People vs. Gabisay

There can be only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; the abduction is necessary only for the first rape, and any subsequent rape is a separate offense. Where two accused abduct a woman and each successively rapes her, the first rape forms the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, while the second rape is a separate rape.

At around 9:30 p.m. on May 3, 2007, AAA256301 was at a waiting shed in █████████████████████ with her boyfriend when two individuals on board a motorcycle stopped in front of them. The passenger, later identified as Doninia, alighted and poked a gun at AAA256301 and her boyfriend. The driver, later identified as Gabisay, sat between them and declared a hold-up. Doninia asked for their bags and money, but AAA256301 refused. Doninia then pulled AAA256301's left arm and forced her to board the motorcycle with Gabisay, leaving her boyfriend behind.

While on board, Doninia, Gabisay, and AAA256301 proceeded to a vacant lot far from other houses, with tall grasses, in an undeveloped subdivision at Kamandalaan Street, Barangay Muzon, San Jose del Monte. Upon reaching the place, Doninia alighted, blindfolded AAA256301, and led her about five meters away from the parked motorcycle. Doninia told her that they were working upon the instruction of the mayor and that they were police officers from Pampanga. He told her to undress, but she refused. AAA256301 was warned not to shout and was ordered to touch the end of the gun. While Doninia was attempting to kiss her, her blindfold loosened, allowing her to see her assailants. Doninia then went on top of AAA256301, caressed and fondled her breasts. Out of fear, AAA256301 spread her thighs. Doninia knelt between her thighs, lowered his pants and underwear, kissed and licked her vagina, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina, making a push-and-pull movement for about five minutes.

After Doninia was done, he called Gabisay and said, "Sarge, ikaw naman." Gabisay lowered his pants and underwear and placed himself between AAA256301's thighs. He grabbed her hand and told her to make his penis hard; out of fear, she complied. Gabisay then inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push-and-pull movement for about three minutes. After the molestation, Doninia helped AAA256301 stand up and get dressed and asked for her cellphone number. He told her that he wanted her to be his girlfriend; when she refused, Doninia threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about what happened. They all boarded the motorcycle, and AAA256301 was dropped off at the corner of a street and instructed to board a jeepney headed for ███████. As she was the only passenger in the jeepney, the driver asked her to transfer to a tricycle. She reached her home at around 11:00 p.m. and told her parents about her ordeal but instructed them to keep it to themselves because she was embarrassed.

BBB256301, AAA256301's cousin, accused Gabisay of committing acts of lasciviousness in an unrelated incident. Thus, on June 1, 2007, BBB256301 told AAA256301 to go to the barangay hall to see the person BBB256301 was complaining of for acts of lasciviousness and determine whether he was also one of AAA256301's assailants. Upon reaching the barangay hall with her mother, AAA256301 peeped through a glass window and confirmed that Gabisay was one of the two individuals who abducted and raped her. A Complaint was instituted against Gabisay. During the investigation, Gabisay mentioned Doninia's name. The police searched for information on Doninia through COMELEC records and found his photograph and residence. After AAA256301 confirmed his identity through a photograph, a Complaint was instituted against Doninia. On June 1, 2007, Dr. Jesille C. Baluyot examined AAA256301; Medico-legal report no. R07-1075 indicated "presence of deep healed lacerations at 4, 6[,] and 8 o'clock positions" and concluded that the findings were diagnostic of previous blunt force or penetrating trauma, with no external physical signs of complication of any penetrating trauma.

Gabisay and Doninia denied the accusations. Gabisay maintained that he was at work in a slaughterhouse in ██████████████ at the time of the alleged forcible abduction with rape. Doninia insisted that he was at home with his pregnant wife at the time of the incident and added that he was implicated only because Gabisay was forced to mention his name after being mauled by police officers. The RTC gave credence to AAA256301's testimony, where she positively and categorically identified Gabisay and Doninia as the perpetrators, and ruled that they could not claim physical impossibility because the place of the incident could be reached immediately by motorcycle from where they allegedly were. The CA, in turn, considered AAA256301's positive identification and the specific details of her ordeal, held that there is no standard form of behavior expected from a rape victim, that her failure to immediately report the sexual abuse did not negate rape, and that the medical examination findings were consistent with her testimony that she was raped.

