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 under an information captioned as “kidnapping with rape.” The allegations stated that on the evening of July 24, 2019, the petitioner, conspiring with an unidentified tricycle driver, covered the mouth of the 16-year-old minor complainant AAA with a foul-smelling handkerchief, causing her to lose consciousness. She was then brought to a cottage where, while unconscious, she was carnally known against her will. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the petitioner of the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Rape. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified this, finding the petitioner liable only for Forcible Abduction, citing an absence of intent to deprive the victim of liberty and proof of rape. The ponencia (main opinion) of the Supreme Court held that the petitioner committed Rape, which absorbs the crime of Forcible Abduction, based on circumstantial evidence indicating his main intention was to have carnal knowledge. The circumstantial evidence included: (1) AAA boarding a tricycle with Romero; (2) the tricycle speeding away instead of dropping her off, with Romero covering her mouth with a handkerchief; (3) AAA losing consciousness; (4) her waking up naked and in pain inside a cottage at 3:00 a.m.; and (5) medical findings of hymenal lacerations and redness indicating vaginal insertion.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner should be convicted of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, or simply of Rape where Forcible Abduction is considered absorbed.

RULING

In her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Justice Lopez opined that the petitioner is liable for the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. She concurred with the ponencia that the petitioner cannot be convicted of kidnapping with rape due to lack of intent to deprive liberty, and that the information sufficiently charged forcible abduction and rape. She also agreed that the circumstantial evidence established both crimes. However, she dissented from the conclusion that rape absorbs forcible abduction. She argued that the facts reveal forcible abduction was a necessary means to commit rape. The forcible taking of the victim to a different location (the cottage) facilitated and ensured the commission of the rape. Citing jurisprudence (People v. Manguiat, People v. Pineda, People v. Babasa, People v. Bulaong, People v. Paras, and People v. Vega), she emphasized that when abduction is employed to bring the victim to another place where she is raped, it constitutes a complex crime. The forcible abduction was not an element of rape but a separate offense that served as a necessary means to accomplish it. Therefore, the proper crime is the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.