People vs Tapales

Facts: That on or about October 28, 1971, at nighttime, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, conspiring and confederating together with another, with intent to gain and by
means of force, violence and intimidation to wit: by boarding the taxi being then occupied by
Eugenie Calaykay y Baldonado and Diana Ang y Navales while mud vehicle was at a ship
position at Jones Bridge, in said City and pointing a knife at Diana Ang y Navales and a gun at
Eugenio Calaykay y Baldonado, take, steal and carry away against their will and consent the
personal belongings of the victims, to the damage and prejudice of said owners that by reason of
and on the occasion of the said robbery, the said accused, in furtherance of their conspiracy, did
then and there /wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously/, with intent to kill, attack, assault and use
personal violence upon the person of Eugenio Calaykay y Baldonado by then and there shooting
him twice with the gun and stabbing him with the balisong knife on the chest, thereby inflicting
upon him mortal wounds which were the direct cause of his death thereafter; that by reason of
and on the occasion also of the said robbery, the said accused, in furtherance of their conspiracy,
did then and there, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force, violence and intimidation,
to wit.- by threatening to stab and kill the said Diana Ang y Navales with said balisong knife and
firearm, which they were holding then at the time, succeed in having sexual intercourse with her,
one after the other all -against her win and consent.

*Upon arraignment, appellants, through their counsel de officio, manifested their desire to enter a
plea of guilty. The trial Court duly informed them of the gravity of the offense and the imposable
penalty therefor of life imprisonment or death.

RTC: accused contends that the victim consented on the sexual activity. No merit.

C of A: The trial court erred in considering rape as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

Rulling: This Court has consistently held that the legal definition of the crime committed herein
is Robbery with Homicide, with Rape being considered an aggravating circumstance.

-It is the uniform jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that where the crime charged is robbery
with homicide and rape, the legal definition of the crime is robbery with homicide punishable
under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Penal Code; and the rape committed on the occasion of that
crime is considered an aggravating circumstance.

*(basahin na lng baka lng tanungin ni sir)

-Alternatively, appellants contend that even if the ruling that Rape is an aggravating
circumstance in Robbery with Homicide be upheld, the crime of Rape herein should be
considered, by time and distance, as a separate and distinct offense from that of Robbery with
Homicide because while the Robbery was committed at Jones Bridge, the Homicide in
Intramuros, both in Manila, the Rape was committed in Quezon city. 10
While there may have been an appreciable interval of time between the robbery and the killing,
on the one hand, and the rape, on the other, there can be no question but that there was a direct
relation, an intimate connection between them such that it can be stated, without fear of
contradiction, that it was by reason or on occasion of the robbery that Homicide and Rape were
committed.

People vs Quinones

Facts: On June 30, 1986, the bodies of three men were found in a wooded area in barangay
Tuaco, Basud, Camarines Norte. The corpses were in a state of decomposition and bore various
contusions, stab and bullet wounds, and other injuries indicating foul play. The victims were later
positively identified as Alexander Sy, Augusto Gabo and Frisco Marcellana.

In due time, an information for robbery with multiple homicide was filed against Adolfo
Quiones, Alfredo Aban, Zaldy Civico, Ronilo Canaba, Amado Conda, Jr., Santiago Solarte,
Armando Buitre and one John Doe.

On their arraignment on November 13, 1986, Quiones, Canaba, Aban, Civico and Conda
pleaded not guilty. On November 20, 1986, Conda, Canaba, and Quiones withdrew their plea of
not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. On April 1, 1986, Conda was allowed to withdraw his
former plea of guilty and substitute the same With not guilty. Solarte escaped and is presently at
large while Buitre was killed in an encounter with the Manila police.

Judge Luis D. Dictado of the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte directed the
prosecution to present evidence also against Quiones and Canaba despite their plea of guilty,
which they maintained even after being informed of its possible consequences, including the
death penalty. After trial, judgment was rendered convicting all the accused (except Solarte, who
had not yet been arrested, and Buitre).

-The evidence for the prosecution established that the three victims were riding in a dark blue
Mitsubishi car at about seven o'clock in the evening of June 27 or 28, 1986, when they were
intercepted along the Maharlika Highway in the above-named barangay by the accused, who had
placed sacks on the road to block the way. The three were taken to the nearby woods where they
were killed. 6 According to his brother, Napoleon, Alexander Sy was at that time carrying
P300,000.00, representing the weekly collections of his business, a necklace with pendant worth
P20,000.00, a P10,000.00 diamond ring, and a licensed .22 caliber handgun. 7 All this, together
with the other articles belonging to the victims, were taken by the accused, who also used the car
in fleeing to Sapang Palay, where it was recovered without the stereo and the spare tire.
*But the case for the prosecution really depended on the statements of the accused themselves,
principally Quiones and Canaba. Both were informed of their constitutional rights before their
investigation and were actually assisted by Atty. Santiago Ceneta when they gave their separate
confessions. 12 Both confessed to the crime charged and narrated in detail their participation in its
commission.

