PEOPLE VS TAÑO Doctrine: 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 circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to human abode. As one commentator commentator puts it, one's dwelling place is a sanctuary sanctuary worthy of respect; thus, one who slanders another in the latter's house is more severely punished punished than one who offends offends him elsewhere. elsewhere. According to Cuello Calon, the commission of the crime in another's another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces produces graver alarm. B! D"#$$I%& CA%%! B# A(()#CIA A(()#CIA!#D !#D I* !+# BI$DI% BI$DI%& & "+#)# "+#)# !+# **#%# **#%# "A "A C--I!!# C--I!!#D D "A "A %! #%!I)#$ #%!I)#$ *) D"#$$I%& ()(#.
Facts: Amy de &u/man was was tending a 0ideo 0ideo )ental hop owned owned by her cousin1 employer, employer, Ana Ana -arinay in Caloocan City. !he video rental shop was actually located in the same building where Amy and Ana2s Ana2s family are residing 1 the ground floor with 3itchen and toilet toilet was where the video rental shop was and the 4nd floor was the family and Amy2s residence residence n the date of the incident Ale5ander Ale5ander !a6o, !a6o, a relative of Ana's husband, 3ept on going in and out of the video shop, and on the last time he went inside said shop, he 7umped over the counter, sei/ed Amy, po3ed a 3nife at the left side of her nec3, pulled her towards the 3itchen where he forced her to undress, and started raping her. +owever, somebody somebody 3noc3ed at the door which prompted him to stop what he was doing and ordered Amy to put on her clothes. !hereafter, he ordered her to proceed upstairs to get some clothes, so he could bring her out. Before they could reach the upper floor, he suddenly pulled Amy down and placed himself on top of her. !hereafter, he started mauling her until she lost consciousness. Accused1appellant then freely ransac3ed the place. $eaving Amy unconscious and bloody after repeatedly banging her head, first on the wall, then on the toilet bowl, he too3 her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. +e then proceeded upstairs where he too3 as well the 7ewelry bo5 containing other valuables belonging to Amy's employer. Charged of )obbery with )ape, !C considered !a6o2s admission of the robbery and ruled on the rape rape case case,, convic convictin ting g the the accus accused ed with with the comple comple5 5 crime crime of )obb )obbery ery with with )ape )ape,, appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance and sentencing the accused with death penalty.
Issue: "hether dwelling may be appreciated as aggravating circumstance in this case8 Held: No. See Doctrine. In the case at bar, the building where the two offenses were committed was not entirely for dwelling purposes. !he evidence shows that it consisted of two floors9 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. !rue, the victim was dragged to the 3itchen and toilet but these two sections were ad7acent 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 7urisprudence 7urisprudence accords to residential residential abodes. abodes. +ence, dwelling cannot be appreciated appreciated as an aggravating aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape.
Dispositi Dispositive: ve: -DI*I#D. &uilty of two separate offenses9 rape and robbery. *or the crime of rape, appellant is hereby #%!#%C#D to reclusion perpetua perpetua and to pay (rivate Complainant Amy de &u/man (:, as indemnity ex delicto and (<, as moral damages. *or the
crime of robbery, appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two =4> years and four =?> months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight =@> years of prision mayor, as ma5imum; and to pay De &u/man (4,?@.: as actual damages.
NOTE: the case also considered ruling that there is no comple5 crime of robbery with rape in this case. !he rape on this case was not committed on the occasion of robbery. o separate appreciation of rape and robbery.
