People vs. Caraang

Deceit constitutes constructive force in forcible abduction, only the first rape per victim is complexed with the abduction while subsequent rapes are punished separately, and civil indemnity of P75,000 applies where rape by two or more persons would have warranted death had it been committed after Republic Act No. 7659. The taking against will with lewd design was complete upon the initial rape, conspiracy made each participant liable for all rapes, and the pre-Death Penalty Law commission limited the penal sanction to reclusion perpetua without reducing civil liability.

Vanelyn Flores and Lorna Salazar were residents of Sitio Abibeg, Gen. Luna, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija, while Danilo Caraang was their longtime neighbor in the same barangay and, with his companions, connected to the local Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit detachment. Republic Act No. 7659, the Death Penalty Law which took effect on December 31, 1993, postdated the November 10, 1990 incident and thus framed the dispute over whether death or reclusion perpetua applied and what civil indemnity corresponded to rape committed by two or more persons.

About 11 o'clock on the night of November 10, 1990, Vanelyn Flores, Lorna Salazar, Angeline Flores, Jona Ampil, Gina Canzon, Froilan Galamay, Jimmy Pascual and Tirso Ganzon were walking home to Sitio Abibeg, Gen. Luna, Carranglan, Nueva Ecija after attending a bangsal-bangsal or pre-nuptial dance at Barangay Dipaan. At the boundary of Abibeg and Dipaan, two armed men wearing bonnets ordered the group to follow them, telling them their leader wanted to talk to them and no harm would be done. The group was forced through rice paddies to an uninhabited grassy place near a creek or parang about 500 meters away, where the women were ordered to sit and the three men were ordered to lie face down.

Appellant Danilo Caraang first took Vanelyn Flores about 50 meters to a nearby creek where another man waited. According to the prosecution, he poked a small stainless handgun at her temple, ordered her to remove her pants, forced her down while his companion held her hands above her head, removed her pants and underwear, removed his own pants, mounted her and had sexual intercourse with her for more than 15 minutes despite her crying and pain. The place was brightly lit by a big moon, and Flores testified Caraang had removed his bonnet, exposing a face she knew from longstanding neighborhood familiarity as well as his manner of speaking, standing and moving. After returning her to the group for about an hour, Caraang again brought her to the same creek, held her at gunpoint while his companion removed her clothing, and the companion then raped her.

Caraang thereafter took Lorna Salazar, blindfolded her, and handed her to a man wearing a bonnet who ordered her to remove her pants. When she fought back, the man kicked her hard in the abdomen, causing her to lose consciousness; upon regaining consciousness she was naked, weak and dizzy, felt pain in her private part, and was ordered to dress and returned to the group. Two other armed companions later took Salazar aside and began removing her clothes, but relented when she cried and pleaded for mercy, one instead asking for a kiss mark and removing his bonnet, at which she identified him as Manny Belagot. Around 4 o'clock in the morning the group was released where abducted, with the threat pag nagsumbong kayo, papatayin naming kayo lahat.

Vanelyn and Angeline Flores with Salazar arrived home crying and narrated the incident to Vanelyn's parents. Vanelyn was brought to San Jose City and examined by Dr. Rolando Valencia, who found reddish vulva, slight abrasion of the vaginal fourchette, hymenal lacerations with sharp edges at 3 and 7 o'clock, vagina admitting two fingers with difficulty and pain, and presence of sperm cells. On November 16, 1990, Salazar was examined by Dr. Restituto Duran, who found hymenal lacerations at 12, 6 and 7 o'clock, vaginal canal admitting one finger with resistance and two fingers with much resistance, soft and tender cervix, and opined the fresh lacerations suggested forceful entrance by a hard object such as a penis. Flores's father brought the group to the CAFGU detachment commander in Gen. Luna, where members were assembled and Vanelyn identified Caraang, leading to arrest and endorsement to Carranglan authorities and the 182nd PC where affidavits were executed. For his part, Caraang denied the accusations, claiming he was not at the scene and was sick at the time, testifying he stayed the night of November 11 until the next morning inside the house of Barangay Chair Reynalda Baltazar, supported by the chair and his sister Conchita Baltazar. The trial court credited the victims and corroborating witnesses, found one abduction complexed with rape plus separate rapes and acts of lasciviousness, and rejected alibi and denial.

