G.R. No. 267093 , May 29, 2024
MARK ANTHONY ROMERO Y FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Anthony Romero y Flores was charged with the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. The Information alleged that on the evening of July 24, 2019, in Catanduanes, Romero, conspiring with an unidentified tricycle driver, abducted the 16-year-old minor AAA. He covered her mouth with a foul-smelling handkerchief causing her to lose consciousness. She was brought to a cottage by a river where she was raped. She regained consciousness at 3:00 a.m. on July 25, 2019, found herself naked with her private part aching, and saw bloodstains on her underwear. She identified Romero from a police gallery and pointed to his tricycle. A medico-legal examination confirmed hymenal lacerations. Romero pleaded not guilty and raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was with his girlfriend and later at home during the incident. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of kidnapping with rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without parole. The Court of Appeals modified the conviction to the simple crime of forcible abduction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly convicted petitioner Mark Anthony Romero y Flores of the simple crime of forcible abduction instead of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly convicted the petitioner of forcible abduction. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. The elements of forcible abduction are: (1) the person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (2) the abduction is against her will; and (3) the abduction is with lewd designs. All elements were proven. AAA, a woman, was taken against her will after being rendered unconscious, and the abduction was with lewd design, culminating in rape. However, the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code was not established because the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of “kidnapping” or the deprivation of liberty with intent to confine the victim in another place. The evidence showed the abduction and rape occurred in a single, continuous act at the riverside cottage, without proof of a separate intent to detain or remove AAA from her residence for the purpose of kidnapping. Consequently, the crime committed was forcible abduction under Article 342, which by statutory definition includes rape or acts of lasciviousness. The penalty for forcible abduction when rape is committed is reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court imposed a prison term of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The award of damages was modified to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, with 6% interest per annum from finality until fully paid.