People vs. Sultan

In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, additional rapes committed on the same occasion do not increase the penalty beyond reclusion perpetua to death, nor can they be appreciated as aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, absent a specific law providing otherwise; consequently, applying Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed when no mitigating or aggravating circumstances are present.

On June 2, 1997, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Juditha M. Bautista was accosted by Fernando Sultan y Lato in a dark alley in Novaliches, Quezon City, while on her way home from visiting her cousin. The incident involved the taking of personal valuables at knife point and the commission of rape twice within the same occasion. This led to the filing of an Information for the special complex crime of robbery with rape on June 5, 1997, and subsequent trial proceedings.

• On June 2, 1997, at around 9:00 p.m., complainant Juditha M. Bautista was walking home through a dark alley in Novaliches, Quezon City, after visiting her cousin Cristina Mansilongan.
• Accused-appellant Fernando Sultan y Lato accosted her, pointed a sharp instrument at her neck, announced "hold-up," and dragged her to his house located along the alley.
• Inside the house, he divested her of one wrist watch valued at P1,600.00, one ring worth P850.00, one pair of earrings worth P500.00, one necklace worth P2,100.00, and cash amounting to P130.00.
• After taking her valuables, accused-appellant kissed her on the lips and cheeks. Despite her disclosure that she was married with two children, he continued his sexual advances.
• While pointing an ice pick at her, he ordered her to undress and lie down on the floor. He kissed her from head down, went on top of her, held her two hands on the level of her head, spread her thighs, and inserted his penis into her vagina for ten to fifteen minutes.
• After the first sexual assault, he ordered her to put on her bra and panty, tied her hands, and went out of the room to smoke. He returned after ten to fifteen minutes, untied her, and raped her again with threat and intimidation.
• He then tied her hands to a protruding piece of wood in the room and held her in his arms until noon the following day, claiming he loved her and would answer for his actions.
• To escape, Juditha feigned agreement to elope with him. He allowed her to go home at noon to get her things and accompanied her to the highway to get a ride.
• Upon arriving home, she narrated her ordeal to her sister Antonette, who called their brother SPO1 Fernando M. Bautista.
• SPO1 Bautista advised Juditha to return to accused-appellant's house for the "planned elopement" to facilitate arrest. Juditha rode in a jeepney with her sister and cousin while her brother and two companions followed in an XLT Van.
• When Juditha arrived at accused-appellant's house, he was waiting outside a nearby store. They went inside and came out twenty minutes later, then boarded a passenger bus.
• At the corner of Forest Hill Subdivision, Gulod, Novaliches, SPO1 Bautista and his companions boarded the bus, boxed accused-appellant before arresting him, causing a commotion. Policemen from a nearby barangay hall assisted in the arrest and brought him to the barangay hall, then to police headquarters.
• Medico-Legal Inspector Dr. Dennis G. Bellin examined Juditha and found no external signs of violence but discovered a deep fresh laceration at the 5 o'clock position in her hymen, and deep healed lacerations at 3, 7, and 9 o'clock positions. He observed moderate resistance to examination and concluded she was no longer a virgin.

• The prosecution maintained that accused-appellant committed the special complex crime of robbery with rape, established through the credible testimony of the complaining witness and corroborating medical evidence showing hymenal lacerations.
• The prosecution argued that the elements of robbery were satisfied through the victim's testimony regarding the taking of valuables by force and intimidation, and that the elements of rape were satisfied through proof of sexual congress without consent, achieved through intimidation and threat with a deadly weapon.

• Accused-appellant Fernando Sultan y Lato contended that there was no convincing proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Regarding the robbery charge, he argued that (a) no evidence was presented to prove the taking of valuables, and (b) if robbery truly occurred, the victim would have asked for restitution when the threat ceased during their agreement to elope.
• Regarding the rape charge, he maintained that (a) requisite force or intimidation was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, (b) there was some form of consent as the complainant did not put up tenacious resistance despite lack of threat on her life, and (c) the complainant was uncertain whether he was armed at the commencement of the rape.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed robbery with violence or intimidation against persons.
  • Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant committed rape through intimidation sufficient to overcome the victim's will.
  • Whether the additional rape committed on the same occasion constitutes an aggravating circumstance or affects the penalty imposable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Robbery: The Supreme Court held that the elements of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code were established: personal property belonging to another, unlawful taking, intent to gain, and violence/intimidation. The victim's testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the conviction where found credible by the trial court. Her failure to demand restitution of her valuables was interpreted as a tactic to avoid arousing suspicion and facilitate her escape, not as evidence of consent or absence of robbery.
  • Rape: The Court ruled that intimidation was sufficiently proved. Intimidation is subjective and must be viewed from the victim's perception; the accused's use of an ice pick and threats created fear that subsisted throughout the ordeal. The victim's failure to resist was due to fear of death, not consent. Her uncertainty about whether the accused was armed at the exact commencement of the rape was irrelevant as long as she perceived a threat from something that looked like an ice pick.
  • Penalty: The Court affirmed the conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, following People v. Regala, the additional rape committed on the same occasion does not increase the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death, nor can it be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Article 14 because the enumeration is exclusive and there is no law providing otherwise. Applying Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed.
  • Damages: The Court affirmed the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages and P5,180.00 for actual damages, but modified the decision to add P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

• Credibility of Witnesses — The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded the highest respect and weight by appellate courts and is normally sustained unless material facts and circumstances have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.
• Intimidation as an Element of Rape — Intimidation is subjective and must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule; it is sufficient that it produces fear that something would happen to the victim if she does not yield to the assailant's demands.
• Strict Construction of Penal Laws — Penal laws must be construed strictly in favor of the offender; no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
• Exclusive Enumeration of Aggravating Circumstances — The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive (unlike mitigating circumstances under Article 13 which allows analogous circumstances), and absent a specific law, additional rapes or homicides committed on the occasion of robbery cannot be considered aggravating circumstances.

• "Intimidation is subjective so it must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule."
• "It is enough that it produces fear, as in the present case, fear that if the complainant does not yield to the bestial demands of accused-appellant something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter."
• "Such failure on her part should not be taken to mean consent so as to make her a willing participant in the sexual confrontation."
• "Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute."

• People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, 5 April 2000 — Controlling precedent establishing that additional rapes committed on the occasion of robbery do not increase the penalty nor constitute aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code.
• People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 119218, 29 April 1999 — Cited for the doctrine on credibility of witnesses and the award of civil indemnity.
• People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 116918, 19 June 1997 — Cited for the rule that additional rapes on the same occasion of robbery would not increase the penalty.
• People v. Candelario, G.R. No. 125550, 28 July 1999 — Cited as a case where the Court previously ruled that multiplicity of rapes could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, but distinguished in light of People v. Regala.
• People v. Pulusan, G.R. No. 110037, 21 May 1998 — Cited for previous rulings on multiplicity of rapes as aggravating circumstances.
• People v. Pedroso, No. L-32997, 30 July 1982 — Cited in People v. Regala regarding the "anomalous situation" where robbery with rape and robbery with multiple rapes carry the same penalty.

• Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery as taking personal property belonging to another with intent to gain by means of violence against or intimidation of any person.
• Article 294, paragraph (1) of the Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when robbery is accompanied by rape.
• Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code — Enumerates aggravating circumstances; the Court emphasized that this enumeration is exclusive.
• Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code — Enumerates mitigating circumstances; contrasted with Article 14 as allowing analogous circumstances.
• Article 63, paragraph (2) of the Revised Penal Code — Provides that when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of a deed punishable by two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied.