People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Sabredo y Garbo

Where the information for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape fails to allege lewd designs, an essential element of forcible abduction, the accused cannot be convicted of the complex crime; the rape absorbs the forcible abduction and the accused is liable for simple rape only. Corollarily, the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659 for rape committed by a relative within the third civil degree cannot be imposed where the information does not allege that relationship and the victim was already more than eighteen years of age at the time of the rape.

Appellant Jimmy Sabredo y Garbo is the uncle of complainant Judeliza E. Sabredo, being the younger brother of her father. In 1993, he arrived from Masbate and resided with the complainant's family in Cagtagong, Caguyong, Borbon, Cebu, where he stayed with them for more than a year. The prosecution was brought under Articles 48, 335, and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with the death penalty sought pursuant to R.A. No. 7659, which imposes that penalty when the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

Appellant Jimmy Sabredo y Garbo is the uncle of complainant Judeliza E. Sabredo, being the younger brother of her father. In 1993, Jimmy arrived from Masbate to reside with Judeliza's family in Cagtagong, Caguyong, Borbon, Cebu, where he stayed with them for more than a year. On June 27, 1994, Judeliza went to the well near their house to take a bath. There, Jimmy grabbed her and forcibly dragged her at knifepoint to the highway, where he made her board a truck for Bogo, Cebu. Impelled by fear, she complied, as Jimmy continuously poked a knife under cover of his jacket at her.

From Bogo, Jimmy took Judeliza by passenger motorboat to Placer, Masbate, and thence to Estampar, Cataingan, Masbate, where they stayed at the house of Conchita Tipnit, Jimmy's sister and Judeliza's aunt, although aunt and niece did not know each other. In Estampar, Judeliza tried to escape but was caught by Jimmy, who severely mauled her until she lost consciousness. Suspecting that Conchita would report the matter to the police, Jimmy took Judeliza by jeepney to Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate, where they stayed with Roberto Sabredo, his nephew and Judeliza's first cousin. The two cousins, however, had not met before, and Jimmy was able to pass Judeliza off as his wife. They stayed in Cagba from June 29 to July 5, 1994, with Jimmy closely guarding Judeliza.

On July 4, 1994, at around midnight, Jimmy, armed with a blade, sexually assaulted Judeliza. He covered her mouth to prevent her from shouting. After satisfying his lust, he inserted three fingers into her vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. Judeliza screamed and cried for help; their host, Roberto, was awakened but could not do anything to assist her. Jimmy later struck Judeliza with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious, and much later brought her to the house of his sister, Nilda Polloso, also at Cagba. Nilda noticed the victim's weak and wan condition and offered her medicine. Catching Jimmy in the act of boiling water, she asked what it was for and was told that it would be poured over Judeliza to finish her off; Nilda, however, stopped him. On July 8, 1994, Judeliza having recovered sufficiently from her injuries, Nilda brought her to the police, where she reported her ordeal. That same day, while Jimmy was sleeping, Nilda managed to take away from him the stainless steel blade he had used in the rape. After the initial police investigation, Judeliza was brought to the Masbate Provincial Hospital, where she was confined for four days and examined by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Artemio Capellan.

On August 11, 1994, the Provincial Prosecutor of Masbate filed an information for forcible abduction with rape, alleging that on or about June 27, 1994 and days thereafter, Jimmy, with force and intimidation and against the consent of Judeliza, abducted her from Cebu to Masbate and, on the night of July 4, 1994, had sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. At the arraignment, Jimmy, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits ensued. Jimmy admitted having sexual relations with Judeliza but insisted that it was consensual, claiming that they were lovers who had been engaging in sexual intimacies for three months before running away and that they had gone to Masbate after Judeliza revealed to him that she was not really her father's daughter, thereafter living together as husband and wife. He admitted having boxed and kicked her, but claimed that he got mad after she confided that she really was his niece, contrary to what she had earlier told him; he likewise admitted having pinched her vagina, but only to punish her for deceiving him about their kinship. He claimed that the case was filed against him because of the maltreatment she received, and admitted that he was facing another rape case before Branch 45 of the same court, filed by a certain Juanita Turing in 1992, although he denied having fled to Cebu to escape prosecution for that case.

