People vs.

Jose

Gr no 28232

FEBRUARY 6, 1971

“The undersigned complainant accuses JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO PINEDA, JR. alias “BOY,”
EDUARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO alias “EDDIE” and ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLA alias “ROGER,” as principals,
WONG LAY PUENG, SILVERIO GUANZON Y ROMERO and JESSIE GUION Y ENVOLTARIO as accomplices, of
the crime of Forcible Abduction with rape

Facts:

At about 4:30 o’clock in the morning of June26, 1967, Miss De la Riva, homeward bound from the ABS
Studio on Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, was driving her car accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who
was also at the front seat. Her house was at No. 48, 12th Street, New Manila, Quezon City. She was
already near her destination when a Pontiac two-door convertible car with four men aboard (later
identified as the four appellants) came abreast of her car and tried to bump it. Undaunted, Pineda
opened the door of Miss De la Riva’s car and grabbed the lady’s left arm. The latter, however, was able
to drag Miss De la Riva. While in they are in vehicle they toyed with her and later brought her to a Hotel
where they simultaneously had carnal knowledge with her and beating her in between to keep her
awake so she will be aware of what is happening. After that they let her get dressed and left her to a
street and threaten her if she’ll report them. She rode a taxi cab and went home and told the incident to
her mother and report the incident. The medical report says that there are injuries in her genitalia

Issue

Whether or not the accused be guilty of forcible abduction with rape.

Held:

The court held that the crime committed is special complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and
three (3) counts of rape for the four(4) malefactors. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby
sentenced to four (4) death penalties

The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs is punished by reclusion temporal
(Art. 342, R.P.C.). In forcible abduction (Art. 342) and rape (Art. 335) the age and character of the
offended woman are not material. The character of the offended party, whether virgin or of good
reputation, is not material.

The rule is that there are as many crimes committed as they are charged and proved.
We said that “since it is the settled rule that once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is
attributable to all, then each conspirator must be held liable for each of the felonious acts committed as
a result of the conspiracy, regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed
by law. “

The imposition of a penalty and the service of a sentence are two distinct, though related, concepts. The
imposition of the proper penalty or penalties is determined by the nature, gravity and number of
offenses charged and proved, whereas service of sentence is determined by the severity and character
of the penalty or penalties imposed. In the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, the court does
not concern itself with the possibility or practicality of the service of the sentence, since actual service is
a contingency subject to varied factors like the successful escape of the convict, grant of executive
clemency or natural death of the prisoner. All that go into the imposition of the proper penalty or
penalties, to reiterate, are the nature, gravity and number of the offenses charged and proved and the
corresponding penalties prescribed by law.

In this case the Supreme Court ruled that in view of the existence of conspiracy among the accused and
the finding as regards the number of crimes committed, as well as the presence of aggravating
circumstances, four death penalties should be imposed in the premises.