G.R. No. 267093 – MARK ANTHONY ROMERO y FLORES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.
Rule Synopsis
Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape when the main objective of the abductor is to have carnal knowledge of the victim. In such case, there is no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Rather, rape absorbs forcible abduction. Meanwhile, where forcible abduction is a necessary means to commit rape, there is a complex crime proper under Article 48 of the RPC.
Facts
In an Information dated July 26, 2019, Mark Anthony Romero y Flores (Romero) was charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).1 Romero entered a plea of not guilty.
Prosecution version:
On July 24, 2019, around 7:00pm, the victim, AAA, rode a yellow tricycle to go home from her cheer dance practice. Romero was in the sidecar. AAA told the driver that she would alight but the latter immediately sped off. Romero then suddenly grabbed her phone and driver accelerated upon reaching the corner of the street leading to her house instead of slowing down. Romero covered her mouth and nose with a foul-smelling handkerchief. AAA lost consciousness. When she woke up at 3:00am, she was fully naked and her private part was aching. She walked to a gym, boarded a tricycle going home, and arrived at around 7:00am. With her parents, AAA went to the municipal police station where she identified Romero as the one who abducted her from a rouge’s gallery. Accompanied by the police, she also pointed to Romero when brought to his house, and identified the tricycle that she boarded during the abduction. After examination, AAA was issued a Medico-Legal Certificate stating that she suffered hymenal lacerations.
Defense version:
Romero’s defense were denial and alibi. He alleged that he was with his girlfriend until he went home at around 11:00pm on July 24, 2019.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Romero as charged, i.e., of kidnapping with rape.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with modification, and convicted Romero of forcible abduction under Article 342 of the RPC.2 It ruled that Romero cannot be convicted of kidnapping given the lack of the element of actual confinement or restraint of the victim. It also found that Romero cannot also be convicted of rape as there was no direct evidence thereof. The CA convicted Romero of forcible abduction finding all the elements thereof present.
Issues
Based on the evidence adduced, may Romero be found guilty of the crime charged (kidnapping with rape)?
Ruling and Discussion
Note: Unlike in civil cases, an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not raised by the parties. Though Romero only assails his conviction for forcible abduction, nothing hinders the Court from determining the proper offense committed in this case.
No. Romero may be found guilty of the crime of rape only, and not kidnapping with rape (crime charged.
The CA correctly characterized the offense as forcible abduction instead of kidnapping.
Distinguishing forcible abduction and kidnapping: when the violent taking of a woman is motivated by lewd designs, forcible abduction is committed; otherwise, such taking constitutes kidnapping.
Here, the elements of forcible abduction are present, namely: (1) the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (2) the abduction is against her will; and (3) the abduction is with lewd designs. As applied in the instant case: (1) the victim, AAA, was a 16-year-old woman; (2) Romero took her against her will when he rendered her unconscious by placing a foul-smelling handkerchief over her mouth and nose; (3) such taking was motivated by lewd designs. The lewd design was clearly demonstrated by the subsequent situation in which AAA found herself in after regaining consciousness, i.e., completely naked with soreness in her private parts. The Medico Legal Certificate further confirmed that AAA was sexually assaulted.
However, the CA gravely erred when it held that Romero may not be convicted of rape due to the absence of direct evidence.
Sufficient circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct evidence, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has committed the crime. As applied in the instant case, the following series of circumstances established that Romero and/or his unknown companion raped AAA, to the exclusion of others: (1) on July 24, 2019, AAA boarded a yellow tricycle which Romero was riding, and driven by Romero’s unknown companion; (2) instead of dropping off AAA at her house, the tricycle driver sped off upon reaching the corner of the street leading to her house, while Romero covered her mouth and nose with a foul-smelling handkerchief; (3) AAA got dizzy, felt weak, and lost her consciousness: (4) when she woke up at 3:00am of the next day, she was fully naked, and her private part was aching; (5) examination showed that AAA suffered hymenal lacerations indicating that an object was inserted in her vagina.
They foregoing pieces of circumstantial evidence also satisfy the standards laid down by Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the foregoing facts were duly proven by AAA’s clear, candid, and unwavering testimony which both the RTC and CA found credible; and (3) the combination of the foregoing circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt since AAA encountered no person other than Romero and his unknown companion before she suffered her harrowing experience.
Whether Romero or the tricycle driver or both sexually assaulted AAA is irrelevant. It is apparent from their collective acts that they were acting in conspiracy. Romero and his companion’s behavior during the incident showed unified design. Although Romero made AAA lose consciousness, it was apparent that his companion was not only aware but also in on the illegal plan since he did not drop off AAA in her house. Instead, he sped away and even accelerated the vehicle when they were nearing her house. Further, the tricycle he was driving was later on found parked in front of Romero’s house. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Each of the conspirators is liable for all of the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Romero may be convicted of the crime of rape only, and not the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
The prosecution’s evidence duly established the elements of the crime of rape under Article 266-A (1) of RPC,3 as amended, namely: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished this act under the circumstances mentioned in the provision, e.g., when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. As applied in the instance case, it was proven that: (1) Romero or his companion had carnal knowledge of AAA, a woman; (2) second, this bestial act was committed after AAA fell unconscious after Romero covered her mouth and nose with a foul-smelling handkerchief.
While the elements of forcible abduction were also established and rape was committed on the occasion thereof, jurisprudence clarifies that forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape when the main objective of the abductor is to have carnal knowledge of the victim. Settled is the rule that there is no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape if the primary objective of the accused is to commit rape. Under such circumstance, rape absorbs forcible abduction. On the other hand, where forcible abduction is a necessary means to commit rape, there is a complex crime proper under Article 48 of the RPC.
The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is present only where forcible abduction is committed per se, i.e., the victim was deprived of her liberty with lewd intentions, which is manifested by the fact of the actual rape. Where, however, the victim was forcibly taken by the accused only for the purpose of consummating rape, then the proper offense committed is simply rape.
As applied in this case, it is apparent that Romero and his companion knocked down AAA not to detain her elsewhere but to ensure that they could have their way with her. In fact, after they accomplished their goal of ravishing her, they left her alone in the cottage, along with her clothes, cellphone, and belongings. More telling, the cottage remained unlocked and she was free to return home, which she in fact did, after she woke up. Clearly, having carnal knowledge of AAA appears to be their main objective.
dispositive
Petition denied. Decision and Resolution affirmed with modification.
Footnotes
- Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprived him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
(1) If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
(2) If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
(3) If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
(4) If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
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. ↩︎ - Article 342. Forcible abduction. — The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years of age. ↩︎ - Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. — Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. ↩︎