People vs. Daniel (para.

3)

Facts: The offended party in this case is Margarita Paleng. She is a native of
Balangabang, Tublay, Mountain Province. At the time of the incident in question on
September 20, 1965, complainant was temporarily boarding at a house located at
Pinsao, Guisad, Baguio City.

Riding jeepney back to her boarding house, the accused followed him up to
her room. He raped her.

The accused was charged of rape with the aggravating circumstance specified
under Article 14, para. 3 of the RPC, where the crime is committed in the dwelling
of the victim.

Issue: Whether or not a boarding house is tantamount to “dwelling” as the term

used in Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code.

Ruling: Yes. Boarding house is tantamount to “dwelling” as the term used in Article
14(3), Revised Penal Code.

To conclude, the crime committed by the appellant is rape with the

aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of the
offended party.

Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her

room constituted for all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term is used in
Article 14(3), Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary, under the law, that the
victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be 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.

Where girl was raped in the boarding house being rented by her, dwelling
should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
 People vs. Banez (para. 3)

Facts: Accused Wilfredo Bañez was living in his parents’ house in Barangay San
Vicente East, Urdaneta, Pangasinan for four (4) years after he was separated from
his wife.

His father complained that the accused always made trouble every time he
was drunk. The family decided to put him up in another house or sleeping quarters.

Against with the decision, the accused stabbed and killed his father. He was
charged with an aggravating circumstance specified under Article 14, para. 3 of the
RPC, where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the victim.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance under Article 14, para. 3 of
the RPC, where the deceased was killed in their dwelling, is appreciated.

Ruling: No. The aggravating circumstance under Article 14, para. 3 of the RPC,
where the deceased was killed in their dwelling, is not appreciated.

The Court ruled that with respect to the contention that the trial court erred
in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and intoxication in the
commission of the crime, we find ourselves to be in agreement with the defense.
Dwelling cannot be considered aggravating because accused-appellant and his
father were living in the same house where the crime was committed. The rationale
for considering dwelling an aggravating circumstance is the violation by the
offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit
a crime. This reason is entirely absent in this case.
 People vs. Taño (para. 3)

Facts: Amy de Guzman (Amy) was tending a Video Rental Shop located on the
ground floor of the two-storey building. The accused raped her in the Video Rental
Shop.

He was charged of rape with the aggravating circumstance under Article 14,
para. 3 of the RPC, where the victim was raped in a dwelling.

Issue: Whether or not the victim was raped in a dwelling contemplated in Article
14, para. 3 of the RPC.

Ruling: No. The victim was raped not in a dwelling contemplated in Article 14,
para. 3 of the RPC.

Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime was committed in the residence
of the offended party and the latter has not given any provocation. It is considered
an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the
law accords to human abode. As one commentator puts it, one’s dwelling place is a
sanctuary worthy of respect; thus, one who slanders another in the latter’s house is
more severely punished than one who offends him elsewhere. According to Cuello
Calon, the commission of the crime in another’s dwelling shows worse perversity
and produces graver alarm.

Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where the

rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-storey structure, the lower floor
being used as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence.

In the case at bar, the building where the two offenses were committed was
not entirely for dwelling purposes. The evidence shows that it consisted of two
floors: the ground floor, which was being operated as a video rental shop, and the
upper floor, which was used as a residence. It was in the video rental shop where
the rape was committed. True, the victim was dragged to the kitchen and toilet but
these two sections were adjacent to and formed parts of the store. Being a
commercial shop that caters to the public, the video rental outlet was open to the
public. As such, it is not attributed the sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence
accords to residential abodes. Hence, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape.
 People vs. Arizobal (para. 3)

The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating

circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can
only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and
robbery in an inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors
thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the sanctity of the
victim’s domicile.

In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the

inviolability of the victims’ abode when they forced their way in, looted their
houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission, disabled
Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to
be killed.