G.R. No. 234943 , January 19, 2021
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Carlos Tamayo y Umali, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Carlos Tamayo y Umali was charged with Robbery with Rape and Frustrated Homicide in two separate Informations. The prosecution’s evidence established that on April 18, 2010, at around 9:00 p.m., AAA was on her way home when Tamayo, armed with a knife, accosted her on a footbridge in Hagonoy, Bulacan. He took her bag containing cash, a cellphone, a wallet, and a USB. Using force and intimidation, he then molested her, touching and licking her breasts, licking her vagina, inserting his finger into it, and later forcing her to perform oral sex. When AAA’s boyfriend, BBB, arrived and confronted them, Tamayo stabbed BBB in the chest. Both AAA and BBB jumped into a river to escape. AAA reported the incident, and BBB was hospitalized. The medico-legal report on AAA showed hematoma and abrasions but no genital injuries. Tamayo denied the accusations, invoking a “Sweetheart Theory,” claiming he and AAA were in a secret romantic relationship and that the incident was a confrontation with BBB that led to an accidental stabbing during a struggle over a knife.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the private complainants and convicting Tamayo of Robbery with Rape despite alleged inconsistencies and insufficient evidence.
2. Whether the courts erred in convicting Tamayo of Attempted Homicide (modified from Frustrated Homicide) despite the alleged lack of proof of intent to kill.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATIONS.
1. On Robbery with Rape: The Court found the testimonies of AAA and BBB credible and consistent on material points. The alleged inconsistencies (e.g., who removed AAA’s pants, the initial omission of penile penetration in early statements) were minor and did not affect the core narrative of the crime. The Sweetheart Theory was rejected as implausible and unsupported by evidence. The force and intimidation employed by Tamayo, evidenced by the knife and his threats, were sufficient to establish rape. The taking of AAA’s belongings immediately before the sexual assault constituted robbery on the occasion of rape. The Court affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The awards of damages were increased to P75,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, plus P4,500.00 as actual damages.
2. On Attempted Homicide: The Court agreed with the lower courts that the prosecution failed to prove the wound was fatal, thus warranting a conviction only for Attempted Homicide, not Frustrated Homicide. The act of stabbing BBB in the chest with a bladed instrument, under the circumstances, sufficiently demonstrated Tamayo’s intent to kill. The penalty imposed by the CA was affirmed: an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correccional as maximum, with moral damages of P20,000.00.