Robbery with rape. –“Robbery with rape is defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Section 9 of Republic Act No. 7659 (RA 7659), viz:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons- Penalties. – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of person shall suffer:
- The penalty of 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.
x x x x x x x x x
“Robbery with rape is a special complex crime that contemplates a situation where the accused’s original intent was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. It requires the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.”[1]
“The elements of robbery with rape are the following: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.”[2]
“In fine, the long line of jurisprudence on the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape requires that the accused be aware of the sexual act in order for him to have the opportunity to attempt to prevent the same, without which he cannot be faulted for his inaction. Further, there must be positive proof to show such awareness.”[3]
“The accused who is aware of the lustful intent or sexual act of his co-accused but did not endeavor to prevent or stop it, despite an opportunity to do so, becomes complicit in the rape and is perfectly liable for Robbery with Rape. On the other hand, for an accused who is totally ignorant of the same and who did not merely choose to turn a blind eye, it could not have been the intent of the law to punish him as severely as those who committed the sexual act or who were aware thereof but were indifferent to its commission. He shall, therefore, be held liable only for Robbery, as in the case at bench.”[4]
Jurisprudence instructs that when two or more persons are charged as co-conspirators in the crime of robbery with rape, it is irrelevant whether one or all of them committed the rape. For as long as conspiracy to rob is proven, all will be treated as principals in the crime of robbery with rape. Succintly, whenever rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of the robbery, all who took part therein are liable as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in the rape. For one to be convicted solely of robbery and not rape, the co-conspirator must prove not that he himself did not sexually abuse the victim but that he tried to prevent it.”[5]
Robbery with Rape does not include rape by sexual assault. – “In the same vein, following legislative intent in the passage of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the special complex crime of robbery and rape should be limited to instances when rape is accomplished through sexual intercourse or “organ penetration.” The penalty should not be unduly extended to cover sexual assault considering that the acts punishable under such mode were not yet recognized as “Rape” but as “Acts of Lasciviousness” at the time the severe penalty of death was imposed. All the more, to repeat for the sake of emphasis, as even after the inclusion of sexual assault in the definition of rape by R.A. No. 8353, Congress deliberation show that the law never intended to redefine the traditional concept of rape, with the intent of maintaining the existing distinction between the two modes of commission.”[6].
“The Court cannot simply presume that with the passage of R.A. No. 8353, rape as a component of the special complex crime of robbery with rape includes sexual assault. With respect to the penal statutes the Court cannot rest on mere deductions. Likewise, “it is not enough to say that the legislature intended to make a certain act an offense.” The penal statute must clearly and specifically express that intent. In order for an accused to be convicted under a penal statute, the latter must definitively encompass and declare as criminal the accused’s act prior to its commission. “Whatever is not plainly within the provisions of a penal statute should be regarded as without its intendment.
In the case at bar, R.A. No. 7659, insofar as it imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for the special complex crime of robbery with rape, is bereft of any statement to suggest that it contemplates any and all forms of rape which may subsequently be defined. Thus, the law which imposes a harsher penalty should not be extended to include sexual assault, which was recognized as rape only after its passage.[7]
[1] People v. Yumol, G.R. no. 225600, July 7, 2020, citing People v. Bringcula, G.R. No. 226400, January 24, 2018; People v. Evardone, G.R. No. 248204, August 24, 2020
[2] People v. Salen, Jr., G.R. No. 231013, January 29, 2020, citing People v. Bringcula, G.R. No. 226400, January 24, 2018; People v. Agan, G.R. No. 228947; June 22, 2020; People v. Bueza, G.R. No. 242513, November 18, 2020
[3] People v. Agaton, G.R. No. 251631, August 27, 2020
[4] People v. Agaton, G.R. no. 251631, August 27, 2020
[5] People v. Coritana, citing People People v. Mendoza, 354 Phil. 177 (1998)
[6] People v. Barrera, G.R. No. 230549, December 1, 2020
[7] People v. Barrera, G.R. No. 230549, December 1, 2020