CASE Complex crime of forcible abduction with rape

CASE TITLE People of the Philippines v Domnino G. Grefiel

CASE NO/DATE G.R. No. 77228; November 13, 1992
SUBJECT Raping a married woman after forcibly abducting her, in the presence of her husband
warrants the imposition of exemplary damages by way of example to deter others from
committing similar acts or correction for the public good is in order.

FACTS
1. Appellant is Domnino Grefiel. The rape victim is Marcela Torlao.
2. At about 2 AM of September 19, 1982, victim Marcela, her husband, and 4 children were awakened by the
sound of their front door breaking. The accused, an intruder, suddenly entered the family’s bedroom and
beamed a flashlight on their faces shouting, “Walang kikilos ng masama, ako’y mayor ng sundalo.”
3. Appellant grabbed Marcela. Her husband made a move but was prevented by appellant who stepped on his
shoulder. The children all cried in fear.
4. Marcela was dragged outside and appellant said, “Walang titingin-tingin, kapag may bumaba, barilin nyo at
paikutin nyo ang bahay.”
5. Marcela was dragged towards Lawa-an Elementary School. Appellant undressed her at the farthest room,
nearest the stage. The victim pleaded for appellant to have mercy as she was 4 months pregnant. But
appellant was unmoved by the pleas. He performed coitus with her. Later, he performed anal intercourse with
the victim.
6. As sleep overtook the drunken perpetrator, Marcela crept out of the room, and went straight to the house of
the Brgy. Chairman. The Chairman reported the incident to the local station commander of the Integrated
National Police.
7. At daybreak, the police officers went to the school and still found the appellant naked and still asleep. The
latter was brought to the municipal building for investigation. Marcela also submitted herself to a medical
examination. A month later, Marcela suffered a miscarriage.
8. An information was filed with the crime of forcible abduction with rape. Accused-appellant testified that he
and Marcela had several sexual liaisons by mutual consent for the past months, which the trial court refused
to believe, describing it as a fantastic fallacy.
9. RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible abduction with rape.
Accused appeals the decision of RTC Branch 3 of Eastern Samar.

ISSUE 1 Whether or not the appellant is guilty as charged.

RULING Yes. By his admission that he forcibly abducted the victim which, by the way, was independently
established by the evidence for the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant
unqualifiedly affirms the existence of the elements of the crime of forcible abduction under Article
342 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: the taking of a woman against her will and with lewd designs.
Indeed, the taking was against complainant's will because she was dragged out of her house by means
of force and intimidation. The abduction was not for any lawful or noble purpose; as he now frankly
admits, it was with lewd designs. It is therefore clear that there existed a continuing intimidation
which produced reasonable fear on the latter's part. Under such circumstances, the failure to shout or
offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the
accused-appellant. This Court further notes that the intimidation was further compounded by the
latter's deliberate choice of time and place — the crime was committed at the unholy hour of 2:00
o'clock in the morning and in an isolated place. This circumstances, taken together with the fact that
she had seen her husband stepped upon by accused-appellant, was still gripped by a well-founded
fear that the accused-appellant had armed companions and had just been threatened with death if
she would not yield to his bestial desires, certainly made her realize that a shout for help or a
tenacious resistance would prove to be futile. Verily then, the accused-appellant committed the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Forcible abduction was the necessary means used to
commit the rape with aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling.

ISSUE 2 Whether or not victim Marcela should be awarded with moral damages.

RULING Yes. Taking into account the nature of the crime committed and the following facts: that the victim is a
married woman who was on the fourth month of pregnancy for her fifth child at the time the crime
was committed; she was forcibly abducted in the presence of her husband and children; and she
suffered a miscarriage barely a month thereafter, thus necessarily causing her untold mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, fear, moral shock, besmirched reputation and social humiliation, the indemnity,
in the concept of moral damages, is hereby increased to P50,000.00.
ISSUE 3 Whether or not victim Marcela should be awarded with exemplary damages.

RULING Yes. Considering, the moral corruption, perversity, viciousness and wickedness of the accused-
appellant who cruelly ravaged the complainant, savaged the sanctity of her home and grievously
wronged the institution of marriage by raping a married woman after forcibly abducting her in the
presence of her husband, the imposition of exemplary damages by way of example to deter others
from committing similar acts or correction for the public good is in order. Accordingly, he should be
ordered to pay P25,000.00.

FALLO The decision of the RTC is affirmed. The indemnity awarded by the trial court is increased.