People V Alburo, People V Godines

People vs.
Alburo
FACTS:
From their school in Jones Avenue, the victim Evelyn Cantina and her two
classmates were walking towards Colon Street in Cebu City to buy some medicine.
Not long after, a passenger jeepney stopped by the side of the road. Its driver,
accused Ronilo Alburo invited and insisted the trio to board his jeepney despite the
proximity of Colon St. When the jeepney stopped at a juncture, Evelyns classmates
disembarked. Evelyn was about to alight but was prevented from doing so under
threats by Alburo. Evelyns efforts to disembark proved futile. The accused drove to
places until he stopped at an isolated area in Brgy. Oppra. Whilst pointing a knife at
Evelyn, he pushed her head to the steering wheel rendering her unconscious and
while in that state, accused had carnal intercourse with her. She later regained her
senses and was reunited with her mother when the jeep was spotted coming from
Capitol.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of Alburo for the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape was proper.
RULING:
Yes.
RATIO:
In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape,
we have likewise been guided by three well-known principles, namely, (1) that an
accusation of rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) that in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3)
that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of the evidence for the
defense.
The factual milieu of this criminal charge before us gives us no reason to
depart from these established rules. On the contrary, we find that Appellant had
taken Evelyn away against her will, with lewd designs, subsequently forced her to
submit to his lust and rendering her unconscious in the process, thereby justifying
his conviction for the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Article
48 in relation to Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which he has
herein been charged.
People vs. Godines

FACTS:
Private complainant Esther Ancajas was awakened from her sleep by a
commotion emanating from an adjacent room. She lit a lamp and went to the room
to see for herself what was going on. She saw appellants Rolando Godines and
Danny Moreno talking to the spouses Vilaksi. Godines exacted money from the
couple and eventually hacked Milagros Vilaksi. Ancajas tried to escape with her
child but she was grabbed by appellants. They dragged her and the child out of the
house about 600 meters therefrom to a vacant grassy lot. There, appellants took
turns in having carnal knowledge of Ancajas under threats to kill the latter if she
would resist. Ancajas took refuge in the house of a neighbor where she fainted.
When she regained consciousness, she narrated to her neighbor the ordeal she
went through. In an information, appellants were charged of forcible abduction with
rape but was convicted by the RTC of rape only holding that forcible abduction is
absorbed in the latter crime.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting appellants for rape only.
RULING:
NO. Appellants are guilty of two counts of rape with forcible abduction
absorbed in the former offense.
RATIO:
As to the crime committed by the appellants, 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 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. Obviously two (2) rapes
were committed by the appellants. In a conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.

People V Alburo, People V Godines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Alburo, People V Godines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Alburo, People V Godines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs.

People vs. Godines

You might also like