The trial court found appellant's version of the incident preposterous and his defense untenable, and, choosing to believe the prosecution, convicted him of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and sentenced him to death, with an order to pay Judeliza P50,000.00 as moral damages. The trial court found that the accused abducted his niece by force, mauled and maltreated her repeatedly, instilling fear in her, dragged her to different places and any house he pleased, and ravished her on the night of July 4, 1994. It found Judeliza's testimony straightforward, clear, and convincing, and consistent even under cross-examination, while appellant's version of events was incredible and outrageous; the medico-legal officer testified that her body bore evidence of physical and sexual assault.

• Credibility of the Complainant: Appellant argued that Judeliza was neither a reliable nor a credible witness because both the information and her affidavit showed that the rape took place in Nilda's residence, while on direct examination she testified that she was raped at Roberto's house; these inconsistencies, he claimed, cast doubt on her credibility.
• Sweetheart Defense: Appellant maintained that the intercourse between him and Judeliza was consensual, insisting that they were lovers who had been engaging in sexual intimacies for three months before running away together and who thereafter lived in Masbate as husband and wife.
• Admitted Acts Explained Away: Appellant admitted having boxed and kicked the victim and having pinched her vagina, but claimed that he did so only because he got mad upon learning that she really was his niece, contrary to what she had earlier told him, and that the case was filed against him because of the maltreatment she received.
• Evaluation of the Evidence: Appellant assigned as error the trial court's evaluation of the honesty of the private complainant, alleging that the trial court in effect gave full weight and credence to the prosecution's evidence over that of the defense, and that it gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

• Credibility of the Offended Party: Whether the discrepancies between the information and the affidavit of the complainant, on the one hand, and her testimony in open court, on the other, as to the house where the rape occurred, impair her credibility.
• Sweetheart Defense: Whether appellant's claim that the sexual intercourse was consensual because he and the complainant were sweethearts suffices to negate the charge of rape.
• Nature of the Crime: Whether appellant was correctly convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Penalty: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed on appellant.

• Credibility of the Offended Party: No. Discrepancies between an affidavit and the witness's testimony in open court do not necessarily impair credibility, affidavits being generally taken ex parte and often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer; both the affidavit and the testimony consistently established the rape with use of a deadly weapon on July 4, 1994.
• Sweetheart Defense: No. A sweetheart defense must be substantiated by documentary or other evidence of the relationship, and no mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature was shown; the trial court's assessment of the complainant's credibility, moreover, is entitled to great weight.
• Nature of the Crime: No. The information failed to allege lewd designs, an essential element of forcible abduction, so the complex crime under Article 48 could not be sustained; the rape absorbed the forcible abduction, leaving simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Penalty: No. No aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code was alleged and proved, and the special circumstance under Section 11(1) of R.A. No. 7659 was inapplicable because the complainant was already more than eighteen years old and the information did not allege the relationship within the third civil degree; the penalty is reclusion perpetua.

