THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 214886. April 4, 2018.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNIE

CONCEPCION , accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN , J : p

This resolves the appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals March 28, 2014 Decision, 2
a rming with modi cation the November 29, 2011 Decision 3 of Branch 34, Regional
Trial Court, _______, La Union. The Regional Trial Court found the accused, Bernie
Concepcion (Concepcion), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. The Regional Trial Court imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and ordered Concepcion to pay the victim P50,000.00 as moral damages. 4
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the crime of rape absorbed the crime of
forcible abduction; thus, it found Concepcion guilty only of the crime of rape and
imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua. It ordered Concepcion to pay the
victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 5 HTcADC

Informations were led with the Regional Trial Court, ______, La Union against
accused-appellant Concepcion, charging him with serious illegal detention and two (2)
counts of rape. The information for serious illegal detention was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 2899. The relevant portion stated:
That on or about the 17th day of February 2001, in the Municipality of
_______, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused being a private individual did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, detain and deprive the
liberty of complainant AAA and while detaining the latter inside a house, said
accused forcibly and with intimidation and lewd design, have sexual intercourse
with complainant twice against her will and consent, all to the damage and
prejudice of said complainant and her personal liberty and security. 6
The informations for rape were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2900 and 2901,
and read, in part:
Crim. Case No. 2900
That on or about the 17th day of February 2001, at 8:00 o'clock in the
evening at Brgy. ___________, Municipality of ________, Province of La Union,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design did then and
there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA
without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. 2901
That on or about the 17th day of February 2001, at 5:00 o'clock in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 afternoon at Brgy. ____________, Municipality of _______, Province of La Union,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with AAA
without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of said victim.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
On June 4, 2002, upon arraignment in the consolidated criminal cases, accused-
appellant pleaded not guilty, 8 and trial ensued.
The prosecution's version of the events was as follows:
AAA and her common-law husband lived rent-free in a house owned by
Concepcion. In return, they helped maintain the house and contributed to utility bills. 9
On February 17, 2001, at around 5:00 p.m., AAA arrived home in a tricycle,
bringing with her a sack of rice. Concepcion was at the gate of the house, drunk, when
AAA arrived. She went inside the house to place her lunchbox and to nd someone to
help her carry the sack of rice. Concepcion intercepted her at the garage area. He held a
knife to her back and dragged her to his room. Then he locked his room and blocked its
door using his bed. Concepcion then pulled AAA to the bed and told her to undress. She
begged Concepcion not to rape her. He undressed her, pulled down his pants, cut her
underwear using his knife, and then inserted his hand in her vagina. AAA felt pain and
struggled. Then, Concepcion inserted his penis into her vagina. 1 0
Shortly after, a vehicle arrived and a person who introduced himself as Chief of
Police Pedro Obaldo, Jr. 1 1 called on Concepcion to release AAA. In response,
Concepcion demanded that the police rst produce the men who raped his girlfriend,
Malou Peralta (Peralta). The police then brought the three (3) men demanded by
Concepcion. Then, Concepcion told the police to bring Peralta and her father, which
they did. When Peralta arrived, Concepcion refused to release AAA unless Peralta
admitted that she had been raped. At rst, Peralta refused to admit this, but later did
just so Concepcion would release AAA. Then, Concepcion asked that Board Member
Alfred Concepcion be produced. When he arrived, however, Concepcion asked him to
leave. 1 2
Concepcion then inserted his penis in AAA's vagina again, holding a knife to her
neck. Mayor Joaquin Ostrea's arrival interrupted the rape. He tried, but failed, to
convince Concepcion to release AAA. Concepcion instructed AAA to dress up. She
could not find her shirt, however, and wore Concepcion's shirt instead. 1 3 aScITE

