People v. Collado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Marcelino Collado, went to the house of Paula Bautista, a married woman alone with her sleeping child. He asked for water, then stealthily approached her, embraced and kissed her, and caught hold of her breasts. When Paula Bautista recovered from the shock, she defended herself, biting the accused and crying for help. The accused threatened to kill her with a dagger if she did not accede to his desires. Crispulo Ariola arrived and found them in this position. The accused fled by jumping from the house. Procedural History: The trial court found the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of from two months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed, assigning four alleged errors committed by the trial court. He contended that the crime was improbable because witnesses were nearby and that a defense witness was present in the victim's house. The prosecution argued that the accused's presence and rapid departure from the house, along with the victim's cries for help, corroborated her testimony.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proves the commission of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. Whether the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be considered despite not being alleged in the information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for acts of lasciviousness but modified the penalty. The Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be considered. The sentence was modified to an indeterminate penalty of from six months of arresto mayor to four years, two months and one day of prision correccional.
Ratio Decidendi
On the commission of acts of lasciviousness: The Court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by the circumstances. The accused's act of entering the house on a pretext, his stealthy approach, the physical assault (embracing, kissing, touching breasts), the threat with a dagger, and the victim's resistance and cries for help all established the elements of the crime. The Court dismissed the defense's claim of improbability due to the presence of witnesses, noting that the accused might have believed the victim would not resist or cry out, and that the witnesses might not have continued their conversation. The Court also found the defense's claim that the incident was merely a reproach for false rumors to be inconsistent with the victim allowing the accused to drink water and then being assaulted. The Court applied the principle that "opportunity makes the thief," noting the accused had previously courted the victim. On the aggravating circumstance of dwelling: The Court held that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, even if not alleged in the information, must be taken into consideration if proven during the trial. Citing United States vs. Campo, the Court stated that generic aggravating circumstances can be proven and considered for penalty imposition even without prior allegation. The facts clearly showed the crime was committed inside the offended party's own dwelling, which is an aggravating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, it should have been considered by the trial court in imposing the penalty.
Main Doctrine
The crime of acts of lasciviousness, defined in Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, is proven by the accused taking advantage of the victim's solitude, approaching her stealthily, embracing and kissing her, and catching hold of her breasts, despite threats of death and the victim's resistance and cries for help. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling, even if not alleged in the information, must be considered if proven during trial.