People vs Alburo

From their school in Jones Avenue, the victim Evelyn Cantina and her two classmates were
walking towards Colon Street in Cebu City to buy some medicine. Not long after, a passenger jeepney
stopped by the side of the road. Its driver, accused Ronilo Alburo invited and insisted the trio to board
his jeepney despite the proximity of Colon St. When the jeepney stopped at a juncture, Evelyns
classmates disembarked. Evelyn was about to alight but was prevented from doing so under threats by
Alburo. Evelyns efforts to disembark proved futile. The accused drove to places until he stopped at an
isolated area in Brgy. Oppra. Whilst pointing a knife at Evelyn, he pushed her head to the steering wheel
rendering her unconscious and while in that state, accused had carnal intercourse with her. She later
regained her senses and was reunited with her mother when the jeep was spotted coming from Capitol.

Whether or not the conviction of Alburo for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
was proper.

In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape, we have likewise
been guided by three well-known principles, namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with
facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weaknesses of the evidence for the defense.

The factual milieu of this criminal charge before us gives us no reason to depart from these
established rules. On the contrary, we find that Appellant had taken Evelyn away against her will, with
lewd designs, subsequently forced her to submit to his lust and rendering her unconscious in the
process, thereby justifying his conviction for the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under
Article 48 in relation to Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which he has herein been
charged.
People vs. Godines

Private complainant Esther Ancajas was awakened from her sleep by a commotion emanating
from an adjacent room. She lit a lamp and went to the room to see for herself what was going on. She
saw appellants Rolando Godines and Danny Moreno talking to the spouses Vilaksi. Godines exacted
money from the couple and eventually hacked Milagros Vilaksi. Ancajas tried to escape with her child
but she was grabbed by appellants. They dragged her and the child out of the house about 600 meters
therefrom to a vacant grassy lot. There, appellants took turns in having carnal knowledge of Ancajas
under threats to kill the latter if she would resist. Ancajas took refuge in the house of a neighbor where
she fainted. When she regained consciousness, she narrated to her neighbor the ordeal she went
through. In an information, appellants were charged of forcible abduction with rape but was convicted
by the RTC of rape only holding that forcible abduction is absorbed in the latter crime.

Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting appellants for rape only.

NO. Appellants are guilty of two counts of rape with forcible abduction absorbed in the former
offense.

As to the crime committed by the appellants, the trial court correctly held that forcible
abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the appellant is to rape the victim.

The appellants are charged of conspiring and confederating with each other in the commission
of the offense charged. No doubt the evidence show the appellants through force and intimidation and
conspiring with each other successfully raped the victim by taking turns in raping her while the other
held the child of the victim and threatened her against resisting. Obviously two (2) rapes were
committed by the appellants. In a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.