G.R. No. 133872 - People vs. Tano

The case is an automatic review of the RTC Decision dated April 23, 1998, in Criminal Case No. C-53066, Caloocan City, where the accused, Alexander TaAo y Caballero, was convicted beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape and sentenced to death.
The Information dated November 10, 1997, charged the appellant with committing robbery with rape on November 6, 1997, in Caloocan City.

On November 6, 1997, around 7:30 p.m., Amy de Guzman was working at a video rental shop owned by her cousin-employer Ana Marinay at 153 Loreto Street, Morning Breeze Subdivision.
Appellant, a relative of Ana’s husband, arrived at the shop and made inquiries about the whereabouts of Gerry Marinay and Ana.
Multiple entries into the shop were noted, culminating in the appellant’s sudden jump over the counter where he seized Amy by placing an arm around her neck and using a knife to threaten her.
As Amy cried for help, the accused increased the volume of a nearby karaoke to muffle her shouts.
He dragged Amy to the kitchen, ordered her to undress at knife point, and initiated a rape by force.
During the assault, a knock at the door interrupted the act, and after ordering Amy to dress, the accused attacked her further, ultimately punching her and causing her to lose consciousness.
After the rape and assault, he resumed a violent attack by repeatedly banging Amy’s head against the wall and toilet bowl, and he proceeded to loot valuables from the premises, which included cash, bracelets, rings, earrings, and a wristwatch.

The appellant’s account states that on November 6, 1997, around 7:40 p.m., he visited his cousin Gerry Bautista Marinay’s residence and found Amy alone in the establishment.
He claimed that his initial intention was not sexual assault but to obtain money by persuading Amy to lead him to where valuables were kept.
According to his version, an altercation ensued when Amy resisted, resulting in both falling, whereupon he asserted he only subdued her to facilitate a robbery.
He denied having raped Amy, asserting that the incident was limited to a struggle during the ransacking of drawers, and that any sexual contact did not constitute consummated rape.

The private complainant, Amy de Guzman, testified in detail about the rape and robbery, describing the sequence of events during the assault, including the use of a knife and her ensuing injuries.
The prosecution relied heavily on Amy’s consistent and candid testimony, noting her small stature and vulnerability compared to the accused’s build.
The testimony of two examining doctors, Dr. Godofredo Balderosa and Dr. Maria Redencion Bukid-Abella, was introduced by the defense. They testified that Amy reported an attempted rape and physical assault, not a consummated rape, and noted an absence of severe genital injuries.
The medico-legal examination by Dr. Aurea Villena, however, corroborated the victim’s later sworn statement explaining that the physical evidence was consistent with a rape, taking into account the elastic nature of the victim’s hymen.

The trial court found that the prosecution established the elements of both rape and robbery beyond an iota of doubt.
It accepted the credibility of Amy de Guzman’s testimony as spontaneous, consistent, and unwavering under cross-examination.
The trial court also admitted the judicial admission of the appellant regarding the theft of valuables from the premises.
Dwelling was considered as an aggravating circumstance since part of the premises was used as a residence, even though the rape occurred in the video rental (commercial) area.
Based on Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659, the accused was sentenced to death for the special complex crime of robbery with rape.

Appellant argued that the trial court erred by not giving due weight to the testimonies of the examining doctors, which allegedly negated the rape charge.
He also claimed that the conviction for robbery with rape was unfounded due to insufficiency of evidence.
The appellant further contended that the asportation of valuables was an afterthought following the rape and not integral to a premeditated robbery with rape.
Additionally, he challenged the appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.

Whether the trial court properly evaluated the medical evidence and witness testimonies regarding the rape allegation.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant for the crime of robbery with rape, considering the sequence and timing of events.
Whether the crime committed should be considered a special complex crime or as two separate offenses (rape and robbery).
Whether dwelling could rightly be considered an aggravating circumstance given that the offense occurred in a commercial area rather than a private residence.

Did the trial court err in not giving proper weight to the testimonies of Dr. Balderosa and Dr. Bukid-Abella, which stated that the victim reported only an attempted rape?
Can the absence of immediate disclosure and certain physical injuries be seen as negating the occurrence of consummated rape?

Was the evidence presented, including the victim’s consistent testimony and the physical evidence, sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the crime of robbery with rape?
Should the asportation of valuables following the assault be considered an integral or incidental part of the crime?

Whether the incident should be classified as a special complex crime (robbery with rape) or as two separate offenses of rape and robbery, given the sequence of events.
How does the timing of the robbery (as an afterthought following rape) affect the applicability of the complex crime rule?

Can the location, which was partly a commercial establishment (video rental shop) and partly a residence, be deemed a dwelling for aggravation purposes?
Does the open, public nature of the area where the rape occurred justify the elevation of the penalty based on an aggravating circumstance?