En Banc, Justice Quisumbing, People v. Caloso [G.R. Nos. 133343-44. March 2, 2000]

The fact alone that the victim was raped while her younger siblings were inside the same room would not make the commission of rape impossible or improbable. "Lust is no respecter of places. Rape can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping."50 [People vs. Lusa, 288 SCRA 296, 304 (1998)]

Justice Pardo, First Division, People v. Abalde [G.R. No. 123113. March 31, 2000]

In People v. Agbayani, the Court stated that, "(t)he evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place; it drives him to commit rape anywhere -- even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants."61 [Supra at 45, citing People v. Aragona, 138 SCRA 569, 580 (1985); People v. Viray, 164 SCRA 135, 143 (1988); People v. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707, 723 (1991).] Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place62 [People v. Sumampong, 290 SCRA 471 (1998), citing People v. Leoterio, 264 SCRA 608 (1996).] and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.63 [People v. Gementiza, 285 SCRA 478 (1998), citing People v. Quenevista, 244 SCRA 586 (1995); People v. Dado, et al., 244 SCRA 655 (1995).]

Justice Puno, First Division, Peoplve v. Mitra [G.R. No. 130669. March 27, 2000]

The testimony of defense witness Marieta Oca to the effect that the house and the kitchen of the Alcartados are small, old and dilapidated deserves scant consideration by the Court. Common experience shows that lust is no respecter of time and place; it can be committed in most unlikely places such as in the park, along a roadside, within school premises, or even in an occupied room.32 [People vs. Cabillan, 267 SCRA 258, 265 (1997)]

En Banc, De Leon, Jr. , People v. Benito Alcaratado and Rodolfo Alcartado [G.R. Nos. 132379-82. June 29, 2000]

Neither could accused negate the commission of the rape in light of the presence of his whole family inside the same room and the likelihood of being discovered. "We have held that for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out their evil deed."22 [People vs. Ildefonso Bayona, G. R. No. 133343-44, March 2, 2000.] Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist’s spouse was asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept, as in the instant case. The presence of people nearby does not deter rapists from committing their odious act.23 [People vs. Joselito Baltazar, supra, Note No. 19.]

Justice Pardo, First Division, People v. Antonio y Payagan [G.R. No. 122473. June 8, 2000]

Appellant further contends that he could not have possibly raped the victim because the place where the crime occurred is small and there were at least 20 persons therein. Against such contention, however, the Court had consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate, in parks along the roadside, in school premises, in a house where there are other occupants,14 [People v. Ulili, 44 SCAD 213; People v. Viray, 164 SCRA 135 (1988) cited in People v. Tan, Jr., 332 Phil. 465 (1996)] in the same room where other members of the family are also sleeping15 [People v. Villorente, 10 SCRA 647 (1964)] and even in places which to many would appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.16 [People v. Dado, 314 Phil. 635 (1995); People v. Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811 (1990)] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.17 [People v. Papa Talaboc, 326 Phil. 451 (1996)]

Justice Ynares-Santiago, First Division, People v. Castillo [G.R. No. 130205. July 5, 2000]

