G.R. No. L-16947; November 29, 1962
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIVENCIO DE ROXAS, ET AL., defendants, VIVENCIO DE ROXAS and BIENVENIDO LAZARTE, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The appellants, Vivencio de Roxas and Bienvenido Lazarte, along with Leoncio Patulot, were charged with robbery with homicide and rape. The case stemmed from events on the night of October 12, 1954, in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The trio, under a pre-arranged plan, waited near the house of Isidro Caunseran. Using a truck siding as a ladder, de Roxas and Lazarte entered through a window while Patulot stood guard. Upon being discovered by Caunseran, one assailant struck him with a gun butt and stabbed him, causing his death. The two then robbed the victim’s wife, Naciancina Jabal, of P150.00 and, at knifepoint, took turns raping her before fleeing.
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimonies of the widow, Naciancina Jabal, and state witness Leoncio Patulot, who was discharged to testify. Appellants challenged their identification and presented alibis, claiming they were elsewhere that night. They also contested the admissibility of their sworn confessions, Exhibits “D” and “E”, alleging they were extracted through torture by a PC sergeant—a claim denied by the sergeant and viewed with skepticism by the trial court due to the lack of corroborative complaint or injury shown to the administering mayor.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the guilt of appellants de Roxas and Lazarte for the complex crime of robbery with homicide and rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the appellants’ guilt established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of Naciancina Jabal and Leoncio Patulot were consistent and credible, positively identifying de Roxas and Lazarte as the perpetrators who entered the house, killed Caunseran, robbed, and raped Jabal. The Court upheld the trial court’s admission of the appellants’ sworn confessions, rejecting the claim of coercion. It noted the implausibility of torture occurring in the vice-mayor’s office in the deputy governor’s presence and the absence of any complaint or visible injuries reported to the mayor who administered the oath. Furthermore, the contents of the confessions, which included exculpatory details for de Roxas, were inconsistent with a coerced narrative.
The Court also found the appellants’ alibis weak and unsubstantiated, as they were not corroborated by the house occupants they named, and the locations were merely three kilometers from the crime scene. The testimony of a defense witness from prison, who sought to implicate himself and others, was deemed unreliable due to his conditional and irresponsible demand. While the trial court imposed the death penalty, the Supreme Court, for lack of the requisite votes to affirm it, reduced the penalty to life imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects.