People vs. Apiado

Article 89 of the Penal Code, governing complex crimes, does not apply to rape committed with slight physical injuries; the provision is strictly limited to cases where rape results in homicide, serious, or less serious physical injuries, and slight physical injuries inherent in the act of rape need not be separately penalized.

The defendant, Telesforo Apiado, was charged with and convicted of the crime of rape with slight physical injuries by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. The offended party was Pantaleona Nool, a fifteen-year-old girl. The case was prosecuted under the provisions of the old Penal Code, specifically Articles 87, 89, 438, and 588, which governed the treatment of complex crimes, the penalty for rape, and the penalty for slight physical injuries, respectively. The appeal raised the question of how the Penal Code's complex-crime provision should be applied when the physical injuries accompanying a rape are classified as merely "slight."

On the night of the incident, the defendant, Telesforo Apiado, violated Pantaleona Nool, a girl of fifteen years of age, against her will and through violence and intimidation. The act produced slight physical injuries to the offended party, consisting of inflammation of the upper lips of her genital organ, inflammation of a part of her vagina, and the rupture of her hymen. These injuries were cured in five days without medical assistance and did not prevent the girl from following her customary occupation.

No modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. The trial court found these facts clearly proved in the proceedings, and the Supreme Court independently found them established on the record. The defendant was thereafter sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to sixteen years reclusion temporal, with the accessories of law, together with an obligation to endow the offended party in the sum of P200, to support any offspring resulting from the act, and to pay the costs.

From this sentence, the defendant appealed. His counsel, after examining the record and conferring with the defendant, stated that he found no sufficient ground for an assignment of error, and limited his submission to a petition that the penalty be reduced to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, invoking the defendant's lack of education as a basis for leniency. The Attorney-General, for his part, agreed with the qualification of the crime and the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium degree, but recommended that, in addition to the penalty for rape under Article 438 of the Penal Code, the defendant be further penalized with arresto for not less than five and not more than fifteen days and censure, pursuant to Article 588 of the same Code, for the slight physical injuries sustained by the offended party.

• Penalty Reduction: Petitioner's counsel, after examining the record and conferring with the defendant, found no sufficient ground for an assignment of error and confined his petition to a request that the penalty be reduced from sixteen years to fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, citing the defendant's lack of education as justification.

• Qualification and Penalty: The Attorney-General agreed with the qualification of the crime as rape and with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium degree, there being no modifying circumstance.
• Additional Penalty for Slight Physical Injuries: The Attorney-General recommended that, in addition to the penalty for rape under Article 438 of the Penal Code, the defendant be imposed the penalty of arresto for not less than five and not more than fifteen days and censure, pursuant to Article 588 of the Penal Code, for the slight physical injuries caused to the offended party.

• Applicability of Article 89: Whether Article 89 of the Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty for the more serious crime in its maximum degree when multiple offenses result from a single act, applies to the case of rape with slight physical injuries.
• Separate Penalty for Slight Physical Injuries: Whether an additional penalty for the misdemeanor of slight physical injuries should be imposed on the defendant, given that such injuries were sustained by the offended party during the commission of the rape.

• Applicability of Article 89: No. Article 89 is not applicable to rape with slight physical injuries, as the provision must be strictly interpreted and applies only when rape results in homicide, serious, or less serious physical injuries.
• Separate Penalty for Slight Physical Injuries: No. The slight physical injuries to the genital organ caused by the violence of the rape are so obviously inherent in the act that no additional penalty for such misdemeanor should be imposed.

• Applicability of Article 89: The well-established doctrine, drawn from both the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Spain and of the Philippine Supreme Court, is that when the commission of rape results in homicide, or serious or less serious physical injuries, Article 89 of the Penal Code applies and the penalty corresponding to the more serious crime is imposed in its maximum degree. This doctrine is supported by decisions of the Spanish Supreme Court dated March 23, 1885, February 18, 1889, March 31, 1891, April 29, 1897, and February 22, 1902, and by U.S. vs. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690. However, Article 89 is not applicable to the case at bar — rape with slight physical injuries — because the legal provision must be strictly interpreted. The provision's enumeration of "homicide, or serious or less serious physical injuries" excludes slight physical injuries from its scope, and the Court refused to extend the doctrine by analogy.

