PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

FERNANDO SULTAN
G.R. No. 132470 April 27, 2000

FACTS:

On June 2, 1997, around 9:00 in the evening, Juditha Bautista was on her way home from
visiting her cousin when she was accosted bythe accused Fernando Sultan. Fernando pointed a
sharp instrument at her neck and told her that this was a hold-up. Fearing for her life,she let him
grab and bring her to his house. Through intimidation and her fear for her life, she was robbed
and twice raped.
After the second rape, he told her he loved her and, in her effort, to release herself, she “agreed”
to elope with him. Convinced, Fernando let her go home to get her things. She then went to her
cousin, Antonette and narrated everything that happened. Antonette then called her brother SPO1
Bautista who advised Juditha to continue with the elopement so that he and his companions
could stage an arrest.This went successful and Fernando was apprehended. On June 5, 1997,
Fernando was charged with the complex crime of robbery and rape but he merely brushed this
aside as simply sex between consenting adults. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty on the
charge against him.

ISSUE:

Whether the additional rape committed by the accused is considered as an aggravating

circumstance?

HELD:

No, rape is not an aggravating circumstance in robbery.

ART 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. - Penalties. - Any
person guilty of robbery with use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of from reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, the crime of homicide, shall have been committed; or when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson. There was no law providing for the
additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. It
further observed that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised
Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 ofthe same Code which enumerates the mitigating
circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy lies with
the legislature.

In this case, the record shows that the prosecution has established that the accused
committed both robbery and rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding
the rape. Complaining witness Bautista was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. Under
this view, the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating
circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "[i]n all
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following
rules shall be observed in the application thereof . . .. 2.[w]hen there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied,"
the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant. Thus, accused
is guilty under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.