Hallowed place

The circumstance that a crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party who has not given sufficient provocation aggravates criminal liability as to increase its penalty. Dwelling here means the place where the victim lives or dwells even if he does not own it. What if the victim is taken from his or her dwelling and the crime is committed elsewhere, is "dwelling" still an aggravating circumstance? This is answered in this case of Nita.

Nita is married to Poldo with whom she had five children, with ages ranging from thirteeen years to one year old. Both Nita and Poldo were employed at a farm where they live in the kitchen of the farmhouse since Nita was employed as the cook.

One evening, while Poldo was out of the house, Max, a co-employee in the farm who had been sowing terror among the other employees, barged into the kitchen where Nita was cooking in the company of her five children. With a knife and bolo in hand, Max dragged Nita outside and brought her towards another house in the farm which was under construction some 200 meters away. Nita’s children tried to follow but they desisted when Max threatened them. So the terrified children just stayed in the kitchen while Max brought Nita to the nearby house under construction at the point of a knife. Once inside the house, Max succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Nita who was pinned down on the floor with hands behind her back and the knife pointed at her throat.

Despite the warning not to tell anybody what happened to her, Nita got enough courage to report the rape, thus leading to the filing of charges against Max. After trial the lower court convicted Max for rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. While the information alleged that the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the court did not consider said circumstance, since the crime was consummated in a nearby house under construction.

Was the lower court correct?

No.

The allegation in the information on the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling in the commission of the offense should have been appreciated by the lower court. The kitchen at the farm where Nita was dragged by Max is her dwelling although the same does not belong to her.

"Dwelling" contemplated in the Revised Penal Code (Art.14[3]) does not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect.

The fact that the crime was consummated in the nearby house is also immaterial. Max forcibly took Nita from her dwelling house (kitchen) and then raped her. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from her house although the offense was not completed therein.

But while the circumstance of dwelling aggravates Max’s criminal liability, his penalty is still reclusion perpetua since the death penalty was still constitutionally suspended when the crime was committed (Pp. vs. De La Torre G.R. 98431, January 15,2002).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]