ARTICLE 48 – PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIME TICKLER: There can be only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed against the same victim—the crime of forcible abduction is necessary only for the first rape and the subsequent rape can no longer be considered as a separate instance thereof. PEOPLE vs. DANILO CARAANG, VIRGILIO CANLAS JR., MANNY BELAGOT (! "#$%&, ROLANDO REBOTA (! "#$%& ' )*+# JON DOES (! "#$%& G.R. N*s. -4844/0 , D%1%23%# --, --, 5 PANGANIBAN, J. FACTS: Version of the Prosecution
About 11 o’clock on the night of ovember 1!" 1##!" the group of $anelyn %lores" &orna 'ala(ar" Angeline %lores" )ona Ampil" *ina +an(on" %roilan *alamay" )immy ,ascual and Tirso *an(on were on their way home to 'itio Abibeg" *en. &una" +arranglan" ueva -cia. The group had ust attended a /bangsal0bangsal’ or a pre0nuptial dance at arangay 2ipaan" +ar3r4anglan" ueva -cia. The moon 3had4 ust begun to rise" and and the road they were traversing traversing was quite dark. 5eaching 5eaching the boundary of Abibeg and 2ipaan" the group was accosted by two 678 armed men. randishing their guns" the men ordered the group to follow them. The two 678 armed men wore bonnets. 9owever" $anelyn %lores recogni(ed one of them as appellant 2anilo +araang" having known him for a long time since they were neighbors in the same barangay and because of the peculiar way he walked and stood. )immy ,ascual likewise recogni(ed the two armed men as appellant 2anilo +araang and $irgilio +anlas.The group was forced to walk through rice paddies till they reached an uninhabited and grassy place near a creek or /parang"’ approximately :!! meters away from the place where they were waylaid. ;pon reaching the /parang"’ the armed men ordered the female members of the group to sit down while the male members were ordered to lie on the ground face down. $anelyn %lores was the first female removed from the group by appellant. 'he knew that it was appellant who grabbed her hand and who pulled her to a nearby creek about :! meters away. There" $anelyn saw another man waiting. All of a sudden" appellant poked his gun on $anelyn’s temple and ordered her to remove her pants. $anelyn became terrified and cried. Appellant forced her to lie down on the ground. 9e repeated his order that she remove her pants. $anelyn" however" refused. This prompted appellant’ appellant’ss companion companion to grab both of $anelyn’s nelyn’s hands. As $anelyn anelyn was immobili( immobili(ed" ed" appellant appellant succeeded succeeded in removing removing her pants pants and underwear underwear.. Thereafte Thereafter" r" appellan appellantt removed removed his pants" pants" mounted mounted $anelyn $anelyn and had sexual intercourse with her. $anelyn $anelyn felt excruciating pain. y then" the place was well0 illuminated by moonlight. The moment appellant removed his bonnet" $anelyn saw that her rapist was indeed appellant 2anilo +araang. $anelyn was sexually abused by appellant for more than 1: minutes" after which she was returned to their group. After an hour" $anelyn $anelyn was again forcibly brought by appellant to the nearby creek. $anelyn anelyn was made to lie down by appellant who poked his gun at her. ,etrified with fear" $anelyn could not resist as appellant’s companion removed her underwear and her pants. Then appellant’s companion mounted her and sexually abused her. $anelyn again cried because of terrible pain. After appellant’s companion had satisfied his lust" appellant returned $anelyn $anelyn to the group. 9e approached &orna 'ala(ar and forced her to go with him. &orna 'ala(ar was first blindfolded and then brought to a place away from the group. 'he was turned over to a man who removed the cover from her eyes. &orna saw 3that4 the man 3was4 wearing a bonnet. The man ordered &orna to remove her pants but she fought back. Thus" he kicked &orna hard in the abdomen which caused her to lose consciousness.