Then, to electrocute those who might enter the room, Concepcion installed
electric wires on the door. The police o cers used their vehicle to create noise outside,
starting its engine and honking its horn. They forcibly entered Concepcion's room,
breaking the window and the door. PO3 Bartolome Oriña, Jr. (PO3 Oriña) 1 4 pulled AAA
and exited through the window. AAA then passed out. 1 5
Thereafter, Concepcion was arrested and brought to the police station. AAA was
brought to the hospital where Dr. Maribeth Baladad (Dr. Baladad) examined her. Dr.
Baladad testi ed that there were abrasions and lacerations in her genital area, caused
by the forceful entry of an object or organ. 1 6
Concepcion did not present evidence before the Regional Trial Court. 1 7
In its November 29, 2011 Decision, 1 8 the Regional Trial Court found Concepcion
guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, considering that she was
forcibly abducted and then sexually assaulted. It dismissed one (1) charge of rape for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 failure of the prosecution to establish the same with moral certainty. The dispositive
portion of this Decision read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, a judgment is hereby rendered
nding accused Bernie Concepcion GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and is hereby sentenced to
serve the penalty of imprisonment of Reclusion Perpetua.
Further, accused is hereby ordered to pay FIFTY THOUSAND
(PHP50,000.00) PESOS as moral damages.
SO ORDERED. 1 9
Concepcion appealed the Regional Trial Court Decision to the Court of Appeals.
In his appellant's brief, he admitted detaining AAA and holding her against her will.
However, he claimed that "his intention was not to detain" but "to extract an admission
from his girlfriend of the fact of her being raped and . . . to bring the alleged
perpetrators out in the open." 2 0 He stressed that even AAA testi ed that he assured
her release provided that those who raped his girlfriend were presented. This was also
corroborated by PO3 Oriña. 2 1 He insisted that no evidence was presented to show any
other intention than to attract attention to the alleged rape of his girlfriend. 2 2 Absent
proof that Concepcion's intent was to deprive AAA of her liberty, he should not be
convicted under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. Similarly, absent proof that he
abducted AAA with lewd designs, Concepcion could not be convicted of forcible
abduction under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. 2 3 Further, Concepcion insisted
that the testimonies presented by the prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable
doubt that he raped AAA. It was established that at the time of the alleged rape, AAA
was on her fourth day of menstruation, yet no evidence was presented showing traces
of menstrual discharge on the bed sheets or on Concepcion's clothing. Moreover, while
it may have been established that the coitus had occurred, Dr. Baladad could not
determine the date of such occurrence 2 4 or recall whether the lacerations she found on
AAA were fresh or old. 2 5 Finally, it was not shown that the spermatozoa found inside
AAA belonged to Concepcion. 2 6
The Court of Appeals denied Concepcion's appeal in its March 28, 2014 Decision.
2 7 It found that the elements of rape had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled
that carnal knowledge was established by AAA's testimony, which was corroborated by
the Physical and Medical Examination and testimony of Dr. Baladad, who examined AAA
on February 18, 2001. Dr. Baladad found abrasions on her ank area, left posterior
shoulder, and right knee, as well as a laceration on her fourchette. The Exfoliative
Cytology Report established the presence of spermatozoa and of a moderate
in ammation. That the carnal knowledge was accomplished through force or
intimidation was established by AAA, who testi ed that Concepcion held a knife to her
neck and that her pushes were ineffective against Concepcion, who was stronger than
her. 2 8
The Court of Appeals also found that the prosecution established the elements
of abduction. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the crime of rape absorbed the
forcible abduction, considering that it was established that the forcible abduction of
AAA was for the purpose of raping her. 2 9 The Court of Appeals also increased the
amount of damages awarded by the trial court. The dispositive portion of its Decision
read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision
dated 29 November 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Branch 34, ________, La Union in Crim. Case Nos. 2899, 2900 & 2901 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that accused-appellant is hereby found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of reclusion perpetua; and he is ORDERED to pay the
victim AAA not only the amount of Php50,000.00 as a moral damages already
awarded by the trial court, but also the amounts of Php50,000.00 as civil
indemnity, and Php30,000.00 as exemplary damages, plus interest on all
damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from nality of this Decision
until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 3 0
Thus, Concepcion filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. 3 1
In compliance with its May 14, 2014 Resolution, 3 2 which gave due course to
accused-appellant's notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals elevated the records of the
case to this Court. 3 3 In its January 14, 2015 Resolution, 3 4 this Court required the
parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs. The parties led their respective
manifestations in lieu of supplemental briefs on March 19, 2015 3 5 and March 31,
2015. 3 6 HEITAD

