PEOPLE VS CODERES

[A.M. Nos. 3250-J-11]

April 27, 1981

Facts: Jose Coderes, Basilio Clark, and Julius Clark were found guilty of the crime of rape of
Rosie de Villa.
On January 13, 1970, 2 in the morning, de Villa and Shirley de Lara were eating at a canteen
their shift in a night club, where they worked go-go dancers. On their way out, the accused
offered they bring Rosie home, but she refused. The three accused hailed a taxi and forced her to
get inside with them. Inside the vehicle, she was punched in the stomach and gagged on the
mouth. Instead of bringing her to where she lived, they brought her to the Tourist Spot; and
upon reaching such, they dragged her out. After the taxi had left, Rosie was face down on the
ground, screaming and crying. They stripped her of her pants, and each of the men took turns in
raping her and holding her arms and legs down. Just then, a man named Jose Dumlao Jr. arrived
at the scene and intervened by firing a shot. From there, the three were eventually arrested.
Contention of the State: The State found the accused guilty of the crimes of rape with the
attendance of two aggravating circumstances nighttime and uninhabited place without any
mitigating circumstance and to each of the accused.
Contention of the Accused: The accused appealed that the court erred in doing so. Accused
maintain that the prosecution has not adduced evidence to prove that commission of the alleged
rape at the date and time of the incident; that no less than the complainant admitted she just met
the accused; that nocturnity is not necessarily an aggravating circumstance in the commission of
a crime; and where it is not evident that the defendant purposely sought nighttime, such
circumstance should not prejudice the defendant.

Issue: Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance to aggravate criminal liability

Decision: The law provides that there are three elements to be taken into account before the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit:
(a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
(b) When especially sought for by the offender; or
(c) When offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.
No clear evidence was shown that in the case at bar, accused took advantage of nighttime in
order to facilitate the commission of the crime of rape and failure of the prosecution to
demonstrate that the accused intended to capitalize on the intrinsic impunity afforded by the
darkness of the night, the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime against the
three accused must necessarily fail; Evidence no contradicted that the alleged scene of the
offense is not uninhabited, there rises the inevitable conclusion that the aggravating circumstance
of uninhabited place cannot be considered against the three accused-appellants in the case at bar.
Decision against accused was modified eliminating aggravating circumstances of nighttime
and uninhabited place and in their place the aggravating circumstance of use of a motor
vehicle.