G.R. No. 126114 May 11, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JIMMY SABREDO y GARBO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jimmy Sabredo, is the uncle of the complainant, Judeliza Sabredo. On June 27, 1994, in Cebu, Jimmy forcibly abducted Judeliza at knifepoint, compelling her to travel with him to Masbate. During their time in Masbate, Jimmy closely guarded Judeliza, preventing her escape. On July 4, 1994, at midnight, while armed with a blade, he sexually assaulted her. He covered her mouth, and after the act, inserted three fingers into her vagina and cruelly pinched it. Judeliza’s cries for help were heard but unheeded. Jimmy later struck her with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious.
The defense presented a different narrative. Jimmy admitted to sexual relations but claimed they were consensual, alleging a romantic relationship. He stated they had run away together after Judeliza claimed she was not his niece, and he only assaulted her later upon discovering the truth about their kinship. The Regional Trial Court convicted Jimmy of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and imposed the death penalty, leading to this automatic review.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) the credibility of the complainant’s testimony; (2) the correctness of the conviction for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; and (3) the propriety of imposing the death penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the nature of the crime. On credibility, the Court found minor inconsistencies between Judeliza’s affidavit and her court testimony regarding the rape’s location immaterial. Affidavits are often incomplete, and her core testimony—that she was raped by Jimmy on July 4, 1994, under threat of a deadly weapon—remained consistent and credible. The defense of a consensual relationship was deemed implausible and contrived.
Regarding the crime, the Court ruled that the forcible abduction had already terminated when the rape was committed days later in Masbate. The two acts did not constitute a single, continuous criminal purpose. Therefore, they could not be complexed under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant was guilty of simple rape only.
On the penalty, the death sentence was improper. While the offender was a relative within the third degree of consanguinity, Republic Act No. 7659 (the death penalty law) could not apply. First, the complainant was over eighteen years old at the time of the rape. Second, and decisively, the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not alleged in the information. Such circumstances must be specifically pleaded to warrant the death penalty. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court also modified the damages, ordering appellant to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.