People vs. Patola DoP: 27 Feb 1986 Ponente: Aquino Facts: On Sept.

7, 1973, at about 8:00 pm, in the store of Roman Coado located at Barrio Switch, Maco, Davao del Norte, as salesgirls Mila Amoguis and Elena Odal were piling up the goods (it was closing time), accused Patola and Sangayon (22) and 2 unidentified men were still at the store drinking beer. Unexpectedly, Sangayon closed the door of the store. Patola, with a gun, approached Mila told her not to shout if she didn t want to die. The accused then herded Mila, Elena, and the Coado couple and their son William to an adjoining room, and told them to lie down on the floor face down, hogtied them with nylon ropes and then stuffed their mouths with cloths torn from the curtain. Note that the store was lighted by fluorescent lamp. The accused ransacked the store taking P 1, 700 in cash, appliances, a watch and other things totaling P4, 500. Sangayon then untied the feet of Elena, brought her to a room and raped her. After he was through his companion did the same. They return Elena to the room, hogtied her again and covered her with a blanket. Mila was untied by Patola and brought her to another room where he raped her. The next day, the rural physician examined Mila and Elena where he concluded they have been devirginized (labia minora and majora had contusions, hymen ruptures, sperm inside). Patola and Sangayon were arrested six days after the incident and were identified by Mila, Elena, and Zosima. The revolvers they used in the robbery were seized from them. Patola, Sangayon, Jesus Montecino and Alfredo Dalogdog were charged with robbery WITH rape. They waived the preliminary investigation and pleaded not guilty during their arraignment. The case against Dalogdog was eventually dismissed and Montecino was acquitted. Patola and Montecino were convicted of robbery with rape with the use of deadly weapons. Patola s defense was that he was in Barrio Tuganay, Carmen, Davao del Norte when it happened while Sangayon s alibi was he was in Panabo, Davao. However Court agreed with the trial court saying that the testimonies and positive identification of the victims outweigh the alibi of the accused. Elena saw her attacker s (Patola) face and Zosima recognized both accused by their faces (store was lit by florescent lamp). Besides, the places they mentioned weren t so far off as to preclude them from committing the crime.

The trial court imposed the death penalty because it applied Art. 335 of the RPC on rape rather than Art. 294(2) on robbery with rape. It regarded Art 294(2) as having been amended by Art 335. Issue: Which RPC article should be applied? Art 335 on rape or Art 294(2) on robber with rape? (ROBBERY WITH RAPE) (*This is relevant because if Art 335 is applied, the penalty is death penalty but if Art 294(2) is applied, the penalty is only reclusion perpetua). Held: The accused were charged with a crime against property, not a crime against chastity. There was no complaint of the offended party in this case. The issue of whether robbery with qualified rape should be punished under Art 294(2) or under Art 335 was set at rest in People vs. Cabural where the Court held that it should be punished under Art. 294(2). At any rate, for the lack of the necessary 10 votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed. Dispositive: Affirmed but penalty is reclusion perpetua. Indemnity for qualified rape raised to P20 000 for both cases. K.Manibog//A2015//Crim 2