testimony of five witnesses to the effect that the accused far from being away from the place where the offense took place was indeed present. So it is in the case before us. Such a defense is futile and unavailing. To the same effect is the following: "The appellants' weak defense of alibi is not sufficient to overcome the positive identification made of them as the perpetrators of the crime by the witnesses, against whom they could not impute sufficient reason for pointing to them." As we had occasion to remark in one of our opinion, through Justice Capistrano: 'Alibi is one of the weakest defenses, and is easily fabricated. We have examined the testimonies in support of this defense of alibi, and have found the same unworthy of credence.' "21
2. The remaining error assigned in the brief for appellants Estrella, Caraan and Buiser would find fault with the finding of the lower court, allegedly disregarding the testimony of Dr. Arracleto Polillo who, on November 29, 1968 at 2:00 A.M., examined medically the offended party, Socorro Familiar.22Such an alleged error, on its face, is misleading because this doctor, in answer to a question by the court, readily admitted that before conducting such examination, the patient "complained that she feels something on her private part because she was raped by somebody."23When asked whether the findings in his medical certificate later issued compatible with such complaint on the part of the patient, this is how he replied: "Well, Your Honor, the findings here, only one finding here may tally with her complaint."24To be more specific, he referred to the "erythematous, abrasion of the labia menora."25There was, though, his statement that "in a true case of rape, the presence of spermatozoa should be positive."26This rather categorical affirmation he qualified by speaking of their being found in the genital organ of the woman in question for at least twenty-four hours, unless the offended party would wash it. The brief for the three appellants would impress on this Court that doubt does exist as to rape actually having committed. This is too flimsy an argument to be taken seriously . More than seven hours at least had elapsed by that time from the sexual assault suffered by the victim. There is nothing improbable then in her cleaning that part of her body. Moreover, from the legal standpoint, the authoritative pronouncement from People v. Selfaison,27the opinion being rendered by Justice Gutierrez David, is to the effect that such a defense lacks merit. Thus: 'Citing Dr. Anzures' "Lectures on Legal Medicine" which states that an examination within 3 days after intercourse would reveal the presence of spermatozoa, the appellants underscore the fact that physical examinations to which the complainants were subjected to were negative as to the presence of spermatozoa. The absence of such spermatozoa, however, does not necessarily mean that the complainants had not in fact been raped. The very authority cited states that such absence does not necessarily mean that the girl subject of the examination has not had any sexual intercourse. It need hardly be said here that in the crime of rape, the slightest penetration is enough. In the case of the complainants, we agree with the trial court that the recent laceration in the hymen and the contusions on the walls of the labia menora, of their genitals together with the evidence adduced during the trial — sufficiently shows that the copulative act had been performed by means of force and violence. ... In fact, it is not even necessary that there be a medical examination of the victim in cases of rape. Whether or not the charge will prosper depends upon the evidence offered and so long as such evidence convinces the court, a conviction for rape is proper. At any rate, it is not improbable that the complainants washed or flushed themselves not only for the sake of cleanliness but more particularly in order to avoid possible conception. It is, indeed, difficult to believe that the complainants, who are very young and unmarried, would tell a story of defloration, allow the examination of their private parts, and thereafter permit themselves to be the subject of a public trial, if they were not motivated by an honest desire to have the culprits apprehended and punished."28The last portion of the above excerpt is merely a reiteration of what was set forth in People v. Canastre29a 1948 decision, to the effect that this Court is committed to the principle in accord with the traditional psychology of our people inhibiting a woman from exposing herself to the obloquy that would follow an admission that she had been thus victimized if the truth were otherwise, unless there be proof of a motive weighty enough to make her bear with equanimity the pillory to which she would be thus subjected. What gives force to such an observation is that here, the husband, who himself must certainly bear the brunt of shame at this unfortunate incident, did likewise testify to the violation of his wife.30
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of the VIIIth Judicial District of August 26, 1969 finding the accused Arturo Lozada Carandang and Diomedes Estrella y Arcega "guilty beyond reasonable doubt as Principals in the crime of Robbery with Rape and considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling of the offended party, abuse of superior strength and ignominy, without any mitigating circumstance to consider, [sentencing] each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to jointly a severally, with their other co-accused, indemnify the complaining spouses in the sum of [Four hundred eighty (P480.00) pesos], representing the value of the articles taken, jointly and severally indemnify the complaining spouses in the sum of [Five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos] by way of damages ..." and the accused Montano Caraan y Pampolina and Mario Buiser "guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals in the crime of Robbery, defined and penalized under Article 294 paragraph 5, as amended by Section 6, Republic Act No. 18, and considering the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling of the offended party and abuse of superior strength, without any mitigating circumstance to be considered in their favor, [sentencing] them to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from [four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day] of prision correccional as minimum to [ten (10) years] of prision mayor as maximum, to jointly and severally indemnify the offended party in the sum of [Four hundred eighty (P480.00) pesos]"31is affirmed. Costs against appellants.
Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Zaldivar, J., is on leave.
Antonio, J, took no part.
Footnotes
1 T.s.n., session of July 8, 1969, 4, 29; session of July 9, 1969, 3.
2 Ibid, 4, 33; 4.
3 Ibid, 35; 6.
4 Ibid, 5, 36; 5.
5 Ibid, July 8, 1969, 43.
6 Ibid, 27; 13.
7 Ibid, July 9, 1969, 8.
8 Ibid, 8, 9.
9 Ibid, 6.
10 Ibid, 7, 8, 18, 44.
11 Ibid, 13.
12 Ibid, 16.
13 Ibid, 17, 18, 53.
14 Ibid, 18, 20.
15 Ibid, 84.
16 Ibid, July 9, 1969, 15-16, 19-21.
17 Brief for Appellant Arturo Carandang, 4-5. A rather voluminous brief filed on behalf of appellants Estrella, Caraan and Buiser surprisingly lack a straightforward and coherent account of the facts as testified to by their own witnesses, counsel satisfying himself with a vigorous and exhaustive attack on the version of the prosecution in the course of which reference was made to the evidence offered by them as to what transpired.
18 L-28748, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 437.
19 Ibid, 444-445. The opinion cited decisions from starting United States v. Pico, 15 Phil. 549 (1910) to People v. Dramayo, L-21325. Oct. 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 59. The Malcolm decision is People v. De Otero, 51 Phil. 201 (1927). Thirty, other cases were referred to.
20 L-21492, April 25, 1969, 27 SCRA 959.
21 Ibid, 964-965. U.S. v. Roque, 11 Phil. 422, People v. Caisip, 105 Phil. 1180 (1959) and People v. Acabado, L-26104, Jan. 31, 1969, SCRA 727. Cf. People v. Venegas, 95 Phil. 209 (1954) and People v. Samaniego, 95 Phil. 218 (1954).
22 Brief for Appellants Diomedes Estrella, Montano Caraan and Mario Buiser, 32.
23 Ibid, 35.
24 Ibid, 36.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid, 37.
27 L-14732, January 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 235.
28 Ibid, 242-243. Cf. People v. Jose, L-28232, Feb. 6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450 and People v. Pastores, L-29800, Aug. 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 498.
29 82 Phil. 480.
30 People v. Gan, L-33446, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 667.
31 Decision of the Circuit Criminal Court, Eighth Judicial District, San Pablo City, Appendix to Brief for Appellants Diomedes Estrella, Montano Caraan and Mario Buiser 155-156.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