• Separate Penalty for Slight Physical Injuries: Under Article 87 of the Penal Code, when a person is found guilty of two or more felonies or misdemeanors, all penalties corresponding to the several violations of law should be imposed and served simultaneously if possible. Notwithstanding this general rule, the Court examined the nature of the injuries — inflammation of the upper lips of the genital organ, inflammation of part of the vagina, and rupture of the hymen — and concluded that these injuries, while technically constituting the misdemeanor of slight physical injuries, were a necessary consequence of the rape. The facts were so obviously inherent in the rape that imposing an additional penalty for the misdemeanor would be unwarranted. The Attorney-General's recommendation for an additional penalty under Article 588 was thus rejected.

• Strict Interpretation of Article 89, Penal Code (Complex Crimes) — Article 89, which provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum degree, is strictly limited to the enumerated circumstances: when rape results in homicide, serious, or less serious physical injuries. Slight physical injuries are excluded from its scope, and the provision may not be extended by analogy. The Court applied this principle to hold that the complex-crime doctrine did not govern rape accompanied by slight physical injuries.

• Inherent Offenses Not Separately Penalized — When injuries constituting a separate misdemeanor are a necessary and inherent consequence of the principal crime, no additional penalty for such misdemeanor should be imposed, even though Article 87 of the Penal Code generally requires that all penalties for multiple offenses be imposed. The Court applied this principle to the slight physical injuries to the genital organ sustained during the rape, finding them so obviously inherent in the act of rape that separate punishment was unwarranted.

• "said article of the Penal Code is not applicable to the case at bar, of rape with slight physical injuries, for this legal provision must be strictly interpreted." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: Article 89's complex-crime rule is strictly construed and does not extend to slight physical injuries accompanying rape.

• "we believe the facts so obviously inherent in the rape, that no additional penalty for such misdemeanor should be imposed upon the defendant." — This passage articulates the doctrine that injuries inherent in and necessarily resulting from the principal crime need not be separately penalized, notwithstanding the general rule of Article 87.

• "when in the commission of the crime of rape, there should result homicide, or serious or less serious physical injuries, pursuant to the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code the penalty corresponding to the more serious crime shall be imposed on the offender in its maximum degree." — This passage restates the established doctrine on complex crimes involving rape, drawing from both Spanish and Philippine jurisprudence, and defines the boundary of Article 89's applicability.

• U.S. vs. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690 — Followed as authority for the doctrine that when rape results in homicide, serious, or less serious physical injuries, Article 89 of the Penal Code applies and the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in its maximum degree. The case was cited to establish the established doctrine before the Court distinguished the present case from its scope.

• Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain (March 23, 1885; February 18, 1889; March 31, 1891; April 29, 1897; February 22, 1902) — Followed as the foundational Spanish jurisprudence from which the Article 89 complex-crime doctrine was derived, cited alongside U.S. vs. Andaya to confirm the doctrine's established status before the Court declined to extend it to slight physical injuries.

• Article 89, Penal Code (old) — Governs complex crimes: when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when one offense is a necessary means for committing another, the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum degree. The Court held this provision inapplicable to rape with slight physical injuries, strictly interpreting its enumeration of "homicide, or serious or less serious physical injuries."

• Article 87, Penal Code (old) — Provides that when a person is guilty of two or more felonies or misdemeanors, all penalties corresponding to the several violations should be imposed and served simultaneously if possible. The Court acknowledged this general rule but declined to apply it, finding the slight physical injuries inherent in the rape.

• Article 438, Penal Code (old) — Prescribes the penalty for the crime of rape. The sentence of sixteen years reclusion temporal imposed by the trial court was found to be in conformity with this provision.

• Article 588, Penal Code (old) — Prescribes the penalty of arresto for not less than five and not more than fifteen days and censure for slight physical injuries. The Attorney-General recommended its application, but the Court declined to impose the additional penalty.

Johnson, Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred.

• Avanceña, C.J. — Dissented on the ground that the defendant should also be sentenced for slight physical injuries, disagreeing with the majority's conclusion that the injuries were so inherent in the rape as to preclude a separate penalty.