Title

People vs. Canastre

Case
G.R. No. L-2055

Decision Date
Dec 24, 1948

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-2055)

Eduardo Canastre and Gil Sayuco charged with robbery in band with
rape
• Eduardo Canastre and Gil Sayuco were charged with the crime of robbery in
band with rape.
• They were accused of breaking into a house, tying up the father, and raping
the 17-year-old daughter.

• The defense also argued that the absence of physical evidence of forcible
sexual intercourse was significant.
• They claimed that without physical evidence, it was uncertain whether rape
had actually occurred.
 • The court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that a young
unmarried girl would not subject herself to a physical examination and
public trial if she was not motivated to have the culprits apprehended and
punished.
• In other words, the court believed that the victim's willingness to undergo a
physical examination and go through a public trial ...
Canastre found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
• Eduardo Canastre was found guilty of the charges against him.
• He was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 17
years, 4 months and 1 day.
Defense argues for reasonable doubt due to unidentified companions
• Canastre's defense argued that he should be given the benefit of a reasonable
doubt because his two companions were not identified.
• They claimed that without clear identification of all the perpetrators, it was
uncertain whether Canastre was involved in the crime.
Court finds positive identification of Canastre credible
• The court, however, found the positive identification of Canastre by the
prosecution witnesses to be credible.
• This means that the witnesses were able to positively identify Canastre as
one of the perpetrators of the crime.
Court dismisses absence of physical evidence argument

Summary:
Unable to provide a logline as there is no specific information
available about the Philippine jurisprudence case "People v. Canastre.

Eduardo Canastre, Gil Sayupo, Francisco Pasaporte alias Francisco Pastera, and
Gonzalo Fabilona were chatged in the Cottrt of First Instance of Iloilo with the
crime of robbery in band with rape. After trial, Francisco Pasaporte and Gonzalo
Fabilona were acquitted, but Eduardo Canastre and Gil Sayuco were found guilty of
robbery with rape and sentenced, the first to an indeterminate penalty of from 10
years and 1 day, prision mayor, to 17 years, h months and 1 day, reclusion
temporal, and the second to an indeterminate penalty of from 17 years, h months
and 1 day to 20 years, reclusion temporalboth with the accessory penalties
prescribed by law and both to pay one-half of the costs. Only Eduardo Canastre has
appealed, Gil Sayuco having after the commencement of the trial escaped from
detention and being still at large.

We have cone over the entire record, and are fully convinced that the following facts
have been, established: At about one o'clock in the morning of June 28, 1946, the
appellant and Gil Sayuco, together with tiro unidentified companions, cane to the
house of Magdaleno Beri in barrio Batuan, municipality of Pototon, province of
Iloilo. The appellant immediately turned on his flashlight towards the inmates,
whereupon Magdaleno inquired for the identity of the intruders. In answer, tho
appellant pointed his gun to Magdaleno with tho warning for him and his
companions not to move and with the threat of death if they did otherwise. After
trying llacdaleno to tho wall, the appellant entered the room of Benedicta Beri, a 17-
year old daughter of Magdaleno. The appellant, who directed his flashlight to
Benedicta, dragged the latter out and, with the aid of Sayuco, he brought her
downstairs under a mango tree.Notwithstanding the girl's cries for help, her father
and mother could not come to her rescue, the first being then tied to tho wall and the
second having been pushed away whenever she attempted to intervene. In spite of
Denedicta's resistance, the appellant, with the help of hie three companions, was
able to have sexual intercourse with Benedicta. Gil Sayuco then took his turn in
raping the girl, followed in succession by the other two companions. Not contented
with merely satisfying their lust, the appellant, Gil Sayuco and another companion
returned to the house and took away a rice bowl, some rice and four chickens, all
worth about fifteen pesos.

Aside from alleging that the appellant did not leave his house during the night of
June 28, 1946, because he had diarrhea, his counsel contends that he is at least
entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, in view of the failure of the witnesses
for the prosecution to identify the other two companions of the appellant and Gil
Sayuco which led to the acquittal of co-accused Francisco Panaporte and Gonsalo
Fabilona. It is thus insinuated that such failure engenders a doubt as to whether said
witnesses (especially Benedicta Beri) told the truth when they incriminated the
appellant.

The defense, however, had supplied a persuasive argument in favor of the theory of
the prosecution when defense witness, Dr. Engracio Parreiias, district health officer
of Iloilo City, admitted that on June 30, 1946, Benedicta complained to him that she
was raped by four men and submitted herself to a physical examination. It Is hard
to believe that a young unmarried girl would malce such a revelation and allow an
examination of her private parts and thereafter permit herself to be the subject even
of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprits
apprehended and punished. And the persuasive weight of this circumstance is: such
as to negative the importance of the testimony of Dr. Parrenas to the effect that there
were no lacerations, abrasions or rashes in the genital organ of Benedicta that
indicated forcible sexual intercourse. Moreover, no laboratory test was made to
discover whether any male sperm was present in her organ which was not examined
internally, and Dr. M. Cartagena, Health Officer of the City of Iloilo, testified that the
absence of external signs cannot definitely be a basis for concluding that a woman
did not have a sexual intercourse.

The defense of alibi cannot of course prosper in the face of the positive identification
of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses who had not been shown to have any
reason for falsely imputing to the appellant so grave a crime as that of which he was
convicted. Considering that the night was clear and the appellant used his flashlight,
no mistake could have been made in his identity, especially in view of the fact that
he was personally known to then. Counsel for appellant thinks that the latter would
not have turned on his flashlight in order merely to reveal his identity, but he forgets
that that step was necessary to accomplish their plan. He undoubtedly wanted to be
sure that the person they tied to the wall was the father and that the person they were
to take and rape tinder the mango tree was Benedicta.

Being in accordance with the law and the facts, the appealed judgment is affirmed,
it being understood, however, that the appellant shall indemnify Benedicta Beri in
the sum of one thousand pesos.