People vs. Rapisora

Forcible abduction is absorbed in rape where the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim, and the accused may be convicted of as many rapes as are charged and proved in a single information if he fails to object before trial.

Conde Rapisora y Estrada was a member of the Mandaluyong Fire Department, while Irene Hermo y Cajipe was a 17-year-old household helper of Susana Dy. The information invoked Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659 and RA 8353, and Article 342 in relation to Article 48, while the multiple-offense issue implicated Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.

At about 11:30 a.m. on August 5, 1997, Irene Hermo y Cajipe was walking along the corner of Pinagtipunan St. and Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, after coming from Aling Naty’s store where she bought vegetables. Conde Rapisora y Estrada approached her and said “you’re here” (nandito ka pala); when she asked who he was, he introduced himself as her Tito Andy and told her she could not remember him because she was still small when her mother left her to his care. Few minutes later, Rapisora called a taxicab and dragged and forced Irene to board; she did not resist because he poked a knife at her side. They sat at the rear passenger seat with Rapisora on her right side and his knife poked at her right side; he warned her to keep quiet and told her that his wife, her Ate Karen, would be very happy to see her because they were going to their place. Irene noticed that they alighted in Sta. Mesa near a motel; he instructed her to hold his waist so that his wife Karen would be happy, and brought her to a house with a green painted gate and a store in front. At the store, Rapisora got the key inside; Irene waited, and after he returned they went inside the house, which Irene thought was his. They entered a room that Rapisora said was his wife Karen’s; while they were about to enter, he called Karen’s name, opened the door, and suddenly pushed Irene inside. He poked a knife at her and told her not to shout or resist.

Rapisora ordered Irene to remove her clothes; when she resisted, he undressed her. He removed his own clothes and told her to lie on the bed. He ordered her to spread her legs, and she obeyed. He forced his penis into her vagina but it could not get in because she was moving (malikot), so he inserted his finger. He ordered her to masturbate him, and when his penis hardened, he rammed it into her vagina. Irene recalled that Rapisora inserted his penis into her vagina six times. He then placed his hardened penis inside her mouth, licked her vagina, sucked her breast, and placed his tongue inside her ears. She was shouting, but Rapisora placed a towel on her mouth. Thereafter, a roomboy knocked on the door and told Rapisora that it was already time. Rapisora immediately put on his clothes and left the room, leaving Irene behind. She put on her clothes, went out, and hurriedly left the place; Rapisora chased her and told her he would take her home, but she declined, ran, and took a passenger jeep.

Rapisora did not deny that he was with Irene in the morning of August 5, 1997 and that the two proceeded to and stayed awhile at the Filipinas Walk-in Motel, but he claimed that Irene had consented to it all. According to Rapisora, he first met Irene in the morning of August 1, 1997 at Market Place Shopping Mall, Mandaluyong City, in front of the Kalentong Fire Station where he was assigned; they chanced upon each other while viewing still pictures outside the moviehouse, and she introduced herself as Jocelyn, a cashier in a grocery in Shaw Boulevard, while he gave his name as Andy Villanueva. They met again on August 3, 1997 at the same mall at about 8:00 a.m., his day off, and agreed to see each other on August 5, 1997 in front of the mall. On August 5, 1997, at about 10:00 a.m., Rapisora was already waiting for Irene, who arrived past 10:00 a.m. and was looking for something in her pocket; she told him she had lost P300.00, and they walked along Kalentong to Shaw Boulevard to look for the money, with Irene holding his hand and not looking for the lost money. Later, Irene asked him to help her pay the missing money, and when he asked when she would pay, she answered later and kept quiet when asked what time.

They went back to the mall, took a snack, and watched a movie. Inside the moviehouse, Irene leaned on his chest, they kissed and embraced, and as he inserted his finger into her private parts her legs spread and she embraced him tightly, uttering “slowly only” (“dahan dahan lang daw”). She then held his penis, unzipped his pants, and asked if she could place it in her mouth; Rapisora said it could not be because of the chair (“hindi pwede kasi nakaharang and silya”), so he invited her to go somewhere else. Irene suggested a place in Sta. Mesa near where she previously worked, asked if he had money, and when he answered yes they boarded a taxi and proceeded to Filipinas Walk-in Motel. Inside the taxi, Irene reminded him of the P300.00 she would borrow; Rapisora took out his wallet and showed his money, and when he opened it she saw his ID and immediately grabbed it, learning his real name. They checked in at the motel at about 1:00 in the afternoon. As soon as they entered the room, Irene immediately took off her clothes because Rapisora told her to take a bath first; while she was removing her panty, Rapisora saw that she had her menstruation. Since the comfort room was outside the room, Irene did not take a bath. It was during this moment that Irene revealed her name and work. Rapisora refused to have sexual intercourse because of her menstruation; instead, Irene placed herself on top of him, kissed his body, held his penis, and placed it inside her mouth. After he reached his climax, he hurriedly went to the comfort room to wash himself. Thereafter, Irene put on her clothes and hurriedly left the room, leaving Rapisora behind.

