G.R. No. L-14362; October 31, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL., defendants. HERNANI ACANTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Hernani Acanto and David Tingson were charged with robbery in band with rape. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo found Hernani Acanto guilty of robbery in band with rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. David Tingson was found guilty of robbery in band. Both were ordered to indemnify Consuelo Cartera P154. Only Acanto appealed.
On the night of November 14, 1951, a group of armed men, including appellant Hernani Acanto (with a gun), Ireneo Quimba (with a bolo), and Pio Quintero (with a gun), arrived at the house of Consuelo Cartera in sitio Malosgod, Dueñas, Iloilo. After threats, they entered. The inmates were ordered to lie face down. The men ransacked the house, and Quimba took P32 and jewelry from Consuelo. The men then dragged Consuelo’s niece, Amalia Cartera, downstairs. A short distance from the house, Acanto, Quimba, and Quintero successively had sexual intercourse with Amalia against her will. She felt pain and later showed her blood-stained panties. Two other companions, Aniano Porras and David Tingson, arrived and also attempted to assault her, but she escaped.
The incident was reported. Amalia was medically examined on November 20, 1951, and the certificate showed lacerations at 3 and 9 o’clock positions of the hymen, which the doctor testified could have been caused by sexual contact.
Acanto’s defense was alibi, claiming he was elsewhere on election-related activities with Juan Locsin, who corroborated him. The trial court rejected this defense, giving credence to the positive identification by Consuelo and Amalia, who knew Acanto before the incident. The court also noted that a motion for dismissal (Exhibit 2) signed by Amalia in January 1952—where she expressed doubt about the identities—was executed under duress because Acanto had threatened to kill her.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Hernani Acanto of the crime of robbery in band with rape, rejecting his defense of alibi, and finding the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment regarding indemnity. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive, clear, and direct testimony of the victims, Consuelo and Amalia Cartera, who identified Acanto as one of the perpetrators. They knew him prior to the incident, and there was adequate moonlight and house lighting for identification. No ill motive was imputed to the victims for testifying against him. The witness for the alibi, Juan Locsin, was related to Acanto and likely testified out of gratitude, as Acanto served as his bodyguard during elections.
The motion for dismissal (Exhibit 2) signed by Amalia was found to have been executed under duress due to Acanto’s death threats, given her young age, scant education, and naive disposition. Her subsequent need for protection by living with the chief of police corroborated the reality of the threat.
The crime committed was robbery in band with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The aggravating circumstances of band (at least four armed malefactors) and dwelling were present, with no mitigating circumstances. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was within the legal range. However, following the rule in People vs. Demetrio, the Court ordered Acanto to indemnify the rape victim, Amalia Cartera, in the sum of P5,000.
The judgment was modified to include this indemnity and was affirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.