G.R. No. L-31012, August 15, 1973
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Arturo Carandang, Mario Buiser, Montano Caraan and Diomedes Estrella, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The four accused-appellants were convicted by the lower court. Arturo Carandang and Diomedes Estrella were found guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The court found that they robbed the victims and, at gunpoint, raped Socorro Familiar one after the other in the presence of her husband, ignoring her pleas despite her recent childbirth. The crime was attended by aggravating circumstances. Montano Caraan and Mario Buiser were convicted as principals of simple robbery under Article 294(5).
The main opinion of Justice Fernando affirmed the lower court’s judgment. It imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on Carandang and Estrella for robbery with rape, and an indeterminate penalty on Caraan and Buiser for simple robbery. Justice Teehankee, in a separate opinion, concurred with the affirmance of guilt but dissented regarding the penalty imposed on Carandang and Estrella.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed on appellants Carandang and Estrella for robbery with rape is correct, or whether the more severe penalty for the complex crime of robbery and qualified rape should apply.

RULING

Justice Teehankee dissented from the penalty, arguing for the application of the graver penalty for a complex crime. The legal logic is that the appellants committed not just robbery with rape under Article 294(2), which prescribes reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. They also committed the specific, more serious crime of qualified rape under Article 335, as amended, which prescribes reclusion perpetua to death when committed by two or more persons or with a deadly weapon—both conditions being present here.
The opinion analogized the case to Napolis vs. Court of Appeals, where the Court abandoned prior jurisprudence that applied a lighter penalty when a robbery involved both force upon things and violence against persons. The Napolis ruling held it more logical to treat such a case as a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, imposing the penalty for the most serious offense in its maximum period. Applying this principle, the rape committed was qualified and carried a heavier penalty than the rape contemplated in the robbery provision. Therefore, the proper characterization should be a complex crime of robbery and qualified rape, with the penalty for the most serious crime (qualified rape) to be imposed.
However, Justice Teehankee noted that the Court could not muster the qualified majority required to impose the death penalty. Consequently, pro hac vice, the affirmed penalty of reclusion perpetua for Carandang and Estrella must stand. The opinion concluded by fully concurring with the affirmance of the convictions and penalties for appellants Caraan and Buiser for simple robbery.