From the motel, Irene immediately went to her employer and recounted the incident; she also told her aunt, who later arrived, and together they went back to the Filipinas Walk-in Motel and asked the room boys about the identity of the accused. They were informed that the man had been frequenting the place, and they reported the matter at the Mandaluyong City police station. The following day, they went to the National Bureau of Investigation for Irene’s medical examination, but no physician was available, so she was examined only the following day. Four days later, Irene was informed that a man had been arrested and detained at the Western Police District jail for a similar incident at the Filipinas Walk-in Motel; accompanied by her uncle, she went to the police station and personally identified Rapisora as the person who had abducted and raped her. Dr. Alvin A. David, who conducted the medical examination, reported “no evident sign of extragenital physical injury” but added “healing hymenal laceration present”; he explained that laceration due to sexual intercourse would, under normal circumstances, be apparent only within the first 48 hours immediately following the act, which was consistent with Irene’s testimony that she was raped two days before the examination. The trial court gave no weight to Rapisora’s narration, describing it as a “fantastic fallacy” and as having “merely showed his sexual perversity”; it found Irene “a simple and unsophisticated girl” whose testimony was “straightforward, clear and x x x good account” of how she had been “beastly attacked by the accused.”

• Credibility of Complainant: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in giving credence to Irene Hermo’s incredible and implausible testimony; she did not call for help, did not try to free herself, and offered no resistance, and the medical report showed no external physical injury.
• Nature of the Crime: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in convicting him of the crime of forcible abduction with rape.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Accused-appellant argued that the RTC erred in finding that his guilt for the crime charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Credibility and Resistance of Complainant: Whether the RTC erred in giving full credence to Irene Hermo’s testimony despite her failure to call for help or offer physical resistance and despite the medical report showing no external physical injury.
• Nature of the Crime: Whether accused-appellant should be convicted of forcible abduction with rape or of rape only because forcible abduction is absorbed in rape when the real objective is to rape the victim.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Multiple Rape and Penalty: Whether accused-appellant may be convicted of six counts of rape under a single information charging multiple rape and whether the death penalty may be imposed for each count.

• Credibility and Resistance of Complainant: No. The RTC’s credibility finding stands; failure to call for help or resist and the absence of external injury do not negate rape where threats and intimidation were employed.
• Nature of the Crime: No. Forcible abduction is absorbed in rape where the real objective was to rape; the proper conviction is rape, not the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. The prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through Irene’s testimony and corroborating conduct; the medical report is not inconsistent.
• Multiple Rape and Penalty: Yes as to six counts; No as to death penalty. Section 3, Rule 120 allows conviction for as many offenses charged and proved where no objection was made, but absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances the penalty is reclusion perpetua for each count.

• Credibility and Resistance of Complainant: The SC gave the highest degree of respect to the trial court’s assessment of Irene’s testimony because the trial court was in the best position to observe the witness, and absent strong cogent reasons its findings would not be disturbed; this was consistent with People vs. Bihison, 308 SCRA 510. Irene’s failure to call for help or escape did not amount to consent; she testified that she was afraid of the knife poked at her side, and People vs. Akhtar, 308 SCRA 725, held that a complainant’s failure to ask for help or escape during abduction should not be construed as consent where her life was on the line. Intimidation is subjective and is best viewed from the victim’s perception at the time of the crime, as in People vs. Oarga, 259 SCRA 90; behavioral psychology indicates that people confronted by unusual events react dissimilarly, as in People vs. Mostrales, 294 SCRA 701. Physical resistance need not be established when threats and intimidation are employed, as held in People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA, and the medical report’s “no evident sign of extragenital physical injury” did not negate rape because Dr. David explained that the “healing hymenal laceration present” was consistent with Irene’s testimony that she was raped two days before the examination.

• Nature of the Crime: The SC noted that the RTC convicted Rapisora of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 335 and Article 342 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. However, forcible abduction is absorbed in rape if the real objective of the accused is but to rape the victim, a fact the SC found clearly evident from the circumstances; People vs. Akhtar, 308 SCRA 725, and People vs. Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000, supported this rule. The crime committed was therefore not the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and the proper conviction was for rape.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The SC was satisfied that the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence and was right in finding Rapisora guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Irene’s conduct after the incident was consistent with her story: she immediately went to her employer and recounted the incident, told her aunt, returned to the motel to inquire about the accused, reported the matter to the Mandaluyong City police, went to the National Bureau of Investigation for medical examination, and later personally identified Rapisora at the police station. The conduct of a woman immediately after an alleged sexual assault can be crucial in establishing the truth or falsity of her charge, as held in People vs. Dela Torre, 272 SCRA 615, and the victim’s willingness to face interrogation and medical examination can be proof of the truth of her claim, as held in People vs. Ramos, 167 SCRA 476.

