Crimes and Punishment
An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not raised by the parties.[64] This was our pronouncement in the 1902 landmark case of U.S. v. Abijan,[65] which is now embodied in Section 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court:
SEC 11. Scope of Judgment. – The Court of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case. (Emphasis supplied)
The reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.[66]
To reiterate, the six informations charged Mirandilla with kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape (Crim. Case No. 9278), four counts of rape (Crim. Case Nos. 9274-75-76-77), and one count of rape through sexual assault (Crim. Case No. 9279).
The accusatory portion of the information in Criminal Case No. 9278 alleged that Mirandilla kidnapped AAA and seriously and illegally detained her for more than three days during which time he had carnal knowledge of her, against her will.[67]
The Court agrees with the CA in finding Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, instead of simple kidnapping as the RTC ruled. It was the RTC, no less, which found that Mirandilla kidnapped AAA, held her in detention for 39 days and carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a knife.[68]
Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code states that:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; xxx.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
AAA was able to prove each element of rape committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had carnal knowledge of her; (2) through force, threat, or intimidation. She was also able to prove each element of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouth; (2) through force, threat, or intimidation.
Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention is provided for under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code:
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death;
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. xxx
x x x.
Emphatically, the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659,[70] states that when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. This provision gives rise to a special complex crime. As the Court explained in People v. Larrañaga,[71] this arises where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses.[72]
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape.[73] This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter how many times the victim was raped, like in the present case, there is only one crime committed – the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape.
However, for the crime of kidnapping with rape, as in this case, the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs, otherwise, it would be complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. In People v. Garcia,[74] we explained that if the taking was by forcible abduction and the woman was raped several times, the crimes committed is one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, in as much as the forcible abduction was only necessary for the first rape; and each of the other counts of rape constitutes distinct and separate count of rape.[75]
It having been established that Mirandilla’s act was kidnapping and serious illegal detention (not forcible abduction) and on the occasion thereof, he raped AAA several times, We hold that Mirandilla is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, warranting the penalty of death. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346 entitled, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,[76] the penalty of death is hereby reduced toreclusion perpetua,[77] without eligibility for parole.[78]
We, therefore, modify the CA Decision. We hold that the separate informations of rape cannot be considered as separate and distinct crimes in view of the above discussion.
As to the award of damages, we have the following rulings.
This Court has consistently held that upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil damages ex delicto is mandatory.[79] As we elucidated in People v. Prades,[80] the award authorized by the criminal law as civil indemnity ex delicto for the offended party, aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law.[81] Thus, we held that the civil liability ex delicto provided by the Revised Penal Code, that is, restitution, reparation, and indemnification,[82] all correspond to actual or compensatory damages in the Civil Code.[83]
In the 1998 landmark case of People v. Victor,[84] the Court enunciated that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim shall be in the increased amount of NOT[85] less than P75,000.00. To reiterate the words of the Court: “this is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes...”[86] xxx (Emphasis supplied)
After the enactment R.A. 9346,[87] prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, questions arose as to the continued applicability of the Victor[88] ruling. Thus, in People v. Quiachon,[89] the Court pronounced that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000.00 still applies because this indemnity is not dependent on the actual imposition of death, but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the penalty of death attended the commission of the offense.[90] As explained in People v. Salome,[91] while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the penalty provided for by the law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous.[92] (Emphasis supplied)
In addition, AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code,[93] without the necessity of additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. This move of dispensing evidence to prove moral damage in rape cases, traces its origin in People v. Prades,[94] where we held that:
The Court has also resolved that in crimes of rape, such as that under consideration, moral damages may additionally be awarded to the victim in the criminal proceeding, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof as has heretofore been the practice. Indeed, the conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included therein, since no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made. (Emphasis supplied)
Corollarily, the fact that complainant has suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings which constitute the bases for moral
damages are too obvious to still require the recital thereof at the trial by the victim, since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility. What exists by necessary implication as being ineludibly present in the case need not go through superfluity of still being proven through a testimonial charade. (Emphasis supplied)[95]
AAA is also entitled to exemplary damages of P30,000.00, pursuant to the present jurisprudence.
x x x."
