G.R. No. L-36297-99 April 26, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN NOPIA and ESTANISLAO SATPARAM, accused-appellants.

FACTS

In the evening of September 28, 1968, accused-appellants Juan Nopia, Estanislao Satparam, and Roberto Avila, along with other unidentified men, forcibly entered the house of Maximino Moreno in Bato, Camarines Sur. They tied up the male occupants downstairs and proceeded to rob the premises, taking cash, wristwatches, and merchandise. Upstairs, they entered a room where several women were sleeping. During this criminal episode, multiple rapes were committed. Nopia raped Romana S. Rabusa. Satparam attempted to rape the 12-year-old Tessie Moreno but failed to achieve penetration. Another woman, Nelly Moreno, was also raped, but the perpetrator was not specifically identified. The accused were charged under three separate Informations: one for Robbery in Band, and two for Rape against Nopia and Satparam individually.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the correctness of filing separate Informations for robbery and rape arising from a single criminal episode; (2) the proper classification and penalty for the crime of robbery committed; and (3) the proper classification of Satparam’s act against Tessie Moreno, given the absence of penetration.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. It held that the filing of separate Informations was erroneous, as the acts constituted the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, since this error was not assigned by the appellants and did not prejudice them, the Court proceeded to review the cases on their merits. For the robbery aspect (Criminal Case No. 9439), the Court correctly classified it as Robbery in Band under Articles 294(5) and 296, not the complex crime. The appellants were thus sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. For the rape of Romana Rabusa by Nopia (Criminal Case No. 9440), the Court affirmed the conviction for consummated rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Crucially, for Satparam’s act against Tessie Moreno (Criminal Case No. 9442), the Court found that the trial court erred in convicting him of consummated rape. The evidence clearly established that there was no penetration, only attempts and contact. Therefore, the crime committed was Attempted Rape, not consummated. The penalty was lowered to an indeterminate sentence. The Court also rejected the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction for Satparam, ruling that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from liability for a crime as grave as rape.