G.R. No. L-4231 and L-4232 May 28, 1952
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. ARTURO ALFARO and SERAFIN HERNANDEZ, defendants and appellants.

FACTS

In two separate criminal cases, accused Arturo Alfaro and Serafin Hernandez, along with other companions, were charged with crimes committed on the night of July 28, 1946, in Barrio San Jose, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija. In G.R. No. L-4232, they were convicted of rape. The facts show that around 8:00 PM, a group of ten armed men surrounded the house of Cecilio Dupagan. After firing shots, they ordered the men downstairs. Cecilio complied but Pablo Luciano escaped. Accused Arturo Alfaro, Serafin Hernandez, and Zoilo de la Cruz, among others, went upstairs. At gunpoint, Arturo ordered Rufina Teodoro (Cecilio’s wife) to lie down. When she pleaded for mercy, he punched her in the stomach, rendering her unconscious, and then raped her. He was followed by Serafin Hernandez and then Zoilo de la Cruz. While one raped her, the others pointed their revolvers at her. They threatened to kill the homeowners if they reported the incident.
In G.R. No. L-4231, the accused were convicted of robbery with rape. Around 10:00 PM on the same night, the group went to the house of Fernando del Rosario in the same barrio. After firing shots, they ordered the occupants downstairs. Arturo Alfaro called for 16-year-old Eusebia del Rosario to go upstairs, threatened her with a revolver, and raped her. Meanwhile, the other assailants took chickens and roosters valued at P55.00. Arturo threatened to kill everyone if they reported the crime.
The victims reported the incidents to the mayor the next day, but no immediate action was taken because the accused were members of the “civilian guards” who were more numerous and powerful than the local police. The cases were formally filed only after these guards were disarmed on September 13, 1946. As a defense, Arturo Alfaro presented an alibi that he was in Sapang Gabi, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, during that time, while Serafin Hernandez claimed he was sick at the house of Arturo’s mother in San Jose.

ISSUE

The main issues involve the credibility of the victims’ identification of the accused, the delay in filing the complaints, the physical possibility of committing the crimes in two different houses in one night, and the proper penalties for the crimes of rape and robbery with rape, considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. It held that the positive identification of the accused by the victims, who were their former acquaintances, prevailed over the weak alibis. The delay in filing the complaints was satisfactorily explained by the mayor’s fear of the armed civilian guards. There was no physical impossibility in committing the crimes at two different houses within a few hours.
On the penalties, the Court ruled that in the rape of Rufina Teodoro, each accused is liable for two counts of rape. Arturo Alfaro is liable as the direct perpetrator and Serafin Hernandez as a co-principal for helping by pointing a gun at the victim while the other raped her, and vice-versa. The same principle applies to Serafin. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling attended each crime, warranting the imposition of the maximum penalty.
For the crime of rape (G.R. No. L-4232), with one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance, the penalty is the maximum period of reclusion temporal, which is 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years. The Court modified the trial court’s penalty to this range for each count for each accused.
For the crime of robbery with rape (G.R. No. L-4231), with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty is reclusion perpetua for each accused. The Court modified the trial court’s penalty accordingly.
The appealed decisions were confirmed in all other respects, with costs against the appellants.