• Flawed Identification: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC gravely erred in disregarding AAA256301's flawed identification of the culprits.
• Inconsistent and Incredulous Testimony: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC gravely erred in convicting them despite AAA256301's inconsistent and incredulous testimony.
• Physical Evidence: Accused-appellants argued that the RTC gravely erred in disregarding the physical evidence proving their innocence.
• Alibi and Frame-up: Gabisay maintained that he was at work in a slaughterhouse at the time of the alleged forcible abduction with rape; Doninia insisted that he was at home with his pregnant wife at the time of the incident and that he was implicated only because Gabisay was forced to mention his name after being mauled by police officers. They also claimed frame-up and physical impossibility.

• Guilt for Forcible Abduction with Rape: Whether Gabisay and Doninia were proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of forcible abduction with rape.
• Duplicity and Separate Rape: Whether the Information charged more than one offense and whether the second act of rape should be treated as a separate offense from the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages imposed should be modified in light of the conviction for one complex crime and one separate rape.

• Guilt for Forcible Abduction with Rape: Yes. All elements were proven: AAA256301 was taken against her will and with lewd designs, and carnal knowledge was accomplished through force and intimidation; her positive identification and detailed testimony were credible.
• Duplicity and Separate Rape: Yes. The Information charged more than one offense, but the accused did not object before trial; the abduction supported only the first rape, while the second rape was a separate offense.
• Penalty and Damages: For each offense, reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; damages of PHP 100,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with 6% interest from finality.

• Guilt for Forcible Abduction with Rape: Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code requires (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) lewd designs. Forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman by using force or intimidation, when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or demented. The SC found all elements proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA256301 narrated in detail her traumatic experience; while the accused initially approached her and her boyfriend to rob them, their real criminal intent and lewd designs became apparent when they coerced her to ride the motorcycle and brought her to a secluded place where each succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Her straightforward, consistent, and reliable testimony belied the claims of frame-up and physical impossibility; as the CA determined, the place could be reached immediately by motorcycle from where the accused allegedly were. AAA256301 positively identified Gabisay and Doninia. Under the totality of circumstances test in People vs. Teehankee, Jr., the SC considered the witness's opportunity to view the criminal, degree of attention, accuracy of prior description, level of certainty, length of time between crime and identification, and suggestiveness of the procedure. AAA256301 had a good opportunity to view her assailants because she was only temporarily blindfolded and the place was illuminated by moonlight; she had a high degree of attention because there were no other people at the crime scene; and even if about a month passed before she reported and identified them, she had clearly seen their faces at the waiting shed, the blindfold was removed while she was being raped, and the accused interacted with her afterward, with Doninia even asking her to be his girlfriend. The arguments of Gabisay and Doninia therefore failed to rebut the prosecution's evidence.

• Duplicity and Separate Rape: The rule is that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses. An objection to duplicity must be timely interposed before trial through a motion to quash; failure to do so constitutes a waiver. Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved and impose the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense. People vs. XXX explained that the prohibition protects the accused's right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; the remedy is a motion to quash under Section 3(f), Rule 117, or a motion for bill of particulars, and failure to avail of these remedies while actively participating in trial estops the accused from challenging the defective information. The SC found that the Information charged more than one offense: forcible abduction with rape and another count of rape. The CA erred in convicting Gabisay and Doninia of only one complex crime. The forcible abduction was necessary only for the first rape, committed by Doninia; the second act of rape, committed by Gabisay, should be treated independently of the forcible abduction with rape charge, although still in conspiracy with Doninia. People vs. Fortich held that once the first rape was committed, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was consummated, and any subsequent acts of intercourse would be only separate acts of rape. People vs. Garcia similarly held that there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and that subsequent rapes are separate. Since both acts were alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt, the SC rectified the penalties.