After considering the parties' arguments and the records of this case, this Court
resolves to DISMISS accused-appellant's appeal for failing to show reversible error in
the assailed decision, warranting this Court's appellate jurisdiction, and to MODIFY the
assailed decision.
Accused-appellant has failed to present any cogent reason to reverse the factual
ndings of the Court of Appeals and of the Regional Trial Court, with regard to his
conviction. The trial court's factual ndings, its assessment of the credibility of
witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies, and its conclusions based on
these factual ndings are to be given the highest respect, and when these are a rmed
by the Court of Appeals, this Court will generally not re-examine them. 3 7 However, this
Court modifies the assailed decision.
To recall, three (3) informations were led against accused-appellant for two (2)
counts of rape and one (1) count of serious illegal detention. Accused-appellant was
uniformly acquitted of the second count of rape due to the failure of the prosecution to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that it actually happened. As for the remaining two
(2) charges, the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both considered the rst
count of rape and the charge of serious illegal detention as necessarily linked.
Upon studying the records of this case, this Court nds AAA's testimony as
su cient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a second incident of
rape.
The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court found AAA's testimony to be
credible. Thus, in a rming accused-appellant's conviction for the rst count of rape,
the Court of Appeals March 28, 2014 Decision properly explained:
(Indeed) (i)n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the
credibility of the victim's testimony. Further, it bears stressing that (i)n a
prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the
testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things, as in (the present) case. No law or rule
requires the corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case.
Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of witnesses, and, more
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.
In this case, accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA by inserting
his penis into AAA's genitalia, and the same was accomplished through force,
threat or intimidation. AAA testi ed that she was not able to ght back because
accused-appellant's knife was pointed at her neck and that while she tried to
push him, he was stronger than her. AAA described the weapon used by
accused-appellant as a stainless bread knife which is about 9 inches long. AAA
also testi ed and narrated in detail the manner on how accused-appellant had
carnal knowledge of her, despite her efforts of fighting back.
We also nd that AAA's claim for rape was corroborated by Dr. Baladad,
a Medical O cer III in the OB-Gyne Department of the Ilocos Training and
Regional Medical Center, the doctor who examined her, upon the request for
Physical and Medical Examination dated 18 February 2001 of Police Chief
Inspector Pedro Obaldo, Jr. of the ________ Police Station . . .
xxx xxx xxx
It has been repeatedly held that no woman would want to go through the
process, the trouble and the humiliation of trial for such a debasing offense
unless she actually has been a victim of abuse and her motive is but a response
to the compelling need to seek and obtain justice. It is settled jurisprudence that
when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. 3 8 (Citations omitted)
As appreciated by the Court of Appeals, AAA testi ed and narrated in detail how
accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her. Upon examining the records, it became
clear that AAA testi ed and narrated two (2) separate incidents of rape. As to the rst
incident, AAA testified:
Q And when the accused took off your underwears, what happened next?
A After he removed the panty and bra he inserted his hand (Witness
demonstrating her fingers).
Q Where did the accused inserted (sic) his finger?
A In my vagina, sir. ATICcS

Q What particular part of the room [were you in] when the accused inserted
his finger [into] your vagina?
A On the bed, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you struggled so that the finger was removed, what happened next?
A That is the time he inserted his penis in . . . my vagina, sir.
Q Can you recall how many minutes or second[s] when he inserted his penis
to . . . your vagina?
A It is a short time bec[ause] he notice[d] that there [was] a vehicle . . .
stop[ped] outside their house, sir. 3 9
As for the second incident of rape, AAA narrated:
Q And what happened after the accused ask[ed Board Member Alfred
Concepcion] to leave the place?
A That [was] the time that he want[ed] again to rape me, sir. 4 0
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q And what happened after that?
A He went on top of me, sir.
Q And what happened [when he was] on top of you?
A He inserted his penis to my vagina, sir.
Q Was he able to penetrate your vagina?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you feel when he did that?
A None because I am still afraid at that time because the knife was still
pointed at my neck, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q On the 2nd time that the accused . . . inserted his penis to your vagina, what
then [were] you doing?
A Still I was lying down, sir.
Q You did not push him?
A I did it but of course he [was] a male, he [was] stronger than me, Your
Honor.
Q You did not cry while he was raping you?
A I cried, Your Honor. 4 1
As properly pointed out by the Court of Appeals in rape cases, primordial
consideration is given to the credibility of a victim's testimony. Here, AAA's testimonies
on both incidents of rape are equally credible. Considering that the judge who examined
AAA found her a believable witness 4 2 and considering further that there was nothing
wanting in AAA's testimony on the second rape incident, for the same reasons outlined
by the Court of Appeals in its decision, this Court nds that the evidence was su cient
to establish accused-appellant's guilt of the second rape charge.
As for the charge of serious illegal detention, the Court of Appeals held that the
forcible abduction was absorbed in the crime of rape because it was established that
the forcible abduction of AAA was for the purpose of raping her: 4 3
In this case, it is clear that accused-appellant forcibly abducted AAA for
the purpose of raping her. It bears to stress that accused-appellant already
raped AAA, and it was only after his commission of the said crime that he made
demands from the police authorities for AAA's release. In fact, AAA testi ed that
accused-appellant even placed electrical wires for the purpose of electrocuting
anybody who would enter the door or the window. Hence, if it were true that
accused-appellant only detained the victim to extract an admission from his
girlfriend Malou [Peralta] and to bring the alleged perpetrators of the latter out in
the open, he should have released AAA the moment his demands were acceded
to by the police o cers. It bears emphasis that accused-appellant failed to
present any evidence, and the defense he is belatedly putting up now is but a
last-ditched effort on his part to evade criminal liability. 4 4 (Citation omitted)
This Court disagrees. TIADCc

