People vs. Amaro

The complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is committed when the abduction is a necessary means to facilitate the rape; the employment of deception suffices to constitute forcible taking, especially against an unsuspecting young girl. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, the penalty proper to rape under Article 266-B in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, is imposed.

AAA, a seven-year-old schoolgirl, disappeared on the afternoon of 26 March 1998 after being last seen near a store on Malvar Street, Puerto Princesa City. She was found six days later and reported that a man had taken her to his house, detained her, and sexually assaulted her multiple times. Rosendo Amaro was identified as the perpetrator and charged with forcible abduction with rape.

• Nature of the Charge: The Information alleged that on 26 March 1998, at about 5:00 p.m. in front of Boots & Maya store, Malvar Street, Puerto Princesa City, accused Rosendo Amaro, by means of deceit and later force and intimidation, with lewd designs, abducted AAA, a seven-year-old girl, forcibly took her to his house in Barangay Tagburos, detained her for twenty-eight days, and had carnal knowledge of her against her will.
• Prosecution Evidence — AAA’s Testimony: While walking home from school, AAA passed by Boots & Maya store where she met a man she later identified in court as Amaro. He asked her to buy cigarettes. After she did, he gave her bread and banana cue. Upon consuming them, she became dizzy and lost consciousness. She awoke in Amaro’s house. Amaro was naked; he undressed her, kissed her lips and neck, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing pain. She cried, but he covered her mouth. AAA was detained for six days and was raped five times. She clarified that his penis touched the outer portion of her vagina.
• Prosecution Evidence — Cross-Examination: AAA admitted she voluntarily went with Amaro because he promised to bring her home.
• Prosecution Evidence — Recovery of Victim: On the last day of detention, AAA and Amaro went out. A family acquaintance, “Aunt Ruthie,” saw AAA walking near San Jose, picked her up, and brought her to the police station. Amaro observed but did nothing.
• Prosecution Evidence — BBB’s Testimony: AAA’s mother, BBB, testified that AAA came home for lunch on 26 March, returned to school, and failed to return home by 5:00 p.m. BBB searched the school, went to the police station to report her missing daughter, and was informed six days later that AAA had been found. BBB observed AAA was in shock and could not walk properly. A medical examination revealed lacerations on the upper and lower parts of the vaginal introitus.
• Defense Evidence: Amaro denied abducting and raping AAA. He claimed AAA approached him asking for bread and begged him to take her with him because she was being scolded by her parents. He brought her to his house, entrusted her to Florante Magay’s sister, and returned to his work as a mason. Upon hearing his name on the radio in connection with a missing girl, he went home, picked up AAA in Barangay Tagburos, and brought her to her house in Buncag, where AAA walked alone toward her house.
• Trial Court Ruling: The RTC found AAA’s testimony credible and straightforward, corroborated by medical findings, and rejected Amaro’s defense of denial and alibi. The court convicted him of forcible abduction with rape.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Appellant maintained that the prosecution’s evidence did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contended he did not rape AAA because she was not in his custody at the time of the alleged rape, having been entrusted to Florante Magay’s sister while he worked.
• Voluntary Accompaniment: Appellant insisted that AAA voluntarily went with him to his house, thereby negating the element of taking against her will in forcible abduction.

• All Elements Proved: The prosecution argued that all elements of forcible abduction with rape were established: AAA was taken against her will through deception, lewd design was shown by the actual rape, and sexual intercourse was proven by AAA’s credible testimony and corroborating medical findings. The abduction was the necessary means to commit rape.
• Credibility of Child-Victim: The prosecution relied on the trial court’s finding that the minor victim’s testimony was straightforward and credible, entitled to full weight given her youth and lack of ill motive.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the prosecution presented evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, primarily through the testimony of a seven-year-old victim.
• Effect of Victim’s Voluntary Act: Whether AAA’s admission that she voluntarily went with appellant negated the element of forcible taking required under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The conviction was sustained. All elements of forcible abduction under Article 342 were present: AAA was a woman; she was taken against her will through deceit—Amaro falsely told her he knew her mother and would bring her home; and lewd designs were established by the actual rape. The rape was proven under Article 266-A because AAA was under twelve years old, and her testimony of penile contact with her vagina, corroborated by medical findings of lacerations, sufficiently established carnal knowledge. The trial court’s assessment of credibility, being in the best position to observe witness demeanor, was accorded great weight and not disturbed. Testimonies of child-victims are given full credit; youth and immaturity are badges of truth. AAA’s testimony was straightforward and convincing. Appellant’s defense of denial and alibi, intrinsically weak, could not overcome the positive and credible testimony of the victim.
• Effect of Victim’s Voluntary Act: The element of taking against her will was not negated. The employment of deception on an unsuspecting seven-year-old girl sufficed to constitute forcible taking. Appellant exploited AAA’s innocence by promising to bring her home, and this deceit vitiated any apparent consent. The abduction was a necessary means to commit the subsequent rapes, forming the complex crime under Article 48. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, the penalty proper to rape, was correctly imposed.

• Forcible Abduction (Article 342, RPC): The elements are: (1) the person abducted is any woman regardless of age, civil status, or reputation; (2) she is taken against her will; and (3) the abduction is with lewd designs. Deception suffices to constitute forcible taking, especially when the victim is an unsuspecting young girl whose innocence is exploited.
• Rape (Article 266-A, RPC): Carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve years of age constitutes statutory rape. Full penile penetration is not required; contact with the labia is sufficient.
• Complex Crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape (Article 48, RPC): When forcible abduction is a necessary means to commit rape, a complex crime arises. The presence of lewd designs in the abduction is established by the actual rape. The penalty is for the more serious offense—reclusion perpetua, the penalty proper to rape.
• Credibility of Child-Victims in Rape Cases: Testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. When a minor says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity; courts are inclined to credit the account of a victim of tender age considering her relative vulnerability and the shame to which she would be exposed if her testimony were untrue.
• Denial and Alibi as Defenses: Denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses that cannot prevail over positive identification by a credible witness. To merit credibility, they must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. Alibi is evidence negative in nature and self-serving.

• “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.” — Articulating the basis for holding that deceit vitiates consent in forcible abduction.
• “When a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity.” — Foundational principle on the weight of a minor rape victim's testimony.
• “The presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is established by the actual rape of the victim.” — Concise statement of the rule linking the two crimes in the complex felony.

• People v. Ablaneda, 409 Phil. 552 (2001): Followed for the doctrine that deception constitutes forcible taking, especially against an unsuspecting young girl, and that the actual rape establishes lewd designs.
• People v. Sapurco, 315 Phil. 561 (1995): Relied upon for the rule that when abduction is the necessary means to commit rape, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is committed.
• People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013: Applied to increase awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000 each.
• People v. Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, 5 June 2013: Cited in support of the rule that child-victims’ testimonies are granted full weight and credit.
• People v. Colorado, G.R. No. 200792, 14 November 2012: Cited for the principle that denial and alibi are weak and cannot overcome positive identification.

• Article 342, Revised Penal Code: Defines and penalizes forcible abduction. Applied to the taking of AAA through deceit and with lewd designs.
• _Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 8353): Defines rape and prescribes its penalty. Applied because AAA was under twelve years old, establishing statutory rape; the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed under Article 266-B.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code: Penalty for complex crimes. Applied to impose the penalty for the more serious offense (rape) where forcible abduction was the necessary means to commit it.
• Republic Act No. 9346: Prohibition on the imposition of the death penalty. Noted to explain that reclusion perpetua was imposed in lieu of the death penalty that would have been proper for statutory rape under Republic Act No. 7659.

Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concurred.