This argument is untenable. It is established that rape is no respecter of time or place. It can be committed in small, confined places, like a one-room shack and in the presence of other family members,103 [People v. Geromo, supra, note 87, citing People v. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441 [1996] and People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 85 [1996].] or a small hut on a raft (alang).104 [People v. Torio, supra note 100, citing People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315 [1998] and People v. Manuel, supra note 98.] The same can be said of any other crime that accompanies and compounds the rape. In the case at bar, even if there were houses around the warehouse and there was a lamppost nearby, there is no dispute that Angel was assaulted therein at 2:00 in the morning during a heavy downpour. Under the condition then prevailing, the desolation of the warehouse and its immediate vicinity provided a perfect cover for the atrocities perpetrated against Angel. On the other hand, when the court conducted an ocular inspection of the warehouse on 22 November 1992, it was noted that the holes through one or more of which Barlam had witnessed the crime have been patched up. The protestations of CORDERO and LAGARTO cannot be given serious consideration because the trial court gathered "from the Barangay Captain and other residents that there had been alterations in the warehouse; that the opening had been covered, so much so that the actual conditions of the warehouse at the time of the commission of the offense are no longer obtaining during the ocular inspection."105 [RTC Decision, 26, Rollo, 72.] LAGARTO and CORDERO likewise question the wisdom of this observation because there is allegedly no evidence, testimonial or otherwise, which would support it. The ocular inspection was, however, conducted with the assistance of the Barangay Captain and some residents. The conclusion of the court, therefore, is not conjectural but based on information supplied by the escorts who were more familiar with the physical condition of the warehouse.

Per Curiam, En Banc, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HENRY LAGARTO y PETILLA and ERNESTO CORDERO y MARISTELA @ "Booster," accused-appellants. [G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371. February 29, 2000]

Our cases show that those who commit rape are no respecter of time and place. The crime of rape has been known to be committed in places ordinarily considered as unlikely. The scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded.29 [People vs. Sandico, G.R. No. 128104, May 18, 1999; People vs. Perez, supra.] Rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house and even in a room where other members of the family are also sleeping.30 [People vs. Batoon, G.R. No.134194, October 26, 1999.] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of this crime.31 [People vs. Geromo, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999.] In this case, it is not impossible for the rape to have taken place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including accused-appellant and Bermalyne.

En Banc, Per Curiam, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE SANCHA, accused-appellant. [G.R. Nos. 131818-19. February 3, 2000]

Contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, the presence of other people in the vicinity does not deter the commission of rape. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.15 [People vs. Batoon, G. R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999; People vs. Burce, 269 SCRA 293 [1997]; People vs. Talaboc, 256 SCRA 441 [1996].] It can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house and even in a room where other members of the family are also sleeping.16 [People vs. Gabayron, 278 SCRA 78 [1997]; People vs. Devilleres, 269 SCRA 716 [1997]; People vs. De Guzman, 265 SCRA 228 [1996]; People vs. Leoterio, 264 SCRA 697 [1999]; People vs. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658 [1996]; People vs. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82 [1996].]

Justice Pardo, First Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO BATO alias "RUDY BATO," accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 134939. February 16, 2000]

As to accused-appellant’s assertion that the toilet was near a construction site and that people in the area frequently take the same route to the hospital,29 [TSN, pp. 5-6, Jan. 16. 1996.] the same is if no moment for there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.30 [People v. Sangil, 276 SCRA 532 (1997)] It is in fact settled that such offense can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside or within school premises,31 [People v. Devilleres, 269 SCRA 716 (1997)] as in this case.

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELRANIE MARTINEZ y DIGAL, accused-appellant,  [G.R. No. 130606. February 15, 2000]

e cannot also reject the testimony of Merlin on the ground that her three (3) other companions were not awakened by her groans while she was being raped.  Allegedly, the sala where Merlin slept measured only, more or less, five meters.  Again, we have ruled that it is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if there are several persons in it.[i People vs. Abordo, 258 SCRA 571 (1996).] We note that, in the case at bar, the crime was committed in the middle of the night.  It is at this time when children are in deep slumber and could not easily be awakened.

Justice Puno,  First Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PRUDENCIO BALMORIA, accused-appellant [G.R. No. 134539.  November 15, 2000]

Secondly, SALVADOR’s argument that it is impossible to commit a rape in a small hut is untenable. We have held in a number of cases22 [For example, People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315 (1998) and People v. Manuel, 236 SCRA 545 (1994)] that lust is no respecter of time and place. It is not impossible to perpetrate a rape even in a small room.

CJ Davide, First Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. SALVADOR TORIO @ "Adong," accused-appellant [G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479. November 17, 1999]