'he also saw that she was naked. The man who raped her ordered her to put on her pants. Thereafter" she was returned back to the group. 'ubsequently" two other companions of appellant" who were also armed" took &orna 'ala(ar away from the group. They also wanted to rape her. 9owever" as the men were starting to remove her clothes" &orna cried and pleaded for mercy. The two men relented. =ne of them asked &orna to give him a kiss mark instead. As he prepared to be kissed" the man removed his bonnet. &orna was able to identify him as >anny elagot. Then she was returned to the group. Around ? o’clock in the morning" the group was released at the place where they were abducted. efore departing" the armed men threatened the group thus /pag nagsumbong kayo" papatayin naming kayo lahat.’ $anelyn %lores and her sister Angeline" together with &orna 'ala(ar" arrived at their house crying. They narrated to $anelyn’s parents all about the incident. @mmediately" $anelyn was brought by her parents to 'an )ose +ity" where she was examined by 2r. 5olando $alencia. 2r. $alencia. &orna 'ala(ar was medically examined by 2r. 5estituto 2uran. CARGE: ? counts of rape with forcible abduction
1. 7 information for Abduction with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation of $anelyn %lores to an uninhabited grassy upland five hundred 6:!!8 meters awayB 7. 7 information for Abduction with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation of &orna 'ala(ar to an uninhabited grassy upland five hundred 6:!!8 meters awa y. The trial court issued a
+A5AA* denies the accusations against him. 9e maintains that he is innocent and that he was not at the place of the incident and that he was sick at that time. DECISION OF TE RTC: The 5T+ convicted D'6"* C#'$" together with V6#$6"6* C'"s J#., of the 1*27"% 1#62% *) 3+1!6*' 96! #7%, !9* 1*+'!s *) #7% ' *'% 1*+'! *) 1!s *) "s16v6*+s'%ss. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each of the first three crimes; and imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months, one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional for the last .
The court a quo found that only one act of abduction had been committed by all the accused. @t added that the crafty way in which they made the victims go with them revealed the lewd intention of the abduction. That the former had intended to have carnal knowledge of the latter from the very beginning was further held by the lower court. The rapes were thus complexed with the crime of abduction. 9owever" the 5T+ held that the subsequent instances of rape committed were separate and distinct counts thereof. As to the fourth criminal +omplaint" it found appellant guilty only of acts of lasciviousness" since no carnal knowledge had occurred. 9ence" this appeal. ISS;ES:
1.
7. C. ?.
:. D.
ELD:
1. O'% C*27"% C#62% A$6's! E1 V61!62/ Article ?E of the 5evised ,enal +ode governs complex crimes as follows
9owever" appellant committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape on ovember 1!" 1##! 00 before the passage of 5epublic Act FD:# or the 2eath ,enalty &aw" which took effect on 2ecember C1" 1##C. Thus" the !#6" 1*+#! 1*##%1!"< #+"% !! !% 7%'"!< !! 1*+" 3% 627*s% 9s #%1"+s6*' 7%#7%!+. As regards the act of rape committed against %lores" appellant is likewise sentenced to reclusion perpetua. This separate act of rape" directly and successively committed against her by his co0 accused" was the only one remaining for which he may be further held liable. All told" !#%% !%#2s *) #%1"+s6*' 7%#7%!+ s*+" 3% 627*s% +7*' 62. 7.
,roof of +onspiracy 0 9e claims that the 5T+ erred in finding conspiracy" since the prosecution had likewise failed to prove that there was prior agreement among the accused.
