The duly proven facts are as follows: Late at night on August 30, 1946, Guillermo de la Cruz and his

wife
Ester Payoyo, who were sleeping in their house located in an open field in Sto. Tomas, from the
municipality of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, woke up to the barking of dogs; then they heard that some men
wanted to force the door, but they couldn't because it was locked; Then two entered the house through
the window and opened the back door through which two more entered, all of them armed. Others
stayed around the house.

The lamp in the house was on because the spouses had a two-month-old baby. Guillermo de las Cruz
recognized those who entered, who were Jacinto Santos, Romualdo Reyes, Pablo Asuncion and Alfredo
Asuncion alias Eustaquio Asuncion, former acquaintances of his. Following the assailants' orders, De la
Cruz and his wife turned face down. Romualdo Reyes turned off the light, but with the help of his
"flashlight" Some opened the trunk and seized everything they wanted and the others ransacked the
house.

After tying De la Cruz's hands, they took him downstairs and, after blindfolding him, tied him to a post in
the house. Once again, Romulada Reyes and Afredo Asuncion went up to the house together with
Manuel Villasenor and Guillermo Mapoy. Ester was thrown to the ground by Romualdo Reyes with the
intention of raping her. She resisted, fought and, seeing that it was useless to resist against force, she
begged them: "Please, don't do that to me, it's bad; I just gave birth; but it was all in vain, Manuel
Villasenor, revolver in hand, the threat and Jacinto Santos subject her

Overcome by force and threat, Ester fell victim to Reyes and Mapoy, one after the other. After
threatening the spouses with killing them if they revealed what had happened, the defendants left with
the proceeds of the robbery. Ester came down from the house and untied her husband. Here is the list
(Exh. A) of the effects carried by the defendants, valued at P442:

Dejected by so much misfortune, Ester Payoyo took refuge at dawn in her parents' house, and Guillermo
de la Cruz went to the neighborhood lieutenant Angel Dalusong to report the event. The lieutenant
accompanied him to the office of the chief of police in the town, who immediately took their statement
in writing on August 31, and on September 2 filed the complaint against Jacinto Santos, Romualdo
Reyes, Alfredo Asuncion alisa Pedong, Pablo Asuncion and others, for gang robbery, to the municipal
mayor Basilio M. Duran, in the absence of the justice of the peace.

On September 2, Romualdo Reyes, Jacinto Santos, Guillermo Mapoy, Alfredo Asuncion alias Eustaquio
Asuncion and Roberto Roque were arrested, having found in Guillermo Mapoy's possession a revolver
(Exh. C), with which Manuel Villasenor had threatened Ester.

On September 3, the police chief filed the amended criminal complaint, alleging that the crime
committed was gang robbery with rape, including Guillermo Mapoy, Roberto Roque and John Doe as
new defendants.

On the day of the hearing, Manuel Villasenor and Pablo Asuncion had not yet been apprehended.

As a defense, Guillermo Mapoy says that on August 30, 1946, he spent the night at Eduardo Balabat's
house, because he had helped Cresencio Iresosa escape with Emilia Ventura; but this evidence had been
denied by Crisanto de los Santos who testified that on the night of August 30 Crescencio Iresosa and
Emilia Ventura, who had fled, spent the night at his house.

Jacinto Santos, in defense, stated that on the night of August 30, 1946, she was with her husband
Angelita Villamor at the house of her sister Amparo Santos who lived in Sicsican, Talavera, Nueva Ecija;
that he was arrested on September 2, and that the truck he was the driver of left him at the house of its
owner Paquito Gabriel in Sicsican, which is 24 kilometers from Sto. Shots where the crime was
committed.

Romualdo Reyes, in defense, contends that he was in Manila on August 30, 1946 and that he was unable
to return to the Sto neighborhood. Tomas, as he wanted, by order of "curfew" and stayed at the house
of his sister-in-law Lucio Atayde and stayed there all night on August 30.

