People vs. Nuguid

(4) People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991 Jan.
21, 2004
FACTS:
About 2 o’clock in the morning of January 1, 2000, Rowena Rianzares, was sleeping inside
the room of their house with their daughter and son. After a while, Rowena Rianzares heard a knock
at the door of their room. It was appellant who tried to push open the door, telling Rowena Rianzares
that her husband was asking for money to buy liquor. Rowena Rianzares got suspicious because
her husband had money at that time and he would not ask money from her. Rowena Rianzares thus
closed the door. A few minutes later, she heard appellant upstairs repeatedly shouting that her
husband was very mad because he did not have money to buy liquor. She opened the door of their
room and went out. She went inside appellant’s room which was located in front of their room to
confront him. She told appellant: "Bakit hihingi ng pera si Kuya Jun mo may pera naman
siya?" Immediately thereafter, appellant rushed to her back and placed his left arm around her neck
with his right hand holding a kitchen knife, about twelve (12) inches long. Caught by surprise, the
complainant struggled to free herself from the hold of the accused and ran down the stairway, but in
her haste she stumbled and fell down. The accused followed her down; held her hair and left hand
and dragged her upstairs to his room, while she shouted for help. Once inside the room, the accused
forced the complainant to undressed and then he kissed all the parts of her body. The complainant
tried to resist and in the process, she sustained a wound in her left arm and a knife wound in her
right palm. The accused forced the complainant to lie on a bed and placed himself on top of her and
at the same time position his knees between her legs and forced them to separate. After which he
proceeded to rape her, and while doing so, he remarked to her, "Weng , pasensiya ka na. Nakabato
kasi ako.". He further told her that he would insert the knife he was holding in her vagina to enhance
his excitement. xxx Finally, at around 5:00 a.m., the police officer forced open the door and barged
inside the room, and subdued the dumbfounded accused who was then on top of the complainant.
On the other hand, accused Leonardo Nuguid testified that he had worked with Rianzares
from 1995-2000. And that he had a relataionship with Rowena. The first time he had sexual
intercourse with Rowena was when they went to Bulacan to get rice from Rowena’s parents. Prior to
January 1, 2000, he had several sexual intercourse with Rowena. Rowena gave him several
lovenotes but he lost them all.
The trial court ruled that the acts of the appellant in locking up Rowena against her will in his
room for three hours, threatening to kill her and then sexually assaulting her, constituted the crime of
serious illegal detention with rape. On which he was sentenced to suffer the severe penalty of death
by lethal injection. Hence, this automatic review.
ISSUE:
WON appellant is liable for the crime of serious illegal detention with rape?
RULING:
No. In People v. Lactao, the Court ruled as follows:
It may be worth to mention at the outset that there is no complex crime of rape with serious illegal
detention. If the purpose is to deprive the offended party of liberty, the crime committed is illegal
detention. And, if during the course of the illegal detention, the offended party is raped, a separate
crime of rape is committed; in this instance, two independent crimes are committed. However, if the
objective of the offender is to rape the victim only, and in the process, the latter had to be illegally
detained, only the crime of rape is committed since illegal detention is deemed absorbed in rape.
The decision in Lactao, explained the rules on the treatment of serious illegal detention and rape at
that time. Prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 ("RA 7659") on 31 December 1993, when
the person kidnapped or illegally detained was raped, two independent crimes of kidnapping and
rape were committed.
RA 7659, however, amended the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code on serious
illegal detention and kidnapping to read:
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
Under this provision, when the person kidnapped or illegally detained is raped, the offense
committed is the special complex crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping with rape,
punishable with the maximum penalty of death. The last paragraph of Article 267 applies only to
instances where the person illegally detained or kidnapped is raped. It does not provide for
a complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. As the Court ruled in Lactao, there is no
complex crime of illegal detention with rape under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. There is
also no complex crime of kidnapping with attempted rape under Article 48 because there is no single
act which results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. Neither is illegal detention a necessary
means for committing rape.
Nonetheless, the Court concurs with the Public Attorney and the Solicitor General that the crime
committed in this case is not serious illegal detention with rape. Rather, appellant is guilty of rape
qualified by the use of a deadly weapon.
The essence of illegal detention is the deprivation of the victim’s liberty. The prosecution must prove
actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the
appellant. The accused must have acted purposely or knowingly to restrain the victim because what
constitutes the offense is taking coupled with intent to restrain.
From this narration, it is clear that appellant’s real aim was to have carnal knowledge of Rowena.
Appellant took Rowena no further than to his room - which was only across the hall from Rowena’s
room - where he immediately forced her to undress. In fact, appellant was so intent on raping her
that he was still naked and on top of her when the police broke into the room. Taken together, these
circumstances engender doubt that the intention of appellant was to detain Rowena. The detention
was merely incidental to the real objective of appellant.

People vs. Nuguid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Nuguid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Nuguid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(4) People vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991 Jan.

No. In People v. Lactao, the Court ruled as follows:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.