39. People v. Godines 196 SCRA 765 | GR No.

93410 7 May 1991 Moreno of having conspired in the commission of the crime of forcible
abduction with rape as penalized under the RPC. The two pleaded not guilty to
Godines and Moreno conspired to rape Esther. Both are guilty of 2 counts of the offense charged.
rape, one for the rape he committed and one for the rape his co- conspirator
committed. Defense version:
that afternoon, they attended a religious service at the local INC church
GANCAYCO, J. with a number of friends and relatives.
When the religious service was over, Godines declared that he was
Facts: feeling ill. Upon their arrival at the house of Felomino Moreno, everyone
Rolando Godines and Danny Moreno are accused of having conspired in the in the household attended to Godines. Generoso Umpad gathered some
commission of forcible abduction with rape. medicinal herbs for him. Godines and his wife spent the night in the said
house (2 km away from the house of Vilaksi). They went home at 7am
Complainant version: In the evening of March 17, 1988: the following morning.
Esther Ancajas was sleeping in the house of Alejandro Vilaksi and Sitio Danny Moreno stayed up to 10pm. He slept in the house of Generoso
Milagros. Umpad (3 km away from the house of Vilaksi) from 11 p.m.
She was awakened by a commotion and saw Godines and Moreno talking to Position:
the couple.
no conclusive medical findings that the complainant had indeed been
Godines suddenly hacked Milagros, and the couples son ran away. Moreno
raped
stood by the window to serve as a lookout person.
Esther tried to escape with her own child, however the accused saw her and
RTC Masbate: noticed inconsistencies in the theory of the defense, also that no
grabbed her.
Filipina will publicly admit to being raped because its humiliating.
They were both dragged out of the house and were brought to a lot with tall
RTC found both accused guilty of rape. Sentence : RP MD: P20k.
grasses.
Godines had a pistol while Moreno had a knife.
WON the accused are guilty of forcible abduction with rape.
In the lot they took turns in having carnal knowledge of her, while the other
Held: YES
was holding on to the child.
(1) A medical examination is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for
They threatened her w/ death not to tell anyone of the incident. Ancajas took
rape. At any rate, the medical evidence discloses that the private complainant
refuge in the house of a neighbor, Elpidio Aballe. She eventually narrated to
suffered abrasions on her body thereby confirming that she had been physically
Aballe the ordeal she went through. Ancajas later informed her parents and the
violated through the use of force.
authorities about the incident.
(2) Esther was able to categorically identify the authors of the crime.
Ancajas submitted herself to a medical examination. Rizaliano Deliarte, the
The alibi does not preclude the possibility that the accused were at the scene of
municipal health officer of San Pascual, Masbate prepared the report. Deliarte
the crime. Umpads house was just 2-3kms away from the Vilaksi residence.
later on testified that on account of these manifestations, it is possible that
Ancajas had been raped.
(3) 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 provincial prosecutor of Masbate accused Rolando Godines and Danny
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.

Under Section 3 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, it is provided:

Sec. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. When two or more offenses are
charged in a single complaint or information, and the accused fails to object to it
before trial, the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are
charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of
them setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each case.

In this case the appellants failed to object to the information filed and the
evidence presented against them. Consequently the Court may convict them of
as many offenses as has been charged and proven and may impose on them the
penalty for the offenses committed.

DECISION: Each of the appellants is guilty as principal of two (2) rapes, namely
the rape he himself committed and the rape which his co-accused committed
with his active and indispensable cooperation.
SENTENCE: RP; 50k for each rape.