The facts as found by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals show
that after raping AAA, accused-appellant continued to detain her and refused to release
her even after raping her. Thus, although the initial abduction of AAA may have been
absorbed by the crime of rape, the continued detention of AAA after the rape cannot be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 deemed absorbed in it. Likewise, since the detention continued after the rape had been
completed, it cannot be deemed a necessary means for the crime of rape.
Articles 267 and 268 of the Revised Penal Code provide:
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private
individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other 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.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
in icted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill
him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public
officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping or detention
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the
commission of the offense.
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.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention. — The penalty of reclusion
temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the
crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of
the circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the
place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or
detained within three days from the commencement of the detention, without
having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Thus, the felony of slight illegal detention has four (4) elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual.
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives him of
his liberty .
3. That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal.
4. That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in Art. 267. 4 5 (Emphasis in the original)
The elements of slight illegal detention are all present here. Accused-appellant is
a private individual. The Court of Appeals found that after raping AAA, accused-
appellant continued to detain her and to deprive her of her liberty. It also appreciated
AAA's testimony that accused-appellant placed electrical wires around the room to
electrocute anyone who might attempt to enter it. He refused to release AAA even after
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 his supposed demands were met. The detention was illegal and not attended by the
circumstances that would render it serious illegal detention. Thus, this Court nds
accused-appellant guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention.
Further, in line with current jurisprudence, 4 6 P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages shall be
awarded to the victim for each count of rape.
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing premises, the Regional Trial Court
November 29, 2011 Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 2899, 2900, and 2901, and the
Court of Appeals March 28, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05721 are hereby
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS :
Accused-appellant Bernie Concepcion is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of two (2) counts of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua for each count. Accused-appellant Bernie
Concepcion is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight illegal
detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from nine (9) years and four (4) months of
prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to sixteen (16) years and ve (5)
months of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum. AIDSTE

The victim is entitled to the following amounts, for each count of rape:
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; and P75,000.00 as
exemplary damages. The award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this judgment until fully paid.
The accused shall pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Martires and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. The appeal was filed under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Court.
2. Rollo, pp. 2-22. The Decision, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05721, was penned by
Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by Associate Justices
Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles of the Fourteenth Division,
Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. CA rollo, pp. 52-57. The Decision, docketed as Crim. Case Nos. 2899, and 2900 and 2901,
was penned by Judge Manuel R. Aquino.
4. Id. at 57.

5. Rollo, pp. 18-19.

6. Id. at 3.
7. Id. at 3-4.
8. Id. at 4.
9. CA rollo, p. 74.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 10. Id. at 74-75.
11. Id. at 111.
12. Id. at 75.

13. Id.
14. Id. at 99.
15. Id. at 75-76.
16. Id. at 76.
17. Id. at 53.

18. Id. at 52-57.

19. Id. at 57.
20. Id. at 42.
21. Id. at 42-43.

22. Id. at 44.

23. Id. at 43.
24. Id. at 46.
25. Id. at 47.
26. Id. at 48.

27. Rollo, pp. 2-22.

28. Id. at 16-17.
29. Id. at 18.
30. Id. at 19.
31. CA rollo, pp. 147-149.

32. Id. at 152.

33. Rollo, p. 1.
34. Id. at 28.
35. Id., at 30-32. People of the Philippines filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of
Supplemental Brief.
36. Id. at 33-36. Accused-appellant filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief).
37. See People v. Castel, 593 Phil. 288 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].

38. Rollo, pp. 16-17.

39. CA rollo, p. 106.
40. Id. at 108.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 41. TSN, September 30, 2003, pp. 8-9.
42. RTC Records, p. 220.
43. Rollo, p. 18.
44. Id.

45. See People v. Pagalasan, 452 Phil. 341 (2003) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
46. See People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/april2016/202124.pdf> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com