G.R. No. L-9999; February 23, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN OXILES, PEDRO MANANSALA, ALBERTO NICDAO, MACARIO LACSAMANA, and RUFINA RAMOS, defendants. JUAN OXILES, PEDRO MANANSALA, and ALBERTO NICDAO, appellants.

FACTS:
On the night of June 12, 1913, in Bacolor, Pampanga, Emilia Cunanan was walking home with her cousin, Sabina Dimarucot, when she was suddenly seized by three men. Two of the men, later identified as Pedro Manansala and Alberto Nicdao, carried her, while the third, Constabulary Sergeant Juan Oxiles, gagged her with a handkerchief. All three were armed with revolvers. Under threat and intimidation, they forced her to walk to a house in San Fernando owned by the spouses Macario Lacsamana and Rufina Ramos. Inside the house, Oxiles, after a struggle during which Emilia’s camisa was torn, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her three times, keeping his revolver nearby. He left the next morning, warning her not to leave or he would kill her. The spouses Lacsamana and Ramos, occupants of the house, did not help her. That afternoon, she was found by policeman Eduardo Galang and taken home. A complaint for abduction was filed against all five individuals. After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted Oxiles, Manansala, and Nicdao, sentencing each to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, with Oxiles ordered to indemnify Emilia. The spouses Lacsamana and Ramos were acquitted. The three convicted defendants appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the guilt of appellants Juan Oxiles, Pedro Manansala, and Alberto Nicdao for the crime of abduction with lewd designs under Article 445 of the Penal Code was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The facts constituted the crime of abduction with violence and lewd designs under Article 445 of the Penal Code. The testimonies of the victim, Emilia Cunanan, and her cousin, Sabina Dimarucot, were credible and consistent, positively identifying the appellants. The defense of alibi presented by the appellants was weak, contradictory, and insufficient to overcome the positive identification. The claim that the abduction was with the victim’s consent was untenable, as the evidence clearly showed the use of force, intimidation (gagging, threats with a revolver), and the victim’s torn clothing from her resistance. The aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was present, with no mitigating circumstances, warranting the imposition of the penalty in its maximum degree. The appealed judgment was in accordance with the law.