SC: =% 6s$#%%. There is '* *+3! !! 77%""'! ' 6s 1*/11+s% 1!% 6' 1*'s76#1<, s s%%' !#*+$ !%6# 1*'1%#!% 1!6*'s 6' 3+1!6'$ !% v61!62s 96! "%9 %s6$' ' "!%# *' #76'$ !%2 . 2irect proof is not essential to establish conspiracyB which may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before" during and after the commission of the crime. @n a conspiracy" it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually committed all the elements of the crime chargedB what is important is that all of them performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the crime. Thus" the act of one becomes the act of all" and each of them will thereby be deemed equally guilty of all the crimes committed. @t must be shown that each co0accused cooperated in the commission of the offense 00 either morally through advice" encouragement or agreementB or materially through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the efficacious perpetration of the crime. @n this case" the testimonies of the victims and their witnesses" as well
as all other pieces of evidence presented indubitably established the concerted design of all the accused to abduct the group forcibly and to rape its female members. The common purpose of the accused was manifestly shown by the deliberate and methodical manner in which the crimes were committed. The victims were first tricked into going with appellant. oreover" he was an indispensable participant in the second act thereof. 9e was the one who brought her to his companions who took turns in raping her" FD while he pointed a gun at her. 9olding the victim and threatening her with a gun while another was raping her was more than sufficient to show indubitably a common criminal design. After appellant had satisfied his own lust and later aided his companion in raping %lores" the evidence indicates that he and his co0accused intended to commit rape again 00 which they actually accomplished 00 this time on 'ala(ar. 9e was also involved in her forcible abduction with rape" as it was again he who took her away from her group and handed her over to one of his co0 accused. The pattern of the rapes committed and the indispensable role of appellant therein is clear. Any intimation that he had nothing to do with them would be nothing less than unbelievable. @n view of the presence of conspiracy" all the co0accused bear equal responsibility. The finding of conspiracy is significant" because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused and makes them answerable as co0principals regardless of the degree of their participation in the crime. Their liability becomes collective" with each participant deemed equally responsible for the acts of the others. To reiterate" conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. @t comes to life at the very instant the plotters agree" expressly or impliedly" to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it actually. As in this case" conspiracy is pro ved by concerted acts or other forms of evidence indicative of actual cooperation 00 a common purpose or design" as well as a concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and to pursue it actually. The two elements of forcible abduction" as defined in Article C?7 of the 5evised ,enal +ode" are as follows 618 taking a woman against her will and 678 doing so with lewd designs. This complex crime occurs when there is carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under any of the circumstances mentioned earlier when force or intimidation is usedB when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconsciousB and when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. All told" the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of forcible abduction 00 the taking of the victims against their will with lewd design. As to the first element" although they voluntarily went with appellant" it was indubitably shown that they did so upon being deceived. According to their testimonies" he told them that his leader wanted to talk to them" and that no harm would be done to them. ;pon this representation" they went with him. The employment of deception suffices to constitute forcible abduction. This +ourt has previously ruled that if the victim’s consent was obtained through deceit and there was therefore no valid consent" the crime is forcible abduction" as the deceit may be considered as constructive force. The second element" lewd design" was established by the actual rapes. ,roceeding to the charges" aside from alleging the necessary elements of the crimes" the p rosecution convincingly established that appellant and his co0accused had conspired" confederated and mutually aided one another in having carnal knowledge of the victims against the latter’s will by means of force and intimidation. C.
,ositive @dentification 0 9e alleges that %lores could not have positively identified him as one of the perpetrators of the crimes" because it was nighttime when the incident occurred. 9e further argues that she did not directly testify to having seen himB instead" she merely identified him by the way he spoke" stood and moved.
SC: =% 6s$#%%. The testimony of %lores was categorical" convincing and unequivocal. According to %lores" on the night the incident occurred" the place where they were brought was brightly illuminated by the moon. Thus" she was able to take a good look at and remember the face of appellant. $isibility is indeed a vital factor in determining whether an eyewitness could have identified the perpetrator of a crime. @t is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable" and when the witnesses do not appear to be biased" their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. @n proper situations" illumination produced by a kerosene or wick lamp" a flashlight" even moonlight or starlight may be considered sufficient to allow identification of persons. ;nder such circumstance" any attack on the credibility of witnesses" based solely on the ground of insufficiency or absence of illumination" becomes unmeritorious. To be sure" %lores had an unobstructed view of appellant because of their proximity with each other. *iven her familiarity with him" as well as the illumination provided by the moonlight
on that fateful evening 00 reasonably sufficient for the identification of persons 00 we doubt if she could have erred in identifying him. %urthermore" the contention of appellant that %lores did not directly testify that she had seen him is completely belied by her above0quoted testimony. Although she did mention that she recogni(ed him by the way he spoke" stood and moved" those qualities were not her only bases for identifying himB she was also able to see his face during the incident. esides" even the witnesses presented by appellant could not exculpate him from criminal liability. @f indeed he had witnesses to prove that he did not leave the house" he should have presented them" so that they could positively testify that he never left their sight. @nstead" he presented the barangay chair" who admitted that she had been too busy during the dance party to have kept an eye on him throughout the nightB and his sister" whom he did not even mention" who testified that she had been with him at the time. ?.
