GR L 591; (June, 1948) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-591; June 30, 1948
People of the Philippines vs. Dominador Villa, et al.
FACTS
The defendants Dominador Villa, Eulogio Molina, Tranquilino Bernardino, and Eligio Gomez were charged with rape. The evidence established that on February 13, 1945, all four, armed with bolos (and Bernardino with a revolver), went to the house of Consolacion Felipe, forced her to a nearby granary, and, despite her resistance, successively had sexual intercourse with her while the others held her down. The accused confessed to the crime. The trial court found them guilty of a single crime of rape and sentenced each to an indeterminate penalty. Villa, a minor at the time, was given a mitigated sentence. Three defendants appealed (Gomez later withdrew his appeal).
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in not applying Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code (suspension of sentence) to the minor appellant Dominador Villa.
2. Whether each appellant should be held guilty of one crime of rape or four separate crimes of rape.
RULING
1. As to appellant Villa: The Court modified the judgment. Since Villa was 16 years, 9 months, and 16 days old at the time of the offense, Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, applies. The trial court should have suspended the sentence and committed him to a reformatory.
2. As to the number of crimes: The Court, with a majority opinion, held that each appellant committed four separate crimes of rape. Each defendant is liable not only for the rape he personally committed but also for those committed by the others, due to conspiracy and direct cooperation (e.g., holding the victim) in each act. Each rape was a distinct and consummated act. Thus, appellants Molina and Bernardino were each sentenced to four indeterminate penalties (12 years of prision mayor to 20 years of reclusion temporal per offense), to be served following Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Perfecto argued that the information charged only a single offense of rape. Convicting appellants of four crimes violates their right to be informed of the accusation and constitutes double jeopardy, as the trial court’s decision implied an acquittal on other counts. He deemed the majority’s imposition of penalties totaling up to 40 years as excessive and unjust compared to penalties for more heinous crimes.
AI Generated by Armztrong.