• Positive Identification: Petitioner argued that Flores could not have positively identified him because the incident occurred at nighttime, and that she did not directly testify to seeing him but merely identified him by the way he spoke, stood and moved.
• Affidavit-Testimony Inconsistency: Petitioner maintained that alleged inconsistencies between Flores's court testimony and her sworn affidavit before the police created reasonable doubt and undermined her credibility.
• Delay and Conduct After Incident: Petitioner argued that Flores and her group going first to the CAFGU detachment instead of immediately filing a complaint with the police showed uncertainty about the culprits' identities.
• Lack of Physical Evidence: Petitioner argued that failure to present any bloodied panty, pants or dress, or other physical evidence to corroborate rape was fatal, invoking People vs. Godoy on deliberate non-presentation of a bloodstained skirt.
• Insufficiency and Moral Certainty: Petitioner maintained that the evidence did not fulfill the test of moral certainty and was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, citing other facts and circumstances of weight in his favor.
• Conspiracy: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in finding conspiracy because the prosecution failed to prove prior agreement among the accused to commit the crimes charged.

• Positive Identification and Credibility: Whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through positive identification despite nighttime, alleged affidavit inconsistencies, resort to the CAFGU detachment, and non-presentation of bloodied clothing.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused to abduct with lewd design and rape was established without proof of prior express agreement.
• Complex Crime, Number of Counts and Penalty: Whether appellant may be convicted of two counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape plus a separate rape without violating double jeopardy, and what penalty applies to crimes committed in 1990 before Republic Act No. 7659.
• Acts of Lasciviousness: Whether the charge of acts of lasciviousness against Salazar was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Positive Identification and Credibility: Yes. Identification under bright moonlight by familiar victims with consistent, categorical testimony was accepted, with minor affidavit variances, resort to the CAFGU, and absence of clothing immaterial given medical corroboration.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was inferred from concerted, methodical abduction, presence of waiting companions, successive rapes, and appellant's indispensable gunpoint assistance, making the act of one the act of all.
• Complex Crime, Number of Counts and Penalty: Two complex crimes, one per victim, plus one separate rape, each punished with reclusion perpetua, with no double jeopardy because each Information charged abduction with rape and appeal opened the whole case to review.
• Acts of Lasciviousness: No. Acquittal was required, the lone bare statement about a requested kiss lacking surrounding circumstances and any other proof.