C of A: the defense was practically one of mere denial.

RTC: robbery with multiple homicide

Rulling: The Court finds that the accused were incorrectly charged with robbery with multiple
homicide and so were also incorrectly sentenced by the trial court. The reason is that there is no
crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the Revised Penal Code. The charge should have
been for robbery with homicide only regardless of the fact that three persons were killed in the
commission of the robbery. In this special complex crime, the number of persons killed is
immaterial and does not increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294 of the said Code.

The penalty prescribed for the crime of robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua, to be
imposed onlyonce even if multiple killings accompanied the robbery. Furthermore, the
discussion by the trial court of the attendant circumstances was unnecessary because Article 63
of the Code provides that when the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied
without regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the crime.

People vs Patola

Facts: The prosecution's evidence shows that at about eight o'clock in the evening of September
7, 1973 in the store of Roman Conado located at Barrio Switch, Maco, Davao del Norte, Mila
Amoguis and Elena Odal, salesgirls, were piling up the goods as it was closing time. Feliciano
Patola, Eunillo Sangayon, 22, and two unidentified persons were still in the store drinking beer.

Unexpectedly, Sangayon closed the door of the store, Patola, with a gun in his hand, approached
Mila and told her not to shout if she did not want to die. Patola and Sangayon herded Mila,
Elena, the Cohado couple and their son William to an adjoining room and told them to lie down
on the floor face down. They were hogtied with nylon ropes. Their mouths were stuffed with
pieces of cloth torn from the curtains.
Patola, Sangayon and their two companions ransacked the store and took away P1,700 in cash,
appliances, a wrist watch and other things with a total value of P4,500. (The fact of the robbery
is shown in the five photographs of the rooms in Cohado's house taken the next day, Exhibits F
to I.)

Then, Sangayon untied the feet of Elena and brought her to a room and abused her. After
Sangayon was through, his companion entered the room and in turn abused Elena. The second
robber brought Elena to the sala, hogtied her again and covered her with a blanket. Mila was
untied by Patola and brought to another room where he ravished her.

The next day the rural physician examined Mila. There were contusions in her labia majora and
labia minora. Her fourchette was bleeding. Her hymen was ruptured. There were fresh
lacerations at the three o'clock and seven o'clock positions. Sperm cells were found in her vagina.
The physician concluded that she had been deflowered. Her virginity was recently lost (Exh. D).

The same physician found that the labia minora of Elena had a contusion. Her fourchette was
lacerated. Her hymen was ruptured at the three o'clock and nine o'clock positions. There were
sperm cells in the vagina. As in Mila's case, the physician concluded that she had been
deflowered and her virginity was recently lost (Exh. E).

Patola and Sangayon were arrested six days after the commission of the robbery. They were
Identified by Mila, Elena and Zosima Conado. The revolvers used in the robbery with rape were
seized from them.

C of A (with answer): Patola's defense was that at the time the robbery with rape was committed
he was in Barrio Tuganay, Carmen, Davao del Norte. Sangayon's alibi was that he was in
Panabo, Davao. The trial court reasoned out that the distances of Panabo and Carmen to Maco,
the scene of the crime, did not preclude the accused from committing the offense. It concluded
that in any event the positive identification made by the rape victims and the store-owner,
Zosima Conado, should prevail over the alibis of the accused.

Rulling: The trial court found that nocturnity, dwelling and abuse of superiority were
aggravating. It imposed the death penalty because it applied article 335 of the Revised Penal
Cade on rape rather than its article 294[2] on robbery with rape.

-The accused were charged with a crime against property, not a crime against chastity. There was
no complaint of the offended parties in this case. Robbery with rape is punishable with reclusion
temporal medium to reclusion perpetua before article 294[2] was amended by Presidential
Decree No. 767 which took effect on August 15, 1975 and which raised the penalty
from reclusion perpetua to death when the rape is qualified.
(READ THIS PART NA LNG )

There used to be a controversy as to whether robbery with qualified rape should be penalized
under article 294[2] or under article 335 which imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

That controversy was set at rest in People vs. Cabural, L34105, February 4, 1983, 120 SCRA
528 and People vs. Porcare, L-37235, February 5, 1983, 120 SCRA 546, where it was held that
robbery with qualified rape should be punished under article 294[2]. (See People vs. Mendez, L-
35491, May 27, 1983, 122 SCRA 415). It should be stressed that in the case the accused were not
charged with qualified rape alone, a crime against chastity, but with robbery with rape, a crime
against property.

