People vs.

Patola
141 scra 401, 27 Feb 1986

Facts:
The accused ransacked the store taking P 1, 700 in cash, appliances, a watch and other things totaling P4, 500. Sangayon then
untied the feet of Elena, brought her to a room and raped her. After he was through his companion did the same. They return
Elena to the room, hogtied her again and covered her with a blanket. Mila was untied by Patola and brought her to another
room where he raped her.

Patola and Sangayon were arrested six days after the incident and were identified by Mila, Elena, and Zosima. The revolvers they
used in the robbery were seized from them.

Contention of Accused: Patola’s defense was that he was in Barrio Tuganay, Carmen, Davao del Norte when it happened while
Sangayon’s alibi was he was in Panabo, Davao.

The trial court imposed the death penalty because it applied Art. 335 of the RPC on rape rather than Art. 294(2) on robbery with
rape. It regarded Art 294(2) as having been amended by Art 335.

Issue:
Which RPC article should be applied? Art 335 on rape or Art 294(2) on robber with rape? (ROBBERY WITH RAPE)

Held:
The accused were charged with a crime against property, not a crime against chastity. There was no complaint of the offended
party in this case.

The issue of whether robbery with qualified rape should be punished under Art 294(2) or under Art 335 was set at rest in People
vs. Cabural where the Court held that it should be punished under Art. 294(2).

At any rate, for the lack of the necessary 10 votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed.