G.R. No. 42868 - People vs. De Asis

Case Summary (G.R. No. 42868)

Factual Background

The prosecution’s evidence, anchored principally on the testimony of Elena Cadayong and Maria Bagason, showed that the complainants left barrio Giporlos to return to the sitio of Iraya of the same barrio, their residences. They had been instructed to buy fish, which they did, and then began their return journey around early evening.

At approximately six o’clock on July 29, 1934, the accused, Felipe de Asis and Eustaquio Cabanillas, together with a companion, approached the girls and offered to accompany them home. The girls refused, fearing that their mothers might reprimand them for going out with strangers. Despite this, the accused and their companion pretended not to insist and initially proceeded in the opposite direction from the girls’ route.

When they reached a stream that had to be crossed, the girls were unexpectedly confronted again by the accused and the companion, who, according to the girls’ testimony, was Juan Cote. At that point, it was about seven o’clock in the evening. Felipe de Asis took hold of Maria Bagason, while Elena Cadayong was closely followed by him. Elena attempted to escape by moving faster and succeeded in getting to the other side of the road to hide.

After losing sight of Elena, Felipe de Asis turned to Elena Cadayong and managed to seize her by the legs. He then threw her on her back. In that position, Juan Cote held Elena’s arms in a cross-like manner, while Eustaquio Cabanillas mounted her after raising her skirt. The trial record described that Eustaquio Cabanillas raped her notwithstanding the efforts of Elena to free herself from all three assailants. Juan Cote followed in the criminal act after Eustaquio’s turn, and Felipe de Asis continued holding Elena by the legs to keep her helpless, while Eustaquio again took the place of Juan Cote, holding her arms to render her resistance impossible. After the consummation of the crime, the three fled.

Soon after, Maria Bagason, who had been hidden nearby, emerged and ran to the nearest house about fifty brazas from the scene to report what had happened and to ask for assistance. Monico Maracas, the owner of the house where Maria sought help, went with Maria to the crime scene. Together, they helped gather the items the girls had purchased, which had fallen and been thrown on the ground during the attack.

Trial Court Findings and Sentence

The trial court convicted Felipe de Asis and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of six years and one day of prision mayor to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with the accessory penalties of the law and liability for one-third of the costs. For Eustaquio Cabanillas, the trial court did not render a judgment of conviction because he was under eighteen years of age, and it ordered his confinement at the Philippine Training School for Boys until he reached majority. Juan Cote was acquitted on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate contest by Felipe de Asis focused on alleged errors in the trial court’s evaluation of identification testimony and the weight given to the testimony of a sanitary inspector. The defense also invoked the acquittal of Juan Cote as purportedly undermining the conviction.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The appellants argued, in substance, that the trial court erred in not acquitting them despite the acquittal of Juan Cote. They further argued that the trial court gave undue weight to testimony from the sanitary inspector, particularly in light of his claimed inexperience in giving opinions on vaginal examination.

On their identification defense, Felipe de Asis argued that Elena Cadayong and Maria Bagason should not have been credited because the night was allegedly so dark that they could not have recognized their attackers. In support, they relied on testimony of Monico Maracas that when he arrived at the scene at Maria’s request, he needed a torch to see due to the darkness. They also pointed out that neither Elena nor Maria allegedly told him the names of the perpetrators at that time.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of Identification and Credibility

The Court declined to disturb the trial court’s factual conclusions on credibility. It reasoned that the trial judge had the advantage of observing and hearing the witnesses directly and was therefore in a better position to assess truthfulness based on their manner and conduct while testifying.

The Court also held that the record showed circumstances supporting the girls’ ability to recognize the assailants. It found that there was moonlight at the time and that, because of that light, the girls were able to identify the attackers. The Court relied on calendrical evidence stating that the hour of full moon in July 1934 was 8.09 o’clock on the night of the 26th of that month. It followed that on July 29, 1934, at around seven o’clock, the moon had already risen, removing reasonable doubt as to recognition.

The Court also observed that there was no indication that Elena and Maria testified from resentment against the accused other than the natural reaction to abuse to which they were subjected. As to the use of the acquittal of Juan Cote as an argument, the Court ruled that it could not benefit the appellants. It explained that Juan Cote’s acquittal rested on a doubt attributed to the failure of the prosecuting attorney to explain why Juan Cote’s name did not appear by his own name in the complaint filed in the justice of the peace court of Balangiga, Samar (identified as Exhibit C), notwithstanding that the prosecution witnesses testified that they knew the accused’s name at trial.

Alibi and the Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence

The Court further rejected the alibi defense as not having been proven convincingly. It emphasized that the complainants gave categorical statements that the appellants were among the three persons who attacked them and that this identification was based on what they saw and heard directly.