A. 2iscrepancy etween the 'worn and the +ourt Testimony 0 9e points to alleged inconsistencies between her court testimony and her sworn affidavit before the police.
SC Again" 9% 1''*! s+s!6' !6s 1*'!%'!6*' . Appellant’s reliance on the affidavit of %lores in order to cast doubt on her testimony is futile. The +ourt has consistently ruled that discrepancies between the statements in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand do not necessarily downgrade the latter. -x parte affidavits are usually incomplete" frequently prepared by administering officers" and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have said. Almost always" the latter would simply sign such documents after being read to them. They are products sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want of suggestions and inquiries" without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection.
Affidavits are generally subordinate in importance to open0court declarations" because the former are often executed when the mental faculties of affiants are not in such state as to afford them a fair opportunity to narrate more extensively the incidents that have transpired. y its very nature and the manner it is taken" an affidavit can hardly compare with the weight of a testimony given in open court. &ikewise" the supposed failure of eyewitnesses to include some material facts in their affidavits does not in any way diminish the veracity of their court testimonies. @n other words" whenever there is inconsistency between the two" the latter commands greater weight.
:.
,hysical -vidence 0 9e faults the prosecution for failing to present any bloodied panty" pants or dress belonging to the victim. 'uch failure was supposedly fatal for its part" because it did not present any other ph ysical evidence to prove the rape. Though he concedes that these obects are not essential in proving rape" he invokes our ruling in ,eople v. *odoy" which is supposedly applicable to the present controversy. @n that case" the deliberate non0presentation of the bloodstained skirt was ruled to have weakened the cause of the prosecution.
SC: Again" this argument )6"s !* 1*'v6'1% +s . @n *odoy" the testimony of the complainant was inherently weak" and no other physical evidence was presented by the prosecution to bolster the charge of rape" except for the medical report which had even negated one of the essential elements of the crime. 9ence" the deliberate non0presentation of the complainant’s bloodstained skirt was held to Gvigorously militate against the prosecution’s cause. @n the case before us" the convincing and unwavering testimonies of not only one victim" but two victims 00 taken together with the similarly credible corroborative testimonies of other witnesses 00 leave no room to doubt appellant’s guilt. >oreover" unlike in *odoy" the medical findings presented in the present case are sufficient to sustain the charge of rape. The testimony of 2r. $alencia" coupled with the corresponding >edical 5eports" clearly establishes the rape. Thus" the non0pr esentation of %lores’ bloodied underwear" skirt and pants is not indispensable to proving the rape.
N%6!%# 9s 6! 627*#!'! )*# !% 7#*s%1+!6*' !* 7#*v% !! 77%""'! 9s ))"61!% 96! s%+""< !#'s26ss63"% 6s%s% !! % 7ss% *' !* F"*#%s. @n the crime of rape" all that has to be proven is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances 18 when force" threat or intimidation is usedB 78 when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconsciousB C8 when fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority is employedB or ?8 when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented" even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. At most" in rape" the transmission of a sexually transmissible disease to the victim is not an element of the crime" but an aggravatingHqualifying circumstance that has to be proven to sustain conviction.
o 2ouble )eopardy
9ence" appellant is guilty of two complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape 00 one against %lores and the other against 'ala(ar. 'ince there were two victims" the trial court erred in convicting him of only one count of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. T%#% 1' 3% '* v6*"!6*' *) !% 1*'s!6!+!6*'" #6$! *) 77%""'! $6's! *+3"% >%*7#< " because the decisive issue here is whether he was convicted of a crime charged in the @nformation. A reading of the four separate @nformations shows that in each one" he was indeed charged with forcible abduction with rape. 9aving been sufficiently informed of the accusations against him" he can thus be convicted of two counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape" as we have done here based on the evidence presented. >oreover" it is settled that when the accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court" they waive their right to the constitutional safeguard against double eopardy and throw the whole case open to review by the appellate court. The latter court is then called upon to render such udgment as law and ustice dictate 00 whether favorable or unfavorable to them" and whether the issues it resolves have been assigned as errors or not. 'uch an appeal confers upon it full urisdiction over the case and renders it competent to examine the records" revise the udgment appealed from" increase the penalty" and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