• Positive Identification and Credibility: Favorable visibility sustains identification, and moonlight or starlight may suffice when witnesses are unbiased and proximate. Flores testified the moon was big and bright, the bonnet was removed, the face was exposed, and she had long known Caraang as a neighbor, corroborated by Jimmy Pascual and Salazar's in-court pointing. No ill motive to falsely implicate was shown, deference was due the trial court's firsthand assessment of demeanor, and positive identification prevailed over denial and alibi, which additionally failed because Caraang placed himself in the same locality and did not show physical impossibility, while his witnesses were inconsistent and inattentive. Ex parte affidavits being incomplete and subordinate to open-court narration, minor omissions did not impair coherent testimony on the principal occurrence. Going to the CAFGU detachment was a logical step to secure arrest of CAFGU-linked culprits, promptly followed by identification and police referral, and rape required only proof of carnal knowledge under force, threat or intimidation, unconsciousness or other statutory circumstances, amply corroborated by fresh hymenal lacerations, pain, sperm cells and forceful-entry findings, distinguishing People vs. Godoy where testimony was inherently weak and medical evidence negated rape.
• Conspiracy: Agreement to commit a felony pursued actually may be proved by concerted acts before, during and after commission showing common purpose, concurrence of sentiment and coordination, without each conspirator committing every element. The deliberate trickery to bring the group to a secluded parang, ordering women to sit and men to lie prone, presence of a waiting companion, taking women one at a time to the creek, Caraang's personal rape of Flores, his gunpoint holding of her while another raped her, and his taking and handing over of Salazar for rape demonstrated moral and material cooperation. Liability thus became collective as co-principals regardless of degree of participation.
• Complex Crime, Number of Counts and Penalty: Forcible abduction under Article 342 requires taking a woman against will with lewd designs, with deceit constituting constructive force where consent was vitiated, and lewd design established by actual rapes. Where abduction is a necessary means for rape, Article 48 imposes the penalty for the more serious crime in its maximum period; rape by two or more persons then carried reclusion perpetua to death, warranting death as alleged and proven, but commission on November 10, 1990 before Republic Act No. 7659's December 31, 1993 effectivity limited punishment to reclusion perpetua. Only the first rape per victim is complexed because abduction was necessary solely for that rape; later rapes of the same victim are detached and punished as separate rape. Correcting the trial court's single complex count to two, one for Flores in Criminal Case No. C-14(91) and one for Salazar in C-15(91), plus the second rape of Flores in C-16(91), involved no double jeopardy since each Information charged abduction with rape and an appeal waives that safeguard and confers full jurisdiction to revise judgment and penalty according to law and justice.
• Acts of Lasciviousness: Salazar's rape while unconscious was provable by circumstantial evidence where more than one circumstance formed an unbroken chain excluding other conclusions, namely Caraang taking and returning her, handover to another man, resistance and kick-induced unconsciousness, awakening naked with genital pain, and fresh forceful-entry injuries. The lasciviousness allegation, however, rested solely on her passing statement that on a second taking a man removed his mask and asked for a kiss, without testimony on surrounding acts, contact, or context, leaving utter lack of evidence and mandating reversal in Criminal Case No. C-17(91).

• Identification under adequate illumination — When conditions of visibility are favorable and witnesses appear unbiased, assertion as to identity is normally accepted; illumination from kerosene lamp, flashlight, moonlight or starlight may suffice. Applied here, big bright moonlight, proximity, unobstructed view, and prior familiarity rendered Flores's and Salazar's identifications credible despite nighttime and bonnets.
• Credibility deference; positive identification over denial and alibi — Assessment of witness credibility belongs best to the trial court with firsthand view of demeanor, and straightforward positive testimony without motive to fabricate suffices to convict and prevails over denial and alibi unless substantiated by clear proof. Applied here, the victims' unwavering testimony defeated Caraang's denial and weak alibi.
• Alibi as weakest defense — Alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove; to prosper, the accused must prove not only presence elsewhere but physical impossibility of being at the scene. Applied here, Caraang's presence in the same locality and inconsistent defense witnesses negated physical impossibility.
• Affidavit vs. open-court testimony — Ex parte affidavits, often prepared by officers and signed after reading, are incomplete and subordinate to testimony given in open court with full opportunity to narrate; minor inconsistencies on non-material points do not destroy credibility and may even negate rehearsal. Applied here, variances between Flores's police affidavit and testimony did not downgrade her categorical identification and account of rape.
• Conspiracy inferred from concerted acts — Conspiracy arises upon express or implied agreement to commit a felony and is proved by concerted acts before, during and after commission showing common design; the act of one becomes the act of all, creating collective liability as co-principals. Applied here, methodical abduction, waiting cohorts, successive rapes, and gunpoint assistance established conspiracy in People vs. Caraang.
• Forcible abduction with rape — Article 342 requires (1) taking a woman against her will and (2) with lewd designs; deceit vitiating consent is constructive force, and actual rape proves lewd design, with carnal knowledge under force, threat, intimidation, unconsciousness or other statutory circumstances completing the complex crime. Applied here, tricking the group to the parang and raping Flores and Salazar satisfied both elements.
• Complex crimes under Article 48 — When an offense is a necessary means for another, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in its maximum period; forcible abduction is necessary only for the first rape, so only one complex crime lies per victim and subsequent rapes are separate rapes. Applied here, two complex crimes plus one separate rape resulted, each punished with reclusion perpetua because Republic Act No. 7659 was not yet effective.
• Appeal and double jeopardy — An accused appealing a conviction waives double jeopardy protection and throws the whole case open to appellate review, empowering the court to correct the crime, increase penalty, and cite the proper law whether or not assigned as error. Applied here, correction from one to two complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape was permitted.
• Civil liability for death-warranting rape committed before the Death Penalty Law — Civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000 is proper where rape by two or more persons was alleged and proven under circumstances that would justify death had Republic Act No. 7659 applied, the Civil Code having governed since 1950; moral damages follow from rape per se, and exemplary damages under Article 2230 follow from a proven qualifying or aggravating circumstance. Applied here, P75,000 indemnity, P50,000 moral and P25,000 exemplary damages were awarded per complex count, and P50,000 indemnity, P50,000 moral and P25,000 exemplary for the separate rape.