The trial court applied in this case article 335. It regarded article 294[2] as having been
"amended" by article 335.That is why it imposed the death penalty. If article 294121, before it
was amended, is to be applied, the penalty is only reclusion perpetua. At any rate, for lack of the
necessary ten votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed with the modification that the penalty
imposed on the accused is reclusion perpetua. The indemnity for the qualified rape should be
raised to P20,000 in both cases. Costs de oficio.

People vs Dinola

Facts: That on or about the 21st day of October, 1977 in the Municipality of Alangalang,
Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, armed with a deadly weapon, and by means of force and intimidation, did then
and there wilfully and feloniously have a carnal knowledge with one Marilyn Caldosa, and that
on the occasion thereof, the said accused, by the use of force upon the same Marilyn Caldosa,
and with intent to gain, did then and there wilfully and feloniously take and carry away the wrist
watch of Marilyn Caldosa, to her damage and prejudice in the amount of P300.00, the money
value of the watch.

(NAUNA UNG RAPE BAGO ROBBERY; PLEASE READ NA LNG UNG SIDE NUNG
ACCUSED PARA MALINAWAN SA CASE. NO NEED TO WRITE THIS)

. . . That she knows the accused, . . . and that she has known him for more than a year as the accused resides in
front of their house and had previously worked for them and they would oftentimes converse as they are friends; that
on October 21, 1977, at about 3:00 o'clock in the morning, she was at home sleeping [alone] in the house of her aunt,
Gertrudes Vda. de Barraza, who was then in Tacloban . . .; that she was awakened by a voice saying: "Do not make a
noise or I will kill you. If you will not accede to a carnal knowledge I will count from one to three and I will kill you.";
that she noticed a small bolo pointed towards her breast and she [was] frightened . . .; that the person then placed
himself on top of her and placed his penis inside her vagina by push and pull; that the first push was not successful
and the person tried many times to put his penis inside [her] vagina until he was able to do so and [she] felt pain; that
while the person was on top of her, she did not resist as he was (sic) big while she is small and she cannot overcome
him; that after having carnal knowledge [with] her, the person lighted a candle and when he saw her "Citizen" watch
valued at P300.00 he grabbed it from her; that after the candle was lighted, she saw that the person was "Eme"
whose full name is Emeterio Dinola . . .; that the accused left after grabbing her watch while she stayed in bed as she
was afraid and at about 4:00 o'clock in the morning she went to the bathroom and washed her vagina as she felt
dirty; that at about 5:00 or 6:00 o'clock in the morning, she went to the house of the son of her aunt in Barrio
Binongtuan and they went to the Provincial Hospital in Tacloban City to have her painful vagina treated, arriving there
at about 8:00 o'clock in the morning; that she was not treated that morning as the doctor on duty was not there and
they were requested to return in the afternoon; that they were given a prescription for the medicine which the son of
her aunt bought while she went to school; that she went back to the hospital in the afternoon and she was physically
examined by Dr. Sherlito Siao.

RTC: guilty of crime of robbery with rape.

C of A: The trial court erred in placing the burden upon the accused-appellant to prove his
innocence and in not analyzing the state's evidence to arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable
doubt.

C Of S: The evidence for the prosecution consisted primarily of a medico-legal certificate and
the testimonies of complainant Marilyn Caldosa and Dr. Sherlito Siao, the doctor who conducted
the physical examination on Caldosa after the incident allegedly occurred.

Rulling: However, it does not appear from the record of the case that when the accused entered
the house of the complainant, he already had the intention to rob the complainant. In fact, the
complainant testified that after she was raped by the accused, the latter lit a candle, saw the
watch on her wrist, threatened to kill her if she did not give it to him and forcibly took it from her
[TSN, August 31, 1977, pp. 10-11]. Hence, the taking of the watch by the accused was more of
an afterthought, even accidental. If the intention of the accused was to commit robbery but rape
was also committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery with rape is committed
[See People v. Canastre, 82 Phil. 480 (1948)]. However, if the original design was to commit
rape but the accused after committing rape also committed robbery because the opportunity
presented itself, the criminal acts should be viewed as two distinct offenses.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby MODIFIES the judgment of the court a quo by finding the
accused guilty of two independent crimes of rape and robbery.

