G.R. No. 133872 May 5, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEXANDER TAÑO y CABALLERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 6, 1997, appellant Alexander Taño visited a video rental shop in Caloocan City where Amy de Guzman, a saleslady, was working. After conversing with her, he later returned, jumped over the counter, held a knife to her neck, and dragged her to the kitchen where he raped her. An interruption occurred when someone knocked on the door. After the knocking ceased, the assault continued. Amy pleaded for her life and offered the shop’s valuables. Subsequently, Taño rendered her unconscious multiple times. Upon regaining consciousness, Amy discovered that Taño had gone upstairs and taken cash and jewelry belonging to her employer, Ana Marinay, as well as Amy’s personal ring, bracelet, and wristwatch.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Taño of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and imposed the death penalty. The court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the appellant can be validly convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape and whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is correctly appreciated.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the conviction. Appellant cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code. For this crime to exist, the original criminal design must be robbery, and the rape is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. The evidence established that the appellant’s primary and initial intent was to commit rape. The asportation of property was merely an afterthought, conceived and executed only after the rape had been consummated. Since the robbery was not the main purpose, the two crimes must be treated as separate offenses. The appellant is guilty of simple rape and simple robbery.
Furthermore, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was improperly applied. The crime was committed on the ground floor of a two-story structure used as a video rental store. The lower floor was a commercial establishment, not a private place of abode or residence. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that the offense be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, meaning their habitual place of residence. This element is absent. The Court affirmed the conviction for rape and robbery but as separate crimes, and modified the penalties and damages accordingly.