• Multiple Rape and Penalty: The information charged Rapisora with multiple rape, at least six times according to the trial court’s findings. Section 3, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that when two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them. Rapisora could thus be held responsible for as many rapes as were committed and duly proven. The rapes were committed with the use of a deadly weapon, a knife, for which RA 7659 prescribes reclusion perpetua to death. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance shown, the SC held that Rapisora should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua, not death, for each of the six counts, and awarded P50,000.00 moral damages for each offense in addition to the P50,000.00 civil indemnity already ordered by the trial court.

• Forcible abduction absorbed in rape — When the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim, forcible abduction is absorbed in rape and the accused is not convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The SC applied this because Rapisora’s abduction of Irene was the means to bring her to the motel where he raped her.
• Trial court’s credibility assessment — Appellate courts give the highest degree of respect to the trial court’s evaluation of witness testimony because it is in the best position to observe the witness; absent strong cogent reasons, the findings are not disturbed. The SC upheld the RTC’s crediting of Irene.
• Failure to call for help or resist is not consent — In rape and abduction, a victim’s failure to shout, escape, or resist does not amount to consent where she is cowed by threats or a deadly weapon; silence may be born of fear. The SC applied this to Irene’s conduct.
• Physical resistance not required when intimidation is employed — Rape may be consummated even without physical resistance if threats and intimidation overpower the victim’s mind; absence of external injury does not negate rape. The SC applied this despite the medical report.
• Intimidation is subjective — Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the person against whom it is employed and is viewed from the victim’s perception at the time of the crime; people react dissimilarly to unusual events. The SC applied this to Irene’s “wala akong maisip” and failure to flee.
• Post-incident conduct as corroboration — The conduct of a woman immediately after an alleged sexual assault can be crucial in establishing the truth or falsity of her charge; immediate report and willingness to face medical examination can corroborate. The SC applied this to Irene’s report to her employer, aunt, police, and NBI.
• Multiple offenses in one information — Under Section 3, Rule 120, when two or more offenses are charged in a single information and 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 this to convict Rapisora of six counts of rape.
• Penalty for rape with deadly weapon — RA 7659 prescribes reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed with a deadly weapon; absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The SC applied this to reduce the death penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count.

• “Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is but to rape the victim, a fact that is here clearly evident given the circumstances of the case.” — The SC used this rule to reject the RTC’s complex-crime label and to hold that Rapisora’s abduction was absorbed in the rapes.
• “Physical resistance, in any case, need not be established in rape cases when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim ultimately gives up to the unwanted embrace of her rapist.” — The SC used this to reject the argument that Irene’s lack of physical resistance and the absence of external injury negated rape.
• “The conduct of the woman immediately after an alleged sexual assault can be crucial in establishing the truth or falsity of her charge.” — The SC used this to treat Irene’s immediate report and return to the motel as corroboration of her charge.
• “When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information, and the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them x x x.” — The SC quoted this rule to justify convicting Rapisora of six counts of rape under the single information.

• People vs. Bihison, 308 SCRA 510 — Controlling precedent on deference to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility.
• People vs. Akhtar, 308 SCRA 725 — Controlling precedent on failure to call for help not being consent and on forcible abduction being absorbed in rape.
• People vs. Mostrales, 294 SCRA 701 — Controlling precedent on behavioral psychology and on rape despite absence of physical resistance.
• People vs. Oarga, 259 SCRA 90 — Controlling precedent on intimidation being subjective and viewed from the victim’s perception.
• People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA — Controlling precedent on physical resistance not being required when threats and intimidation are employed.
• People vs. Dela Torre, 272 SCRA 615 — Controlling precedent on post-assault conduct as corroboration.
• People vs. Ramos, 167 SCRA 476 — Controlling precedent on the victim’s willingness to face interrogation and medical examination as proof of truth.
• People vs. Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000 — Controlling precedent on the absorption of forcible abduction in rape.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659 and RA 8353 — Defines and penalizes rape; the SC applied it to hold Rapisora liable for six counts of rape and to fix the penalty range.
• Article 342, Revised Penal Code — Defines forcible abduction; the information and RTC invoked it, but the SC held it absorbed in rape where the real objective was rape.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Governs complex crimes; the RTC used it to convict for forcible abduction with rape, but the SC held it inapplicable because forcible abduction was absorbed.
• Section 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Allows conviction for as many offenses as are charged and proved when multiple offenses are charged in one information and the accused fails to object before trial; the SC applied it to convict Rapisora of six counts of rape.
• RA 7659 — Prescribes reclusion perpetua to death for rape committed with a deadly weapon; the SC applied the range but imposed reclusion perpetua absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
• RA 8353 — Amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code; the SC referred to Article 335 as amended by RA 7659 and RA 8353 in the conviction.