• Penalty and Damages: The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime, imposed in its maximum period. Rape is the more serious crime, and when committed by two or more persons it is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Because Republic Act No. 9346 proscribes the death penalty, the SC imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under Act No. 4180, with the phrase "without eligibility for parole" included in accordance with Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC. For the special complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, Gabisay and Doninia were each meted reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. For the additional act of rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A in relation to Article 266-B, they were each meted the same penalty. Following People vs. Jugueta, the SC modified the monetary award: for each of the two offenses, each accused was ordered to pay AAA256301 PHP 100,000.00 as civil indemnity, PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages, and PHP 100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Following Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, all damages were to earn interest at 6% per annum from finality of the Decision until fully paid.

• Forcible abduction with rape — Article 342 requires (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) lewd designs; the complex crime is committed when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman by using force or intimidation, when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or demented. The SC applied it because AAA256301 was taken against her will with lewd designs and raped through force and intimidation.
• Totality of circumstances test — In assessing out-of-court identification, courts consider (1) the witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness's degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. The SC applied the test and found AAA256301's identification reliable.
• One complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; subsequent rapes separate — There can be only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; the abduction is necessary only for the first rape, and any subsequent rape is a separate offense. The SC applied it by treating Doninia's first rape as the complex crime and Gabisay's second rape as a separate rape.
• Duplicity and waiver — A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses; the accused must object before trial through a motion to quash, and failure to do so waives the objection. Under Section 3, Rule 120, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved. The SC applied it because the Information charged both the complex crime and another rape, and the accused did not object before trial.
• Appeal opens the entire case — An appeal confers on the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. The SC applied it to correct the CA's failure to convict for the separate rape.
• Penalty for complex crimes — The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime, imposed in its maximum period. The SC applied it by using the rape penalty, which is reclusion perpetua to death when committed by two or more persons, and imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole because the death penalty is prohibited.

• "The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal." — Defines forcible abduction under Article 342, which the SC applied to the taking of AAA256301.
• "(1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure." — Sets out the totality of circumstances test used to assess AAA256301's out-of-court identification.
• "The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape, the one committed by Doninia. The second act of rape should be treated independently of the forcible abduction with rape charge." — States the SC's core ruling that the second rape is a separate offense.
• "The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed in its maximum period." — States the rule the SC applied in imposing the rape penalty for the complex crime.

• People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128 (1995) — Controlling precedent for the totality of circumstances test; applied to AAA256301's out-of-court identification.
• People vs. XXX, G.R. No. 240750, June 21, 2021 — Explained the waiver of the objection to a duplicitous Information; relied on by the SC.
• People vs. Fortich, 346 Phil. 596 (1997) — Held that there can be only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; relied on by the SC.
• People vs. Garcia, 428 Phil. 312 (2002) — Held that subsequent rapes are separate from the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; relied on by the SC.
• People vs. Domingo, 810 Phil. 1040 (2017) — Cited for the elements of forcible abduction with rape; applied by the SC.
• People vs. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806 (2016) — Followed in modifying the monetary damages awarded.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Followed in imposing 6% interest per annum on all damages from finality.
• People vs. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187 (2016) — Relied on for the rule that an appeal opens the entire case for review.

• Article 342, Revised Penal Code — Defines forcible abduction as the abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs, punishable by reclusion temporal; the SC applied it to the taking of AAA256301.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime, imposed in its maximum period; the SC applied it to the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
• Article 266-A, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Defines rape; the SC applied it to the separate rape committed by Gabisay.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Provides that rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, and when committed with a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, by reclusion perpetua to death; the SC applied it to both offenses.
• Republic Act No. 9346 — The Anti-Death Penalty Law; it proscribes the death penalty, so the SC imposed reclusion perpetua in lieu of death.
• Act No. 4180 — The Indeterminate Sentence Law, cited by the SC in imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
• Administrative Matter No. 15-08-02-SC — Guidelines for the proper use of the phrase "without eligibility for parole" in indivisible penalties; the SC included the phrase in the convictions.
• Section 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved and impose the penalty for each; the SC applied it to convict for both the complex crime and the separate rape.
• Section 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires a complaint or information to charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses; the SC cited it in addressing the duplicitous Information.