G.R. No. L-14347; April 29, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMUALDO LOPEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Romualdo Lopez was charged with the complex crime of rape with murder before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The information alleged that he had carnal knowledge of Estelita Fajardo Vda. de Caballero by means of intimidation and violence and, after accomplishing his purpose, feloniously stabbed her with a dagger, causing her death. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. Given the gravity of the offense, the trial court placed him on the witness stand to explain the circumstances. He testified that he was a 19-year-old laborer who had expressed love to the 35-year-old widow twice but was rejected. One night, he met her alone in a cane field, and seeing an opportunity, he dragged her inside, hit her with fist blows when she tried to shout, rendering her unconscious. After committing sexual intercourse with her while she was unconscious, he became afraid of discovery, killed her by stabbing, and buried her, though her feet were left protruding. Based on his testimony and plea of guilty, the lower court found him guilty of the complex crime of rape with murder and sentenced him to death. His counsel de oficio filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the crimes were distinct and that the death penalty was erroneous. The prosecution opposed, contending the acts constituted a single continuous act. The trial court denied the motion, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the crimes committed constitute a complex crime of rape with murder or two separate crimes of rape and murder. Subsidiary issues involve the appreciation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, specifically: (1) whether lack of instruction and voluntary surrender are mitigating; (2) whether lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is mitigating; and (3) whether disregard of respect due to sex and nighttime are properly considered as aggravating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the crime committed was a complex crime of rape with murder. The Court agreed with the prosecution’s theory that the accused’s act of rendering the victim unconscious with fist blows and then killing her after sexual intercourse constituted a single continuous act resulting in both felonies, and thus they could not be considered as two independent crimes.
Regarding the mitigating circumstances:
1. Lack of instruction cannot be considered mitigating in the crime of rape, as settled by jurisprudence.
2. Voluntary surrender was not sufficiently established by the record. Although a certification showed he was turned over to jail two days before a warrant was issued, the Court noted doubt, as he had buried the victim’s body, which would not have been discovered if not for her protruding feet.
3. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong was erroneously not appreciated by the trial court. The accused’s manifestation that he killed the victim out of fear of discovery after satisfying his lust indicated he did not originally intend the killing, making this circumstance mitigating.
Regarding the aggravating circumstances:
1. Disregard of respect due to sex was erroneously considered by the trial court, as it is inherent in the crime of rape and cannot be separately aggravating.
2. Nighttime was properly considered aggravating, as the accused took advantage of the darkness to commit the crime. The Court clarified this would be different if murder qualified by treachery were the only crime, as nighttime would then be absorbed.
In summary, the Court found that the accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, while the aggravating circumstance of nighttime militated against him. The imposable penalty would be death. However, for lack of the requisite number of votes, the Court resolved to modify the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The decision was affirmed with this modification, including the order to pay indemnity and costs.