G.R. No. 108208 - Republic vs. Asuncion

On the night of June 28, 1946, at about one o’clock in the morning, Eduardo Canastre (the appellant) and Gil Sayuco, together with unidentified companions, approached the residence of Magdaleno Beri in barrio Batuan, municipality of Pototon, Iloilo.
Upon arrival, the offenders used a flashlight which they turned on immediately, thereby illuminating the scene and the occupants of the house.

The offenders threatened Magdaleno Beri by pointing a gun at him and ordering him, and his companions, not to move, with an explicit threat of death if defied.
Eduardo Canastre proceeded to enter the room of Benedicta Beri, the 17-year-old daughter of Magdaleno, after identifying and assessing the situation in the household.
Benedicta was forcibly dragged outside under a mango tree, despite her cries for help, while her father was restrained (tied to the wall) and her mother was physically pushed away whenever she attempted to intervene.

In the open under the mango tree, the appellant and his accomplices, including Gil Sayuco, committed rape on Benedicta. The assault involved multiple perpetrators as the appellant, Sayuco, and two other companions each took turns raping her.
After the sexual assault, the group returned to the house and stole a rice bowl, some rice, and four chickens—valued at approximately fifteen pesos.

The appellant’s counsel asserted that he did not leave his house during the night due to suffering from diarrhea, thereby suggesting an alibi.
The defense also raised doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly highlighting the failure to identify the other two companions, which was used to support the acquittal of co-accused Francisco Pasaporte and Gonzalo Fabilona.
However, the defense’s argument was countered by persuasive testimonial evidence, including that of defense witness Dr. Engracio Parrenas—who noted that Benedicta, on June 30, 1946, complained of having been raped and consented to a medical examination.
Testimony from another health officer, Dr. M. Cartagena, emphasized that the absence of visible external injuries does not conclusively indicate that no sexual intercourse occurred, reinforcing the prosecution’s case.

The clear night conditions and the appellant’s deliberate use of the flashlight helped ensure that his identity was unmistakably revealed and adequately recognized by the victims.
The positive identification made by the witnesses, all of whom knew the appellant personally, served as strong evidence against him.
The combination of eyewitness accounts, the sequence of events, and corroborative medical testimony negated the defense’s claim of reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s participation.

Whether the identification of Eduardo Canastre as one of the perpetrators was sufficiently reliable given the conditions under which it was made.

Consideration of the clear night setting and the use of a flashlight to reveal the offender’s identity.
Analysis of whether any misidentification could have occurred despite the defense’s suggestion of an alibi.

Whether the testimonial and physical evidence presented, including the accounts of eyewitnesses and medical officers, adequately established the accused’s participation in the commission of robbery in band with rape.

Evaluation of the consistency and credibility of the victim’s testimony and the corroborative statements from health officials.
The weighing of the conflicting evidence regarding the absence of external injuries on the victim versus the overall circumstances of the assault.

The extent to which the failure to identify the other accomplices impacts the credibility of the conviction and the strength of the prosecution’s case.

Examination of whether the inability to account for all unidentified companions creates a reasonable doubt regarding the identity and involvement of the appellant.

Whether the defense evidence (alibi of diarrhea and the questioning of witness testimony) was sufficient to exonerate the appellant.

Determining if the presented alibi could realistically account for the appearance and behavior of the appellant during the incident.