People vs Parazo

Facts:
Complainant AAA, 21 years old, single, a 4th year college student of xxx University at xxx
City, testified that: On January 6, 1995, at around 3:30 oclock in the morning, she was sleeping
in her room in a boarding house in xxx City, when she was suddenly awakened because someone
was ransacking her things near her feet. The man whom she identified in court as the
accused, then pointed a knife at her and motioned to her to keep quiet. She pleaded with him for
mercy and to spare her life but the accused suddenly boxed her twice in her stomach, poked the
knife at her neck, and forcibly undressed her.
Then, the accused, still pointing the knife at her neck, forcibly inserted his private part on her
private part and she felt pain. While she was being raped by the accused, the latter dropped the
knife on the table. She managed to grope for the knife and was able to stab him. The accused got
up, took the knife from her and in turn stabbed her on her right side. While they were struggling
near the door, the accused stabbed her again, this time, in her breast. After the accused had left
thinking that she was already dead since she lay slumped on the floor, she was able to stand up
even though blood was spurting from her wounds. She went to the adjoining room and knocked
at the door. She felt she was going to die because of her stab wounds. Her boardmate BBB, a
nurse at the xxx Hospital, and her landlady brought her to the xxx Hospital. While she was at the
x-ray room of the hospital, a policeman came to investigate about the incident. There she made a
statement to the police. She was operated on and stayed in the hospital for eight (8) days.
A police investigator, recounted that: On January 6, 1995, at about 4:00 oclock in the morning,
he was in the Police Station at xxx, when an unidentified nurse at xxx Hospital informed their
station of the incident through telephone. He was immediately dispatched to said hospital upon
questioning the victim, he found out that the assailant was showing her an ATM card which bears
the name of a certain Ariel Parungao. When questioned, Ariel stated that he was robbed of his
ATM card and some money. The police investigator was able to determine that the accused was
the perpetrator of the crime because the victim told him that she was able to stab the accused once
or more than once. So, he sounded off an alarm to all the hospitals in xxx City telling them that if
a male person with stab wounds will be admitted to the hospital, to please inform him so he can
conduct the proper investigation.
At around 6:00 o’clock on the same morning, an information was given to him through
telephone by a nurse and a doctor at the xxx that there was a male patient bearing stab wounds
who was admitted thereto, herein the accused Marlon Parazo. Since he could not bring the accused
to the complainant nor the complainant to the accused as both were in critical condition, he brought
a photographer to the hospital where the accused was confined and had the latters photograph
taken. When he showed to the victim, the accuseds photo, the former identified the latter as her
assailant. On cross-examination, this witness said that it took only one or two hours to develop
the pictures; that he asked her why she was certain that the man in the photo was her assailant; and
that the victim said the room was lighted.

Issue: W/N the aggravating circumstance of paragraph 3, article 14 can be appreciated.

Ruling: Yes.

Dwelling: The crime of rape was committed in the boarding house where the complainant
was staying. Dwelling may be aggravating even if it does not belong to the victim. The dwelling
need not be owned by the victim. The Code speaks of dwelling, not domicile. In People vs.
Daniel, where the victim was raped in the boarding house where she was a bedspacer, this Court
held that: her room constituted for all intents and purposes a dwelling as the term is used in Article
14(3) of the Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary, under the law, 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 and uphold.

Hence, the correct penalty for the crime committed is death pursuant to Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended.

And in People vs. Sto. Tomas where the victim was killed in her mother’s house where she
was temporarily staying to avoid appellant in their conjugal house, this Court held that dwelling is
aggravating even if victims stay in the house is temporary. Dwelling is considered an aggravating
circumstance because primarily of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human
abode. According to one commentator, ones dwelling place is a sanctuary worthy of respect and
that one who slanders another in the latters house is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.
Cuello Calon says that the commission of the crime in anothers dwelling shows greater perversity
in the accused and produces greater alarm.
Nocturnity can also be considered, but we find, however, that a discussion or further survey
on these aspects would no longer be necessary because when in the commission of the
offense, there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty of death shall be
applied. Thus, with the presence of one aggravating circumstance, i.e., dwelling, the law has made
it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the greater penalty of death shall be applied.