GR 225743; (June, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225743 , June 7, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SANDY DOMINGO y LABIS, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Sandy Domingo, was charged with forcible abduction with rape. The prosecution’s evidence established that on January 24, 2004, in Rosario, Cavite, appellant offered to accompany the victim, AAA, home. Upon boarding a tricycle, he poked a knife at her waist. He then diverted their route to an unfamiliar house. Inside a room, while still brandishing the knife, he forcibly undressed AAA and had carnal knowledge of her multiple times against her will. The defense presented a “sweetheart theory,” claiming AAA was his girlfriend and they had eloped. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of forcible abduction with rape, a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision. It affirmed the finding of guilt but held that the appellant should be convicted of simple rape, not the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The legal logic is grounded in the doctrine that a complex crime under Article 48 requires two or more crimes that are the result of a single act, or where one offense is a necessary means to commit the other. In crimes against chastity like abduction, the complex form only exists if the abduction is committed for purposes other than the rape itself. If the sole and primordial intent of the accused is to commit rape, the abduction is not a separate crime but is merely incidental to the rape, absorbing the former. Here, the evidence demonstrated that the appellant’s primary and singular objective from the outset was to commit rape. The use of a knife to compel AAA to go with him and his immediate sexual assault upon reaching an isolated location proved that the forcible taking was not an independent criminal design but a necessary means to facilitate the rape. Consequently, the appellant is guilty only of the special complex crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, but the awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (Php75,000.00) each, with legal interest.