The Court reiterated the established doctrine that alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of truthful witnesses who were able to observe the accused during the commission of the offense. It treated alibi as a common defense susceptible to fabrication and noted that, particularly in the case of Eustaquio Cabanillas, the defense was supported by a witness who was his own father. As to Felipe de Asis, the Court noted the existence of relationships or closeness that made the alibi evidence less persuasive.

The Court’s Treatment of Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances

For the crime for which Felipe de Asis was convicted, the Court held that no compensating mitigating circumstance existed. It considered as aggravating circumstances both nocturnity and abuse of superior strength, consistent with the cited jurisprudence on factors that may raise the penalty.

Accordingly, the Court adjusted the penalty by directing that Felipe de Asis be sentenced to reclusion temporal in its maximum period, which the Court specified as seventeen years, four months, and one day to twenty years. It cited Articles 335 and 64, as well as rules 4 and 6 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to the imposition of the indeterminate penalty.

Correction of the Trial Court’s Omission on Civil Liabilities

The Court also noted a defect in the appealed sentence. It observed that the trial court failed to provide for indemnity to be paid to the offended party and for support of her offspring, if any, despite the requirements of Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code.

It then addressed the status of Eustaquio Cabanillas by confirming that, since he was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offense (being then about fifteen years old), the trial court’s order placing him in the training school until majority was in accordance with Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 42868)

The case involved three accused originally charged with the crime of rape, but only Felipe de Asis was convicted by the trial court.
The trial court imposed no judgment on Eustaquio Cabanillas because he was under eighteen years of age, and it ordered his confinement in the Philippine Training School for Boys until he reached majority.
The trial court acquitted Juan Cote on the ground that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Felipe de Asis and Eustaquio Cabanillas appealed the judgment of conviction, contesting both factual appreciation and the legal effect of the acquittal of their coaccused.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippine Islands acted as plaintiff and appellee, while Felipe de Asis and Eustaquio Cabanillas acted as appellants.
The appeal assailed the conviction of Felipe de Asis and sought review of the trial court’s refusal to acquit the appellants.
The procedural posture required the appellate court to evaluate the sufficiency of identification evidence, the treatment of alibi, and the impact of Juan Cote’s acquittal.

Key Factual Allegations

The prosecution’s evidence came principally from the testimonies of Elena Cadayong and Maria Bagason, described as two unmarried girls aged fourteen and twenty, respectively.
The incident occurred on July 29, 1934, at about six o’clock in the afternoon, when the girls were on their way home from barrio Giporlos, Balangiga, Samar, where they had gone to buy fish by order of their mothers.
The girls were walking to the sitio of Iraya within the same barrio, near their residences.
The appellants and a companion approached and offered to accompany the girls home, and the girls objected because they feared their mothers might reprimand them.
After the girls rejected the offer, the appellants and their companion allegedly proceeded in the opposite direction, then unexpectedly met the girls at a stream the girls had to cross.
The girls testified that the companion at the stream was Juan Cote and that at about seven o’clock at night the rape was committed in a coordinated manner by the three accused.
Felipe de Asis allegedly seized Maria Bagason, while he was followed immediately by actions directed at Elena Cadayong.
Elena Cadayong allegedly escaped from Felipe de Asis to the other side of the road to hide, after which Felipe de Asis turned to Elena Cadayong and held her by the legs.
Felipe de Asis allegedly threw Elena Cadayong down on her back without releasing her.
The testimony described a division of physical control: Juan Cote held Elena Cadayong’s arms “in the fashion of a cross,” while Eustaquio Cabanillas mounted and raped her after raising her skirt.
The girls testified that after one accused’s turn, the others followed in a continuing sequence until resistance was made impossible by holding her arms and legs.
After the rape, the three appellants allegedly fled, and Maria Bagason ran to the nearest house, about fifty brazas from the scene, to report the incident and ask for help.
Monico Maracas, the owner of the house, went to the crime scene with Maria Bagason and assisted the girls in gathering the fish they had purchased, which were reportedly scattered during the assault.

Identification and Witness Credibility

The appellants argued that the trial court should not have given credit to the testimony of the offended party and Maria Bagason because the night was very dark and recognition would have been impossible.
The appellants grounded this contention on Monico Maracas’s testimony that he used a torch due to the darkness and that neither the offended party nor Maria Bagason initially told him the names of the perpetrators.
The Court declined to disturb the trial court’s factual conclusion because the trial judge had seen and heard the witnesses testify and was thus in a better position to assess truthfulness through their demeanor and manner of testifying.
The Court reinforced its deference with the evidentiary fact that there was moonlight at the time of the attack, and that the girls were able to recognize the assailants due to the light.
The Court relied on the record and calendars to state that the hour of the full moon in July 1934 was 8.09 o’clock on the twenty-sixth of that month, making it impossible to doubt that the moon had a