PEOPLE v.

VELASQUEZ
G.R. No. 137383-84
345 SCRA 728
November 23, 2000

FACTS:

On January 1, 1997, around 6:00 in the morning, while walking home, a girl, 15 years old, was
approached by accused who asked where she was going. Accused then poked a gun to the side of
the girl and held her arms. Accused and the girl rode a taxi which brought them to the house of the
former’s grandmother. There, accused ravished the girl as he held her at gunpoint. As the accused
sexually assaulted the helpless girl a second time, the girl pulled out a screwdriver she hid in her
pocket and stabbed accused on the neck. The accused retaliated by boxing her. It was later
discovered that the weapon used by accused was merely a short toy pellet gun. While inside the
room of accused’s grandmother, the girl found the opportunity to escape and run towards a
neighbor’s house where she reported to a man what accused did to her who then called the
barangay tanods. Accused was apprehended after his voluntary surrender. The RTC rendered its
decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erroneously convicted accused of two counts of simple rape
only.

HELD:

Yes, the trial court erroneously convicted accused of two counts of simple rape only.

RATIO:

In sentencing accused, the trial court overlooked the fact that he was charged with simple
rape in Crim. Case No. 97-0035 and forcible abduction with rape in Crim. Case No. 97-0036 and
erroneously convicted accused of two counts of simple rape only. Considering that the prosecution
was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Velasquez forcibly abducted the minor and raped
her twice, he should be convicted of the complex crime of rape and simple rape. The penalty for
complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed in its maximum
period. Rape is the most serious crime of the two crimes and is punishable with reclusion perpetua
under Art. 335 of the RPC and since it is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed as is. The
subsequent rape committed by Velasquez can no longer be considered as a separate complex crime
of forcible abduction with rape but only as a separate act of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE v. FABON
G.R. No. 133226
328 SCRA 302
March 16, 2000

FACTS:

In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte docketed as
Criminal Case No. H-642, accused-appellant Locsin Fabon alias “Loklok” was charged with the crime
of robbery with homicide accompanied by rape and intentional mutilation committed on April 23,
1995 in the municipality of Hilongos, Province of Leyte at the house of the victim Bonifacia Lasquite.
Using a bladed weapon, accused-appellant took the life of Lasquite and pilfered money consisting of
bills of assorted denominations and coins amounting to Php 25,000.00 more or less.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed as robbery with
homicide and rape.

HELD:

Yes. The trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed by accused-appellant as
robbery with homicide and rape. Accused-appellant found guilty of only robbery with homicide, a
special complex crime.

RATIO:

When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another
offense like rape or intentional mutilation, such additional offense is treated as an aggravating
circumstance which would result in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death. The proper
designation of the crime committed by accused-appellant is robbery with homicide aggravated by
rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the first paragraph of
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code which applies, the rape is considered as an aggravating
circumstance.

PEOPLE v. EMPANTE
G.R. Nos. 130665 & 137996-97
306 SCRA 251
April 21, 1999

FACTS:

The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental Branch 12 found accused-
appellant Pedro Balliao Empante guilty of three (3) counts of rape against his daughter Elvie
Empante, then below eighteen (18) years of age, and sentenced him to death, to indemnify his
daughter and to pay her moral damages. At the trial, accused-appellant admitted having raped his
daughter. The latter, however, claimed that her father was drunk at the time of the commission of
rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused-appellant can invoke the alternative circumstance of intoxication to

mitigate the penalty by one degree lower from death to reclusion perpetua.

HELD:

No. Accused-appellant cannot invoke the alternative circumstance of intoxication to mitigate

the penalty imposed upon him from death to reclusion perpetua. SC affirmed the penalty of death.

RATIO:

The trial court was right in rejecting the claim of intoxication as a mitigating circumstance.
For even if accused-appellant was intoxicated, the intoxication must be shown to have impaired his
willpower that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his
acts. In the case at bar, not only did complainant deny that her father was drunk when he raped her,
but the fact that accused-appellant himself could recall details of the rape incidents, is the best proof
that he knew what he was doing on those occasions.