People of the Philippines v.

Jimmy Sabredo y Garbo

G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000
Quisumbing, J.

FACTS

The accused-apellant, Jimmy Sabredo is the uncle of the complainant, Judeliza Sabredo. On
June 27, 1994, the appellant forcibly took the complainant at knifepoint to Masbate. During
their stay in Masbate, the appellant had brought the victim on three different locations, where
their relatives who are unknown to Judeliza reside. At one point, Judeliza tried to escape but
was caught by Jimmy, who severely mauled her until she lost consciousness. On the 4 th of
July, 1994, Jimmy who was armed with a blade, sexually assaulted Judeliza. After recovering
sufficiently from her injuries, Judeliza reported her ordeal to the police with the help of their
relative Nilda.

The Regional Trial Court of Masbate found the accused-appellant guilty of the complex crime
of abduction with rape and imposed the penalty of death on him.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the testimony of the witness against the accused-appellant must be
given credence.
2. Whether or not the trial court is correct in convicting the accused-appellant of forcible
abduction with rape.
3. Whether or not the imposition by the trial court of death penalty on the accused-
appellant is appropriate.

HELD

1. Yes. The testimony of the witness was given in a straightforward, clear, and convincing
manner, which remained consistent even under cross-examination. Her sworn affidavit
and testimony in open court establish the basic elements of rape, which are as follows:
(1) the commission of sexual intercourse by the accused-appellant against the
complainant; (2) with the use of force and intimidation; (3) without her consent and
against her will. Some discrepancies between the affidavit and the testimony of the
witness in the open court do not necessarily impair credibility of the testimony, for
affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often incomplete or even inaccurate for
lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer.
2. No. When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is
charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it goes without saying that the
prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible
abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. When the appellant, using
a blade, forcibly took away the complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her,
as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence, the
crime committed by appellant is simple rape only.
3. No. Under Article 63 of the RPC, the crucial factor in determining whether appellant
should be meted the death penalty is the presence of an aggravating circumstance,
which attended the commission of the crime. A perusal of the record shows that none
of the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the RPC was alleged
and proven by the prosecution. Where there is no aggravating circumstance proved in
the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Thus, the sentence
on appellant should only be reclusion perpetua.