THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
TIMOTEO CABURAL, CIRIACO YANGYANG, BENJAMIN LASPONIA, and LEONIDE CABUAL,
accussed,TIMOTEO CABURAL and CIRIACO YANGYANG, defendants-appellants.
G.R. No. L-34105 February 4, 1983
RELOVA, J.:
FACTS:
On September 14, 1960, three masked men entered a building in Iligan thru an opening on the roof and
forced themselves to a room. The masked men tied the occupants of the room and covered them in
blankets. They ransacked the cabinets and threatened the occupants to open the safe. Simultaneously in
the other room two maids were awakened by two persons, one holding a pistol and the other a hunting
knife. Like the occupants of the other room, they were tied and covered in blankets. Agripina Maglangit,
one of the maids got discovered for freeing her hands and got separated from the rest. With a pistol
pointed at her she was taken out of the building in a secluded place where she was forced to have
sexual intercourse. Agripita Maglangit recognized the features of the man that raped her and identified
her rapist to be the accused Timoteo Cabural.
After the incident, the local police together with the Philiippine Constabulary conducted an investigation
and found guns and magazines wrapped in a banca at the shore of the accused Benjamin Lasponia, who
admitted the crime and pointed out his companions.
On September 18, 1890 Benjamin Lasponia signed a confession before Assitan Fiscal Leionardo Magsalin
and confessed every detail of hi participation in the crime, who was then then followed by Leonide
Cabual who subscribed an affidavit before the same fiscal. Ciriaco Yangyang followed and subscribed his
confession before Special Counsel Dominador Padilla.
One September 21, 1960 Timoteo Cabural together with the other accused were charged before the CFI
of Lanao del Norte of the crim Robbery in Band with rape.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused should be penalized under Presidential Decree No. 767, as amended by
Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
No. The accused should not be penalized under Presidential Decree No. 767, as amended by Article
294(s) of the Revised Penal Code.
In People vs. Perello, Jr., 111 SCRA 147, it was mentioned that "the Chief Justice and the herein ponente
(Justice Ramon C. Aquino) are of the opinion that article 335 cannot be applied to robbery with rape and
that that offense should be penalized under article 294(2) in which case reclusion perpetua should be
imposed. As the accused was charged with a crime against property, he should not be convicted of a
crime against chastity, a private offense.
Thus, the accused cannot be penalized under Presidential Decree No. 767 as amended by Article 294(2)
of the Revised Penal Code.
Concurring Opinion:
Fernando C.J.,
The Presidential Decree No. 767 was effective as of August 15, 1975 which imposes the penalty to
reclusion perpetua to death when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with the use of a
deadly weapon or by two or more persons. That increased penalty cannot be retroactively applied to
this case. 4 As such offense of robbery was committed before that date, it is Article 294(2), before its
amendment, that supplies the governing rule.
The maximum Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege has its roots in history. It is in accordance with both
centuries of civil law and common law tradition. Moreover, it is an indispensable coronary to a regime of
liberty enshrined in our Constitution. It is of the essence then that while anti-social acts should be
penalized, there must be a clear definition of the punishable offense as well as the penalty that may be
imposed a penalty, to repeat, that can be fixed by the legislative body, and the legislative body alone. So
constitutionalism mandates, with its stress on jurisdiction rather than guvernaculum. The judiciary as
the dispenser of justice through law must be aware of the limitation on its own power.