• Credibility of the Offended Party: The Court applied the settled rule that discrepancies between a witness's affidavit and her testimony in open court do not necessarily impair the credibility of the testimony, since affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often incomplete or even inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. Both the affidavit and the testimony of the complainant in open court were consistent as to the fact that Jimmy raped her while threatening her with a deadly weapon on July 4, 1994, and both established the basic elements of rape: the commission of sexual intercourse by the accused against the complainant, with the use of force and intimidation, without her consent and against her will. Whether the house where the rape occurred belonged to Nilda or to Roberto, both of whom the parties had stayed with, was not crucial, because both houses are in Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of the complainant's testimony was entitled to great weight absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case, and the Court found no reason to overturn the trial court's detailed evaluation of the evidence for both the prosecution and the defense. Judeliza's testimony was given in a straightforward, clear, and convincing manner and remained consistent even under cross-examination; the trial court found her testimony believable and convincing while appellant's version was incredible and outrageous. As testified by the medico-legal officer, her body bore evidence of physical and sexual assault, and appellant's bare denial could not prevail over that positive evidence.
• Sweetheart Defense: A sweetheart defense should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship. In this case, there was no showing of mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature. Besides, as observed by the trial judge, it is contrary to human experience that a naive rural lass like Judeliza, barely nineteen years old, would willingly consent to be her uncle's paramour; nor would he, if he were indeed her sweetheart, maltreat her repeatedly for no justifiable cause without over-straining the Court's credulity.
• Nature of the Crime: The elements of forcible abduction are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that the abduction is against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. The prosecution's evidence clearly showed that the victim was forcibly taken at knifepoint from Borbon, Cebu, by appellant and, through threats and intimidation, brought to various towns in Masbate where he passed her off as his wife, and that he was moved by lewd designs as shown by his having carnal knowledge of the private complainant against her will on July 4, 1994, at Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate. While it may appear at first blush that forcible abduction, as defined and penalized by Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, was also committed, the Court was not totally disposed to convict appellant for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The information sufficiently alleged the forcible taking of the complainant from Cebu to Masbate, but it failed to allege lewd designs. When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. When appellant, using a blade, forcibly took away the complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed by appellant is simple rape only.
• Penalty: The imposable penalty for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua, but where the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the imposable penalty ranges from reclusion perpetua to death; the use of the bladed weapon already qualified the rape. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the crucial factor in determining whether appellant should be meted the death penalty is the presence of an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime. A perusal of the record showed that none of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code was alleged and proven by the prosecution, and where there is no aggravating circumstance proved in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied. In sentencing appellant to death, the trial court noted that the victim was his niece, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, and Section 11(1) of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. R.A. No. 7659 could not be made to apply for two reasons: first, at the time the rape was committed, the private complainant was already more than eighteen years of age; and second, the information did not allege that the offender and the offended party were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. The seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 which warrant the automatic imposition of the death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and, as such, should be alleged in the information to be appreciated as such; in view of the information's failure to comply with this requirement, the degree of relation could not be taken into account in considering the penalty to be imposed. For these reasons, the sentence on appellant should only be reclusion perpetua. The trial court did not award any indemnity ex delicto, which current jurisprudence has fixed at P50,000.00, and so appellant was further sentenced to indemnify the private complainant in that amount; as to moral damages, the trial court's award of P50,000.00 in her favor was duly supported by evidence on record and was in order.

• Complex Crime — Allegation and Proof of All Elements — When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. The elements of forcible abduction are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that the abduction is against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. The failure of the information to allege lewd designs precluded conviction for the complex crime even though the evidence showed the forcible taking of the complainant.
• Absorption of Forcible Abduction by Rape — Where the accused, using a blade, forcibly took away the complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her and in fact raped her, the rape absorbs the forcible abduction, and the crime committed is simple rape only. The Court applied this absorption rule after finding the complex crime could not be sustained for want of the allegation of lewd designs.
• Sweetheart Defense — A sweetheart defense should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship, such as mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature. A bare claim of a romantic relationship cannot prevail over positive evidence of physical and sexual assault, and it is contrary to human experience for a naive rural lass barely nineteen years old to willingly consent to be her uncle's paramour.
• Credibility; Discrepancies Between Affidavit and Testimony — Discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in open court do not necessarily impair the credibility of the testimony, for affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often incomplete or even inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of the complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.
• Qualifying Circumstances Must Be Alleged in the Information — The seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 which warrant the automatic imposition of the death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and, as such, should be alleged in the information to be appreciated as such. Failure to allege the relationship within the third civil degree of consanguinity barred its consideration in fixing the penalty.
• Penalty in the Absence of an Aggravating Circumstance — Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the crucial factor in determining whether the death penalty should be meted is the presence of an aggravating circumstance attending the commission of the crime; where no aggravating circumstance is alleged and proved, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