Alfredo Asuncion, as a defense alleges that on the night of August 30, 1946, he was in Pedro Toalla's
house in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, and spent the night in that house.

The Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, disregarding the alibi defenses filed by the defendants,
sentenced them for the crime of gang robbery with kidnapping to 11 years, 9 months and 11 days in
prison, at a minimum of 20 years of temporary recusal, at most, with the accessories, to compensate the
injured parties jointly and severally in the amount of P442, to compensate Ester Payoyo in the amount
of P4,000 with costs. He acquitted Roberto Roque due to rational doubt.

Not satisfied with this decision, the defendants appealed.

The defendants maintain that the Court erred in declaring that Ester Payoyo had been raped and, as an
argument, they say that her statement, not corroborated by anyone, is not sufficient evidence. If the
intention of the assailants was only to rob, they would not have had to tie Guillermo de la Cruz up in the
basement of the house. De la Cruz heard his wife plead with the satyrs, saying: "Please, don't do that to
me, it's bad; I just gave birth." These data corroborate Ester's statement.

If it is true - says the defense - that Ester had begged those who wanted to abuse her not to do so, the
husband who heard it would have asked his wife if she had been raped and, if so, would have revealed it
to the neighborhood lieutenant and the chief of police. The husband was faced with the difficult
alternative: either to declare the truth with the consequent embarrassment of the pain of an offended
husband, or to fulfill his civic obligation to reveal the whole truth for the condign punishment of
criminals. He fell silent; he did not have enough courage to publish the offense. It is not surprising that,
under these circumstances, Ester's husband did not immediately disclose the rape. His silence, in the
present case, cannot be considered as proof that his wife was not raped.

If it is true — says the defense — that Ester had been raped, she would have had a hemorrhage. if she
told satisros that she had just given birth, it was just a pretext to appeal to their sense of pity; In reality,
her son was already two months old. The hemorrhage was not a necessary sequela.

The chief of police, when presenting his criminal complaint, had not yet met with Ester because she had
gone to her parents' house. He did not find out about the violation but only when Ester revealed it to
him and that was when he filed his amended complaint. Failure to immediately file a gang robbery with
rape report is not an indication that Ester had not been raped.
It is argued that none of the effects that, according to the prosecution, were stolen, were recovered
from the defendants. It does not necessarily follow from this that they did not steal; They have been
able to hide them. The discovery in the possession of Guillermo Mapoy of the revolver (Exh. C) with
which Manuel Villasenor had threatened Ester if she did not acquiesce to the bestial desires of
Romualdo Reyes and Guillermo Mapoy, reveals the crime.

The defendants contend that the gang robbery did not take place because only two were armed. It is
true that Ester had declared that one of those who had gone up to the house, the one who pointed a
revolver at her, was armed, and that Villasenor threatened her with a revolver when she opposed the
rape; but her husband stated that all four defendants who entered the house were armed with firearms
and flashlights. As Ester, according to her, was afraid, she would have only noticed the one who pointed
it out to her; but this, instead of weakening Guillermo de la Cruz's declaration, strengthens it: it shows
that each one of them declared what he really saw. If they were "fabricated" witnesses, it would not
have been difficult for the two to declare that all the assailants were armed.

It was not only two who were armed, but all four who entered the house. There is a gang when more
than three armed criminals participate in a robbery.

Defendant Alfredo Asuncion contends that the Court erred in not giving credence to the testimony of
Lieutenant Hill and others.

On June 17, 1947, before the case was decided, the defendants requested a new hearing due to the
discovery of new evidence consisting of the sworn statements of Leonardo Tolentino and Juan Villa. The
first declared that he had taken part in a robbery in a house in Sto.

Tomas, without saying the owner, and that his companions were Islao Villanueva, Alberto Morales, Juan
Mateo, Mariano Mateo, Dading Hipolito, Maning Hipolito and Damasino Patricio. Juan Villa declared
that he took part in the robbery with rape perpetrated in the house of Guillermo de la Cruz, and his
companions were Alberto Morales, Leonardo Tolentino and Dading Hipolito.

