GR L 3491; (May, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3491 to L-3494 May 30, 1951
The People of the Philippines, plaintiffs-appellee, vs. Alfonso Hamiana, Silvino Jabin, Ceferino de la Cruz, Norberto de la Cruz, Ceferino Parcon and Anastacio Blancada, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
The appellants appealed from a judgment in three criminal cases for robbery in band. In Criminal Case No. 1253, they robbed Vicente Piadoche of palay and chickens in the early morning of April 1, 1947. In Criminal Case No. 1255, they robbed Fortunata Nobleza and Porfirio Lorenzo of palay, chickens, and cassava on the same morning. In Criminal Case No. 1257, on the night of April 9, 1947, they robbed Rosita Colantro of palay, and appellant Anastacio Blancada raped her. The victims positively identified the appellants. The defense of alibi presented by the appellants was rejected as their claimed locations did not preclude their presence at the crime scenes, and their witnesses’ testimonies were unreliable. A convict, Antonio Palmes, admitted to the crimes but his testimony was deemed unbelievable. The Solicitor General contended that two separate robberies were committed in Case No. 1255 and that all appellants should be convicted of the complex crime of robbery with rape in Case No. 1257.
ISSUE
1. Whether the convictions for robbery in band were supported by the evidence.
2. Whether the defense of alibi should prevail over the positive identification by the victims.
3. Whether two separate offenses of robbery in band were committed in Criminal Case No. 1255.
4. Whether all appellants should be convicted of the complex crime of robbery with rape in Criminal Case No. 1257.
5. What penalties are appropriate, considering aggravating circumstances.
RULING
1. Yes, the convictions were supported by the positive testimony of the victims who recognized the appellants, with no evidence of improper motive for false accusation.
2. No, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victims, as the distances from the appellants’ claimed locations to the crime scenes did not make their presence impossible.
3. The Court took a view favorable to the appellants, implying that the two robberies in Case No. 1255, though separate, were charged in a manner that did not warrant convicting them as two separate offenses under the circumstances of the case and the lack of objection to the information.
4. No, only appellant Anastacio Blancada was guilty of rape in connection with the robbery in Case No. 1257, as there was no positive proof that the other appellants were aware of or abetted the rape, which was committed away from the house where the robbery took place.
5. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling were present in all three cases without any mitigating circumstances. The judgment was affirmed with the modification that appellant Anastacio Blancada is sentenced to reclusion perpetua in Criminal Case No. 1257, subject to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code regarding the service of multiple sentences.