• "When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape." — This is the ratio decidendi for the reduction of the conviction: it states the pleading and proof requirement that the information failed to satisfy because lewd designs were not alleged.
• "When appellant, using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction." — This states the absorption doctrine applied by the Court, under which the crime committed was simple rape only rather than the complex crime charged.
• "A 'sweetheart defense' should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship." — This is the canonical formulation of the evidentiary standard for the sweetheart defense, which the Court found unsubstantiated in the absence of mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature.
• "We have held that the seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 which warrant the automatic imposition of the death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and as such should be alleged in the information to be appreciated as such." — This passage supplies the ground for rejecting the death penalty based on the victim's relationship to appellant, since the information did not allege that they were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.

• People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 129213, December 2, 1999 — Cited, together with the case it in turn cites, for the rule that discrepancies between a witness's affidavit and her testimony in open court do not necessarily impair the credibility of the testimony because affidavits are generally taken ex parte.
• Sumalpong vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764 (1997) — Cited in People vs. Perez as authority for the same rule on affidavit-testimony discrepancies.
• People vs. Buendia, G.R. Nos. 133949-51, September 16, 1999 — Cited for the rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case.
• People vs. Garces, Jr., G.R. No. 132368, January 20, 2000 — Cited for the requirement that a sweetheart defense be substantiated by documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship.
• People vs. Angeles, 222 SCRA 451, 458 (1993) — Cited for the rule that when a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, the prosecution must allege and prove all the elements of forcible abduction as well as all the elements of rape.
• People vs. Mejorada, 224 SCRA 837, 852 (1993) — Cited for the rule that where the accused forcibly took away the complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her and in fact raped her, the rape absorbs the forcible abduction.
• People vs. de Leon, G.R. No. 128436, December 10, 1999 — Cited for the rule that the use of a bladed weapon qualifies the rape, thereby raising the imposable penalty to the range of reclusion perpetua to death.
• People vs. Bacule, G.R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000 — Cited for the rule that under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the crucial factor in determining whether the death penalty should be imposed is the presence of an aggravating circumstance.
• People vs. Villar, G.R. No. 127572, January 19, 2000 — Cited, together with the case it in turn cites, for the rule that the seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 warranting the automatic imposition of the death penalty are in the nature of qualifying circumstances that must be alleged in the information.
• People vs. Dela Cuesta, G.R. No. 126134, March 2, 1999 — Cited in People vs. Villar as authority for the same rule on the pleading of the R.A. No. 7659 circumstances.

• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes complex crimes. Applied to hold that where forcible abduction with rape is charged, all the elements of both forcible abduction and rape must be alleged and proved; because lewd designs were not alleged, the complex crime could not be sustained.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — Defines rape and fixes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, or reclusion perpetua to death where the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. Appellant was convicted of simple rape under this article and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the use of the bladed weapon having qualified the rape.
• Article 342, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes forcible abduction, whose elements are that the person abducted is any woman regardless of age, civil status, or reputation; that the abduction is against her will; and that it is with lewd designs. The failure to allege lewd designs barred its use as the basis of a complex crime.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Governs the application of indivisible penalties. Applied to hold that the presence of an aggravating circumstance is the crucial factor for the imposition of death, and that where no aggravating circumstance is proved, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
• Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Enumerates the aggravating circumstances. The record showed that none of the circumstances enumerated therein was alleged and proven by the prosecution, which foreclosed the death penalty.
• Section 11(1), R.A. No. 7659 — Imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Held inapplicable because the complainant was already more than eighteen years old when the rape was committed and the information did not allege the relationship within the third degree of consanguinity.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Kapunan, J., took no part, having not participated in the deliberations. Purisima, J., was on leave.