People vs Moreno

Facts: That on or about May 31, 1985, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, with intent of gain, and by means
of force, violence and intimidation and by means of force upon things, to wit: by forcibly
destroying with the use of cutter and screw driver the window of the ground floor of House No.
1291 Paz St., Paco, this City, an inhabited house being used as a dwelling place of RAJ
MOHNANI and his family, and entering the said window, an opening not intended for entrance
or egress, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously break into and enter inside the
said house and once inside, poked their respective bladed/pointed weapons to said Raj Mohnani
and his wife, Sundri Mohnani, telling to call their maids, and ordering them including their three
(3) children to lie face down, took, stole and carried away the following, to wit:

(NO NEED TO WRITE THIS)

One (1) SONY TV 21" colored valued at P10,000.00

One (1) Betamax valued at 11,000.00
One (1) ROLEX wristwatch gold 10,000.00
One (1) PEGOT wristwatch blue w/ gold 10,000.00
One (1) Citizen quartz w. watch, gold 2,000.00
One (1) Computer Sharp Model 1500 10,000.00
One (1) Seiko wristwatch, silver 1,200.00
One (1) Citizen quarts, gold 1,500.00
One (1) Casio wristwatch 500.00
One (1) Cartier black 500.00
Six (6) assorted wristwatches 3,000.00
One (1) gold ring with initial "R" 5,000.00
Two (2) Gold bracelets 15,000.00
One (1) pair of gold earrings 2,000.00
Three (3) wallets with cash money 3,000.00
and US $134.00
Two (2) pairs of Bally shoes 5,000.00
One (1) bicycle 850.00
One (1) bottle Black Label whisky 500.00
One (1) Dunhill cig. lighter 7,000.00
One (1) Win electro lighter 500.00
One (1) Sony TV 16"
One (1) Headphone radio
Four (4) betamax tapes
One (1) Bally shoes
One (1) bag of assorted slippers
One (1) Yasaki rubber shoes
One (1) ROTA AIRE SUNBEAM

all valued at P98,550.00, Philippine Currency and US$134.00 or its equivalent to P2,412.00, or
all valued at P100,962.00 more or less, belonging to said RAJ MOHNANI against his will and
consent, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid amount of P100,962.00,
more or less, Philippine Currency; that on this occasion, the robbery was immediately
accompanied by rape, the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
and by means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by using and poking their respective
bladed weapons on the person of Marry Ann Galedo y Caledo and Narcisa Sumayo y de
Alagdon, succeed in having sexual intercourse with them against their will and consent.

C of A: Accused-appellant is contesting, not his conviction for robbery, but only his conviction
for rape of Mary Ann Galedo, who was not presented as a witness during the trial.

Rulling: With respect to the charge of robbery, appellant does not question his conviction by the
lower court. The records show strong and ample evidence more than sufficient to support the
conviction of all three accused of the crime of robbery. They all conspired to rob the victim's
house; they cut the iron grills of the window for the purpose of gaining entry into the house;
Moreno was armed with a .38 paltik gun and appellant with a pair of scissors; they hogtied and
intimidated Raj and Sundri Mohnani; and they carted away in a waiting jeep everything they
could get from the Mohnani household from big appliances like 21" TV set, to several kinds
of watches and jewelry, to shoes and slippers. Appellant, who was the only one of the three
accused who testified in court, practically admitted all these facts, although he tried to minimize
his share of the loot.

Therefore, accused Juan Moreno, who took no part in the rape, is guilty of robbery only under
Article 294, No. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.

(conviction ng kamasam ni Moreno.., read na lng)

Although unruptured hymen is commonly mentioned as a distinguishing feature of virginity, it is

not always a sure indication of preservation of virginity. A woman might have had previous
sexual intercourse and yet the hymen remains unruptured, while others might have experienced
sexual relations, but with laceration of the hymen. 10

This Court has previously held that an intact hymen does not preclude rape.

The ruling of the court below as regard Pastores must be affirmed. It must be
remembered that the fact that a woman's hymen has no sign of laceration does not
preclude a finding of rape. For the rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part
of the woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape; it is enough
that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the
pudendum. 11
Thus, despite the fact that the medical examination of Sumayo showed that the hymen was still
intact, it is not inconsistent with a finding that Deloria raped her. Why did he bring her to a place
where no one could see what he intended to do? Why did Sumayo cry so violently that she could
not stop until her tormentor Deloria threatened her and ordered her to stop crying? Why did she
tell her employer as soon as the three accused left, that she was raped? We are convinced that
there is only one answer to these queries: because she was indeed violated by Deloria.