Case No.

37
G.R. No. L-80838 November 29, 1988
ELEUTERIO C. PEREZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Petitioner was charged with and convicted of the crime of consented abduction. On appeal, he was
acquitted by the Court of Appeals. In said decision, the Court of Appeals made the following statement:

With promises of marriage, appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her, twice, that night
before they returned. She was seduced by appellant, as it turned out that he made those promises just
to accomplish his lewd designs That was "seduction and not abduction,"

Subsequent to petitioner's acquittal complainant Yolanda Mendoza filed another criminal complaint
against Perez, this time for Qualified Seduction. Petitioner Perez filed a motion to quash invoking double
jeopardy and waiver and/or estoppel on the part of the complainant. However, this motion and
petitioner's motion for reconsideration were denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the subsequent information for Qualified Seduction is barred by his
acquittal in the case for Consented Abduction

RULING: NO

Petitioner cannot invoke double jeopardy to question the filing against him of an information for
Qualified Seduction after he was acquitted for Consented Abduction, as the two indictments are
perfectly distinct in point of law howsoever closely they may appear to be connected.

There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) that the
offended party is a virgin, and, (2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of
age. However, two elements differentiate the two crimes. Consented Abduction, in addition to the two
common elements, requires that: (1) the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent,
after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and, (2) the taking away of the offended party must be
with lewd designs. On the other hand, an information for Qualified Seduction also requires that: (1) the
crime be committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship, and, (2) the offender has sexual
intercourse with the woman.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
Case No. 38
G.R. No. 225743
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDY DOMINGO y LABIS

FACTS:

AAA is a saleslady in a public market in Rosario, Cavite. On 24 January 2004, at around 8:00 in the
evening, private complainant was waiting for her cousin to fetch her, when appellant, who worked in a
fish stall in the market, approached her. Appellant asked if he could accompany private complainant to
her aunt's home, where she resided. Since AAA's cousin was not around to fetch her, she agreed for
appellant to accompany her home. The two boarded a tricycle. As they were about to leave, appellant
brought out a bladed weapon and poked the same on AAA's right waist. Paralyzed with fear, she was
unable to shout or ask for help.

Appellant brought AAA to an unfamiliar place where he forcibly undressed her and inserted his penis
into private complainant's vagina. After removing his penis, he inserted it again for the fourth time.
Thereafter, appellant dressed up and ordered her to put on her clothes. While he was helping her put on
her clothes, she told him that she wants to go home. He answered that he will let her go home if she will
not tell anybody what happened. At around 3:00 in the morning, they went out of the house and
headed towards the tricycle terminal. She went home and told her Aunt what happened. Thereafter,
they went to the police station to report the incident.

ISSUE: Was the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed?

RULING: NO

Under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code,  the elements of forcible abduction are: (1) the taking of a
woman against her will; and (2) with lewd designs. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a
complex crime that occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under the
following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.

Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, the appellant should be convicted only of rape.
His forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the rape considering that his real objective in abducting
her was to commit the rape. Where the main objective of the culprit for the abduction of the victim of
rape was to have carnal knowledge of her, he could be convicted only of rape. 

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on September 24, 2015, with

the MODIFICATION that accused SANDY DOMINGO y  LABIS is: (a)  DECLARED GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT of SIMPLE RAPE as defined under Article 266- A of the Revised Penal Code  and
penalized with reclusion perpetua;  and (b)  ORDERED TO PAY to AAA ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest of 6o/o per
annum  on all the items of civil liability reckoned from the finality of judgment until fully paid. The
accused shall pay the costs of suit.