Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HENRY CARPIO y NATIVIDAD and JULIE MOLINA Y NATIVIDAD (Acquitted) 429 SCRA 676 (2004)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HENRY CARPIO y NATIVIDAD and JULIE MOLINA Y NATIVIDAD (Acquitted) 429 SCRA 676 (2004)

Aggravating circumstance must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but should still be in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding. While Leonila Zabala and her daughter Eldie Grace Michelle Zabala were sleeping in the brightly lit master‘s bedroom of their house, Leonila was awakened by the sound of a wallet being opened. Leonila stood up and saw appellant Henry Carpio sitting on the floor. On seeing Leonila stand up, Carpio approached her, poked a knife at her neck. Soon Eldie Grace woke up, Carpio also poked a knife at her and told her not to shout. Carpio thereupon tied Leonila‘s hands at her back with a blanket, stuffed her mouth with her husband‘s silk shorts and blindfolded her. Appellant subsequently also tied Eldie Grace‘s hands and tried to spread her legs sideways. As Eldie Grace refused to spread her legs, Carpio threatened her. Carpio thereafter removed Eldie Grace‘s pajama and panty then inserted his penis into the private part of Eldie Grace. Carpio‘s lust satisfied, Carpio ransacked the cabinets inside the bedroom after which he exited through the jalousie window of the bedroom.  After Carpio‘s co-accused Julie Molina took the witness stand, appellant moved, through his counsel, that he was withdrawing his earlier plea of not guilty and was instead entering a plea of guilty which the trial court granted.  The trial court found the accused guilty of robbery with rape as principal, committed with the use of a deadly weapon and with aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, unlawful entry and/or breaking of window, without any mitigating circumstance to offset the same and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.

 ISSUES:

Whether or not Carpio is guilty of robbery with rape committed with aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, unlawful entry and/or breaking of window

HELD:

As to Carpio‘s contention that nighttime and unlawful entry and/or breaking of window were not alleged in the information as required by the Rules, the same is meritorious. Parenthetically, the crime was committed at 5:00 a.m., certainly not at nighttime. And so is appellant‘s contention with respect to dwelling, it not having been duly reflected in the information that, following paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the RPC, “the act be committed . . . in the dwelling of the offended party if the latter has not given provocation.”  The earlier quoted information only describes a room of the house where the victims were sleeping. It did not, however, state that the house-venue of the crime was the dwelling of the victims. Though the aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute, it should still be in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged and its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. As to Carpio‘s plea of guilty, it cannot be considered mitigating, it having been made after the prosecution had rested its case.