On the day of the new hearing granted by the Court, instead of presenting said witnesses Leonardo
Telentino and Juan Villa, the defendants presented three people who declared that there are people
called Leonrdo Tolentino and Juan Villa and that on a certain occasion they admitted having participated
in the robbery committed in the house of Ester Payoyo and Guillermo de la Cruz. The police chief stated
that those affidavits were presented to him and that one of the alleged perpetrators of the crime stated
that he signed his affidavit because the "civilian guards" intimidated him, but the truth is that he had
nothing to do with the robbery. ; that the chief confronted him with the prosecution witnesses and they
said that they had not seen him on the night of the robbery; for this reason, the chief of police released
him with the warning that he go to his office on the day of the new hearing. Leonardo Tolentino and
Juan Villa did not appear, nor were they found.

Once again, the defendants requested a new hearing to present the testimony of Maximo Mateo, who
had been detained with the other defendants in jail for more than a year. Maximo Mateo —according to
the court— barely 18 years old, has a weak character, shy and can easily be fooled. The defense has no
longer made any effort to present him as a witness because the prosecutor obtained from him a
statement retracting the affidavit obtained by the defendants and because the same individual had
already been presented for the same purpose of assuming responsibility for a crime in another criminal
case.

For the third time the defendants requested a new hearing to present the testimony of Lieutenant
Richard Hill. He declared that he had communicated with Leonardo Tolentino; that he admitted that he
was one of the perpetrators of the robbery with rape at Ester Payoyo's house. The strange thing is that
said Lieutenant, being a government agent, has not informed the provincial prosecutor of this fact and
has only been content to present the affidavit (Exh. 4) in order to obtain the acquittal of the accused. If
Lieutenant Hill's statements were accepted, the defendants would go free, and Leonardo Telentino and
others would go unpunished if it is true that they were the real authors. It is obvious that the best proof
would have been Leonardo Tolentino's personal statement and not his affidavit. Lieutenant Hill's
statement could not add anything to the affidavit, which lacks probative value.

Since the defendants did not present as witnesses in their favor the three alleged perpetrators of the
crime, Leonardo Tolentino, Juan Villa and Maximo Mateo, the presumption is that if they had testified,
their statement would have been contrary to their claim. The lower court did not err in not giving
credence to all the evidence presented in the three new hearings, nor to the alibi evidence that is easily
invented.

The crime committed by the defendants is robbery with rape, punishable by article 294, paragraph 2, of
the Revised Penal Code.

The aggravating circumstance of residence, without any extenuating circumstance, causes the penalty to
be applied to its maximum degree.

The circumstances of night, in the desert or in a gang constitute a single aggravating circumstance if they
concur in the commission of a crime, according to the sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of April 5,
1897 said:

Considering that, although the circumstance of nocturnality and that of the desert, when they concur
together in the commission of a crime, come to be like accidents with a single aggravating circumstance,
as this Court has declared, this does not constitute such an absolute and general rule that excludes the
possibility of being assessed separately when, as occurs in the current case, its elements are perceived
differently and have been able to subsist independently, determining a greater degree of perversity; so
that, by estimating the judgment that constitutes two circumstances, he has not made the error of law
imputed to him, apart from the fact that, even if the opposite criterion is accepted, it does not affect in
any way the essence of the judgment rendered, etc. (2 (Viada 274-275)..

In the present case it is not necessary to decide whether the three accidents should be considered a
single aggravating circumstance or three separately because the additional concurrence of one, two or
three circumstances does not alter the sentence; cannot exceed the maximum degree of life
imprisonment.

Therefore, the defendants are sentenced to life imprisonment with the accessory ones, confirming the
sentence imposed by the Court of First Instance in all the rest, with costs.