Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14 par.

3) –Disregard of rank, age, or sex, and dwelling

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.AMADO DANIEL alias "AMADO ATO"; G.R. No. L-40330
November 20, 1978; J. MUÑOZ PALMA

CASE SUMMARY:

On September 20, 1965, Margarita Paleng while in the bus, Amado Daniel came and molested her
wherein even as Margarita tried to alight from him, he still followed her in the boarding house where
Margarita is temporary dwelling. From thereon, the crime of rape was committed.

CASE HISTORY:

Court of First Instance of Baguio City convicted:

Daniel guilty and sentencing him to suffer reclusion temporal. He filed motion for reconsideration but
denied ;hence, forwarded to Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals 10th Division believed:

Amado Daniel is guilty of the crime charged; however, the sentence imposed to accused in the judgment
appealed from is not in accordance with law which is Republic Act No. 4111, providing that —The crime
of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act No. 296, as amended)
provides that theSupreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal cases involving
offenses for which the penalty imposed is death or life imprisonment. Thus, relegated to the Supreme
Court.

Supreme Court believe and hold the view:

The dispositive portion of the decision as written and rendered is in accordance with the Constitution and
the law; hence, Amado Daniel guilty of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

FACTS:

-13 year old Margarita Paleng filed a complaint against Amado Daniel alias “Amado Ato” for the crime
of rape.

-On September 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt. Province, arrived in Baguio City from Tublay in a
Dangwa bus. She was then en route to her boarding house in Guisad as she was a highschool student at
the Baguio Eastern High school. While she was waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel came and
started molesting her by inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag. She did not allow the latter and
instead called the attention of the bus driver and the conductor but was merely shrugged off by them. It
seemed that they were also afraid of the accused.

-Despite the rain, she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100 meters away. The accused
followed her and rode and sat beside her. When Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again followed by
the accused.
- Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed in
and closed the door behind him.

-He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying, “If you talk, I will kill you.” Because of her
fear, Margarita fell silent. She was then forced to lie down with the accused placing a handkerchief in her
mouth and holding the dagger to her neck.

-Her attempts to flee were to no avail as she was only 4 ft and 8 inches tall and 95 lbs while Daniel was 5
ft, 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs.

-The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of Margarita. Thereafter she lost consciousness.
When she recovered, Daniel had already gone.

-For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and Margarita have known each other since 1963 and this was in
fact the second time he had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he alleges that he promised to marry Margarita
and was actually surprised that she filed the complaint against him.

-Medico-Legal report by Dr. Perfecto Micu indicated that Margarita was a virgin before the incident
complained of.

ISSUE: Whether or not a boarding house falls within the definition of “dwelling” in the RPC?

HELD: Yes. The boarding house falls within the definition of dwelling.

RATIO:

The court explained that generally in a case of this nature, the evidence of the prosecution consists solely
of the testimony of the offended party. The declaration of the victim, who at the time of the incident was a
little less than 13 years of age, on the basis of which the trial court found the charge of rape was duly
established. Moreover, the issue being one of credibility, the Court find no cogent reasons for discarding
the findings of facts of the trial court which were sustained by the Court of Appeals after the latter had
examined the evidence as a result of which it certified the case to this Court.

Furthermore, Appellant assails the veracity of the testimony of the complainant. The court negates that
there could no possible motive a thirteen-year old girl barely in her teens has in fabricating a story that
could only bring down on her and her family shame and humiliation and make her an object of gossip and
curiosity among her classmates and the people of her hometown. It cannot be denied that a public trial
involving a crime of this nature subjects the victim to what can be a harrowing experience of submitting
to a physical examination of her body, an investigation by police authorities, appearance in court for the
hearing where she has to unravel lewd and hideous details of a painful event which she would prefer to
forget and leave it unknown to others. The Court also finds it preposterous in the insinuation that this
complaint was filed because appellant had not married the girl although he promised to marry her.

In the issue of dwelling, although Margarita was merely renting a bed space in a boarding house, her
room constituted for all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term used in Art. 14 (3) RPC. The Court
said that it is not necessary under the law, that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. But he
a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect
and uphold.

For all the foregoing the Court holds that the correct penalty is death pursuant to Art. 335 of the RPC.
However, for lack of necessary number of votes, the penalty next lower in degree is to be applied.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, We affirm the judgment of conviction of Amado Daniel for the crime of
rape as charged, and We sentence him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and order him to
indemnify Margarita Paleng by way of moral damages in the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00) and pay the costs.

Decision Modified.

SO ORDERED.