View full case

PEOPLE v. NELSON TAMAYO Y MORALES

FACTS:

Complainant Mary Ann Guazon, a 24-year old sewer, was alone in her home when she was suddenly awakened by a man who covered her mouth and threatened her with a knife. The man was later identified as accused-appellant Nelson Tamayo. He demanded that Mary Ann perform sexual acts on him under threat of harm. Mary Ann complied due to fear for her life. The accused then proceeded to have sexual intercourse with Mary Ann against her will. After the act, the accused took Mary Ann's money, which she had earned earlier that day. Mary Ann reported the incident to her neighbors and barangay officials, who located the accused and brought him in for questioning. The accused admitted taking Mary Ann's money but denied the rape accusation. Mary Ann underwent a medico-legal examination, which confirmed the sexual assault. Accused-appellant was charged with robbery with rape and later convicted by the trial court. He appealed the decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime is reliable.

  2. Whether the accused's admission of taking the money without assistance of counsel is admissible as evidence against him.

  3. Whether the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with rape or separate crimes of rape and robbery.

  4. Whether the crime committed by the accused-appellant is the complex crime of robbery with rape.

  5. Whether the unlawful taking by the accused-appellant constitutes robbery or theft.

  6. Did the trial court err in awarding P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages?

RULING:

  1. The identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime is reliable. The fact that it was dark at the time of the crime does not make identification impossible. The witness was able to positively identify the accused based on the bright light coming from the market and specific details that she took note of, such as the accused's necklace and black rubber bracelet. The trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses shall be respected unless there is a showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued significant facts.

  2. The accused's admission of taking the money without assistance of counsel is admissible as evidence against him. The accused failed to show that his admission was made involuntarily or in violation of his constitutional rights.

  3. The crime committed is not the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The primordial intent of the accused, as established by the evidence, was to have illicit carnal knowledge of the complainant and not to rob her. The taking of the money following the rape was merely an afterthought.

  4. The Court held that the crime committed by the accused-appellant is not the complex crime of robbery with rape. The Court explained that in order for a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery and not the other way around. The intent to gain in robbery with rape precedes the intent to commit rape, since robbery with rape is primarily a crime against property. In this case, the robbery was only incidental to the rape and was more of an afterthought. Thus, accused-appellant should be held accountable for two separate felonies.

  5. The Court held that the unlawful taking by the accused-appellant constitutes simple theft and not robbery. The Court emphasized that robbery requires the taking of personal property by means of violence or intimidation, which must be clearly shown to have attended its commission. In this case, the money was taken by accused-appellant after the rape was already consummated, and the intimidation or force employed in the rape had no bearing on the illegal taking of the money. Therefore, accused-appellant should be convicted of simple theft.

  6. No, the trial court did not err in awarding P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Identification of the accused can be reliable even if the crime was committed in darkness, as long as there are sufficient explanations for the identification.

  • Trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses shall be respected unless there is a showing of overlooking or misconstruing significant facts.

  • Admission made by the accused without assistance of counsel may be admissible as evidence, as long as there is no showing of involuntariness or violation of constitutional rights.

  • The crime committed may not necessarily fall under the special complex crime provision if the evidence shows that the accused had a primary intent other than what is required for the special complex crime.

  • Rape committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery constitutes the crime of robbery with rape. The intent to gain precedes the intent to commit rape in this case.

  • The taking in robbery must be by means of violence or intimidation which must be clearly shown to have attended its commission.

  • When an accused is charged with a complex crime but it is proven during trial that he committed separate and distinct offenses, he may be convicted of the separate crimes based on the evidence presented.

  • The standard indemnity for rape cases is P50,000.00, in addition to moral damages as the court deems just.

  • The award of moral damages is allowed in cases of breach of contract where the plaintiff has proven that he/she suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, or similar injury as a result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.

  • Exemplary damages may be awarded when the defendant acted with gross negligence, bad faith, or in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. These damages are aimed at deterring other potential wrongdoers from engaging in similar acts.