Chuaquico Jett I.
She only learned that her daughter was raped
Title 11: Crimes against Chastity
People vs. Amaro: Forcible Abduction with Rape
FACTS: Amaro was charged with forcible abduction
with rape
Prosecutions version: AAA, who was then only 7
years old, testified that she was walking on her way
home from school when she passed by Boots & Maya
store. She met a man, whom she later identified in
court as the appellant, who asked her to buy
cigarettes. After buying the cigarettes and handing it
to appellant, the latter gave her bread and banana cue.
After eating them, she suddenly became dizzy and
passed out. AAA was brought to the house of
appellant. When she regained consciousness, she saw
appellant naked. Appellant then undressed her, kissed
her on the lips and neck, and inserted his penis into
her vagina, causing her to feel pain. AAA cried but
appellant covered her mouth with his hand. AAA was
detained for six (6) days and was raped five (5) times
by appellant. AAA clarified that appellants penis
touched the outer portion of her vagina.
On the last day of her detention, AAA and appellant
went out of the house. On their way to San Jose, a
certain Aunt Ruthie saw AAA walking and
immediately picked her up and brought her to the
police station. Appellant noticed AAA being taken
away but he did nothing.
The prosecution also presented AAAs mother, BBB,
to corroborate her daughters testimony. BBB
narrated that on 26 March 1998, she was in the house
when AAA came home at around noon time to eat.
Thereafter, AAA told BBB that she had to go backto
school. At around 5:00 p.m. when AAA had not come
home, BBB went to the school to look for her. When
the teacher told BBB that that school children had
already been sent home, she proceeded to the police
station to report her missing daughter. After six (6)
days, AAA was found by BBBs former employer
who brought her to the police. Upon receiving a call
from the police, BBB immediately went to the police
station and saw her daughter. BBB observed that
AAA was still in shock and could not walk properly
so she was brought to the doctor on the following
day.
after the medical examination.
Defenses version: Appellant testified on his behalf.
He denied abducting and raping AAA but admitted
that he brought the latter to his house when AAA
approached him asking for bread first, before begging
him to take her with him because she was always
being scolded by her parents. Upon reaching his
house, appellant entrusted AAA to the care of
Florante Magays sister. Appellant then went back to
town to attend to his work as a mason. He only
decided to go back home when he heard his name on
the radio in connection with the disappearance of a
girl. He picked up the child in Barangay Tagburos
and brought her to her house in Buncag. AAA walked
alone towards her house.
RTC and CAs decision: Convicting him of the crime
charged
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was able to
establish from the testimony of the complainant the
guilt of the accused for the crime offorcible abduction
with rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING: Yes, his guilt was sufficiently established
beyond reasonable doubt
The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as
defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code,
are: (1) that the person abducted is any woman,
regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (2)
that she is taken against her will; and (3) that the
abduction is with lewd designs. On the other hand,
rape under Article 266-A is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman by: (1) force or
intimidation, or(2) when the woman is deprived of
reason or is unconscious, or (3) when she is under
twelve years of age.
The prosecution was able to prove all these elements
in this case. The victim, AAA was a seven (7) year-
old girl who was taken against her will by appellant
who told her that he knew her mother and that he
would bring her home. At her tender age, AAA could
have easily been deceived by appellant. The
employment of deception suffices to constitute the
forcible taking, especially since the victim is an
unsuspecting young girl. It is the taking advantage of
their innocence that makes them easy culprits of
deceiving minds. The presence of lewd designs in
forcible abduction is established by the actual rape of
the victim.
The fact of sexual intercourse is corroborated by the
medical findings that the victim suffered from
laceration on the upper and lower part of the
introitus.
The presence of lewd intentions is established by the
conduct of the accused during the abduction. When
the girl is defiled, the forcible abduction becomes the
means to commit the rape, and since rape is the more
serious offense, under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape is committed and penalized by reclusion
perpetua, the penalty proper to rape.
People vs. Cayanan: Rape absorbed Forcible
abduction if the real objective of the offender is to
rape the victim
FACTS: Cayanan is charged with two crimes:
Qualified rape and Forcible abduction with rape
Prosecutions version: Cayanan took advantage of
15-year old AAA on February 1, 2001 while the
victim was alone inside her house in x x x, Bulacan.
Cayanan is the victims brother-in-law, being married
to her older sister, and the couple lived in a nearby
house. AAA was asleep when she felt someone
caressing her. It turned out to be Cayanan. He then
started kissing her and told her to remove her shorts.
When she refused, Cayanan forcibly took it off and
after the latter took off his own under garment, he
inserted his organ into her genitalia. Cayanan, who
had a knife with him, threatened to kill AAA if she
resisted and informed anybody of the incident.
On February 26, 2001, AAA was about to enter the
school campus with her friend Armina Adriano
(Adriano) when Cayanan arrived on a tricycle driven
by his uncle, Boy Manalastas. Cayanan then pulled
AAA towards the tricycle. She tried shouting but he
covered her mouth. They alighted somewhere and
boarded a jeep. He brought her to a dress shop in x x
x, Bulacan where he asked someone to give her a
change of clothes as she was in her school uniform
and later to a Jollibee outlet. He then brought her to
his sisters house in x x x where he raped her inside a
bedroom. Afterwards, a certain couple Putay and
Tessie talked to Cayanan and she was brought to the
barangay office where she was asked to execute a
document stating that she voluntarily went with
Cayanan. It was the latters mother and sister-in-law
who brought her home later that evening. She told
her mother and brother of the incidents only after her
classmate Adriano informed her family of what
happened in school and of the rape incidents. AAA
testified that she did not immediately tell her family
because she was still in a state of shock.
Defenses version: Cayanan interposed the sweetheart
defense.
RTC and CAs decision: Convicting him of the crimes
charged
CAs ruling: Record shows that Cayanan forced AAA
to have sex with him on February 1, 2001 and
threatened her and her family with physical harm.
The testimony of Adriano, meanwhile, corroborated
AAAs testimony that Cayanan forcibly took her by
the school campus gate on February 26, 2001 and
thereafter raped her. The defense failed to show any
reason why the prosecutions evidence should not be
given weight or credit.
ISSUE: Whether or not he should be guilty for the
crimes charged
RULING: Yes, however for the crime of forcible
abduction with rape should be dropped
The Court, however, finds that Cayanan should be
convicted only of Qualified Rape in Criminal Case
No. 1498-M-2001. Forcible abduction is absorbed in
the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused
is to rape the victim. In this case, circumstances show
that the victims abduction was with the purpose of
raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged her into the
tricycle, he took her to several places until they
reached his sisters house where he raped her inside
the bedroom. Under these circumstances, the rape
absorbed the forcible abduction.