Lust is no respecter of time and place. – It is not impossible to perpetrate a rape even in a small room.[1]“As the Court has oft repeated, lust is no respecter of time and place. [2]The Court ruled in People v. Nuyok, 888
The presence of others as occupants in the same house where the accused and AAA lived did not necessarily deter him from committing the rapes. The crowded situation in any small house would sometimes be held as to minimize the opportunity for committing rape, but it has been shown repeatedly by experience that many instances of rape were committed not in seclusion but in very public circumstances. Cramped spaces of habitation have not halted the criminal from imposing himself on the weaker victim, for privacy is not a hallmark of the crime of rape.”[3]
“Settled is the rule that the presence of people in a certain place is no guarantee that rape will not and cannot be committed. Time and again, the Court has held that for rape to be committed, it is unnecessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for place and time when they execute their evil deed. Rape may be committed inside a room in crowded squatters’ colony and even during a wake.”[4]
“The argument that rape cannot be committed in a house where other members of the family reside or may be found is a contention that has long been rejected by the court. It is almost a matter of judicial notice that crimes against chastity have been committed in many different places which may be considered as unlikely ot inappropriate and that the scene of rape is not always or necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. Thus, rape can and has been, committed in places where people congregate, e.g.., inside a house where there are occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside, or even in the same room which the victim is sharing with the sister of the accused. Thus, it is not improbable for appellant to have raped complainant in their house where 11 family members reside. To stress, complainant testified that she was raped during daytime when no one was home except for herself and appellant.”[5] (Citations omitted)
The fact that the subject rape incident happened in a place which was open to the view of their neighbors does not negate the fact that accused-appellant indeed raped AAA.[6]
“It is not physically impossible for the rapist to sexually abuse the victim even in the presence of another person. Criminal lust does not discriminate. Undaunted by age, sex, relationship, place, distance, time, aesthetic preferences, or moral considerations, sexual predators attack with reckless abandon and surprising ingenuity, always impelled by the sole aim of having worldly fill. Perverse desires find ways. A mere arm-span distance from the victim or a lack of privacy will not deter a rapist who has been consumed entirely by lust.”[7]
[C]lose proximity of other relatives at the scene of rape does not negate the commission of the crime. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping. It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim’s family to be in deep slumber and not be awakened while sexual assault is being committed. Lust is no respecter of time and place; neither is it deterred by age nor relationship.”[8](Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
[1] People v. Torio, G.R. Nos. 133216 & 133479, November 17, 1999.; People v. Elimancil, G.R. No. 234951, January 28, 2019
[2] People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315, People v. Manuel, 236 SCRA 545
[3] People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 265272, November 6, 2023, citing People v. Nuyok, 759 Phil. 437 (2015);
[4] People v. Adajar, G.R. No. 231306, June 17, 2019, cited in People v. Gratela, G.R. No. 225961, January 6, 2020
[5] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 236562, September 22, 2020
[6] People v. Jagdon, Jr., G.R. no. 242282, September 9, 2020
[7] People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 226144, October 14, 2020
[8] People v. Descartin, 810 Phil. 881 (2017), cited in People v. XXX, G.R. No. 261962, January 27, 2025