• "Even if appellant is guilty of two counts of forcible abduction with rape, he cannot be sentenced to death because the crimes happened in 1990, prior to the effectivity of the Death Penalty Law." — States the controlling penalty limitation and frames why reclusion perpetua rather than death was imposed despite rape by two or more persons.
• "Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, because it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove." — Supplies the canonical formulation rejecting Caraang's defense absent proof of physical impossibility and in the face of positive identification.
• "Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy; which may be inferred from the acts of the assailants before, during and after the commission of the crime." — Defines the evidentiary basis for collective liability from concerted abduction and successive rapes.
• "The employment of deception suffices to constitute forcible abduction." — Articulates the rule that deceit vitiating consent is constructive force supporting the abduction element.

• People vs. Godoy, 321 Phil. 279 (1995) — Distinguished; there non-presentation of the bloodstained skirt militated against the prosecution because testimony was inherently weak and medical evidence negated rape, unlike the credible testimonies and corroborative medical findings here.
• People vs. Garcia, 378 SCRA 266 (2002) — Followed as controlling on forcible abduction elements, lewd design proved by actual rape, and only the first rape being complexed with abduction while later rapes are separate.
• People vs. Ramirez, 357 SCRA 222 (2001); People vs. Mansueto, 336 SCRA 715 (2000); People vs. Licayan, 378 SCRA 281 (2002) — Followed on visibility as vital to identification and sufficiency of moonlight and similar illumination.
• People vs. Las Piñas Jr., 377 SCRA 377 (2002); People vs. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123 (1999) — Followed for the rule that appeal waives double jeopardy and opens the whole case to review, revision of judgment and increased penalty.
• People vs. Catubig, 416 Phil. 102 (2001); People vs. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 146464-67 (2002) — Followed on exemplary damages under Article 2230 where an aggravating or qualifying circumstance attended the crime.

• Article 342, Revised Penal Code — Defines forcible abduction by taking a woman against will with lewd designs; applied to find abduction through deceit constituting constructive force, with lewd design shown by subsequent rapes.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Governs complex crimes where one offense is necessary means for another, imposing the more serious penalty in maximum period; applied to complex forcible abduction with rape and to limit complexing to the first rape per victim.
• Article 335, Revised Penal Code (now Articles 266-A and 266-B) — Punishes rape, with rape by two or more persons then carrying reclusion perpetua to death and transmission of disease as aggravating/qualifying circumstance; applied to impose reclusion perpetua because the 1990 commission preceded the Death Penalty Law, and to reject need to prove disease transmission as element.
• Republic Act No. 7659, Death Penalty Law — Effective December 31, 1993, reimposed death for specified crimes including rape by two or more persons; held inapplicable penally to 1990 crimes but relevant to fixing P75,000 civil indemnity for death-warranting circumstances.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Allows exemplary damages in criminal offenses with one or more aggravating circumstances; applied to award P25,000 exemplary damages per count based on proven rape by two or more persons.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.