Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Mirandilla G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011
People Vs Mirandilla G.R. No. 186417, 27 July 2011
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Facts: Mirandilla was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City with
kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape, and rape through sexual assault. AAA was allegedly raped
27 times by Mirandilla. The RTC, in its decision on July 2004, convicted Mirandilla of kidnapping, four
counts of rape, and one count of rape through sexual assault.
On review, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, convicting Mirandilla. It found him
guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of kidnapping as the RTC ruled),
four counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault. It rejected Mirandilla’s defense that he
and AAA were live-in partners and that their sexual encounters were consensual. It noted that
Mirandilla failed to adduce any evidence or any credible witness to sustain his defense.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the decision of the RTC.
Ruling: NO.
An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not
raised by the parties. This was our pronouncement in the 1902 landmark case of U.S. v. Abijan, 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.
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.
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.
The Court, 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.
Disposition: The appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00271 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
rape under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, by R.A. No.
7659, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and to
pay the offended party AAA, the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, ₱75,000.00 as
moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
FULL TEXT OF THE CASE
For Review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00271,1 dated 29 February 2008, finding accused Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., (Mirandilla) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of special complex crime of kidnapping with rape; four counts of rape; and, one
count of rape through sexual assault.
Mirandilla is now asking this Court to acquit him. He contends that he could not have kidnapped and
raped the victim, AAA,2 whom he claims to be his live-in partner. The records, however, reveal with
moral certainty his guilt. Accordingly, We modify the CA Decision and find him guilty of the special
complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape.
THE FACTS
It was 2 December 2000, eve of the fiesta in Barangay San Francisco, Legazpi City. At the plaza,
AAA was dancing with her elder sister, BBB.3
AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a nearby store. While making her way back
through the crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his arm wrapped her shoulders, with a knife’s point
thrust at her right side. She will come to know the man’s name at the police station, after her escape,
to be Felipe Mirandilla, Jr.4 He told her not to move or ask for help. Another man joined and went
beside her, while two others stayed at her back, one of whom had a gun. They slipped through the
unsuspecting crowd, walked farther as the deafening music faded into soft sounds. After a four-hour
walk through the grassy fields, they reached the Mayon International Hotel, where they boarded a
waiting tricycle. Upon passing the Albay Cathedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA alone with
Mirandilla who after receiving a gun from a companion, drove the tricycle farther away and into the
darkness. Minutes later, they reached the Gallera de Legazpi in Rawis.5
Mirandilla dragged AAA out of the tricycle and pushed her inside a concrete house. At gunpoint he
ordered her to remove her pants.6 When she defied him, he slapped her and hit her arms with a gun,
forced his hands inside her pants, into her panty, and reaching her vagina, slipped his three fingers
and rotated them inside. The pain weakened her. He forcibly pulled her pants down and lifting her
legs, pushed and pulled his penis inside.7 "Sayang ka," she heard him whisper at her,8 as she
succumbed to pain and exhaustion.
When AAA woke up the following morning, she found herself alone. She cried for help, shouting until
her throat dried. But no one heard her. No rescue came.
At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived together with his gang. Pointing a gun at AAA, he ordered her
to open her mouth; she sheepishly obeyed. He forced his penis inside her mouth, pulling through her
hair with his left hand and slapping her with his right. After satisfying his lust, he dragged her into the
tricycle and drove to Bogtong, Legazpi. At the road’s side, Mirandilla pushed her against a reclining
tree, gagged her mouth with cloth, punched her arm, thigh, and lap, and pulled up her over-sized
shirt. Her underwear was gone. Then she felt Mirandilla’s penis inside her vagina. A little while, a
companion warned Mirandilla to move out. And they drove away.9
They reached a nipa hut and AAA was thrown inside. Her mouth was again covered with cloth.
Mirandilla, with a gun aimed at her point blank, grabbed her shirt, forced her legs open, and again
inserted his penis into her vagina.10
The following evening, Mirandilla and his gang brought AAA to Guinobatan, where she suffered the
same fate. They repeatedly detained her at daytime, moved her back and forth from one place to
another on the following nights, first to Bonga, then back to Guinobatan, where she was locked up in
a cell-type house and was raped repeatedly on the grassy field right outside her cell, then to
Camalig, where they caged her in a small house in the middle of a rice field. She was allegedly
raped 27 times.11
One afternoon, in Guinobatan, AAA succeeded in opening the door of her cell. Seeing that Mirandilla
and his companions were busy playing cards, she rushed outside and ran, crossed a river, got
drenched, and continued running. She rested for awhile, hiding behind a rock; she walked through
the fields and stayed out of people’s sight for two nights. Finally, she found a road and followed its
path, leading her to the house of Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the police station. It was 11
January 2001. AAA was in foul smell, starving and sleepless. Evelyn Guevarra gave her a bath and
the police gave her food. When the police presented to her pictures of suspected criminals, she
recognized the man’s face – she was certain it was him. He was Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., the police told
her.12
The following morning, accompanied by the police, AAA submitted herself to Dr. Sarah Vasquez,
Legazpi City’s Health Officer for medical examination. The doctor discovered hymenal lacerations in
different positions of her hymen, indicative of sexual intercourse.13 Foul smelling pus also oozed from
her vagina - AAA had contracted gonorrhoea.14
Mirandilla first met AAA on 3 October 2000. By stroke of fate, they bumped into each other at the
Albay Park where AAA, wearing a school uniform, approached him. They had a short chat. They
were neighbors in Barangay San Francisco until Mirandilla left his wife and daughter there for
good.15
Two days later, Mirandilla and AAA met again at the park. He started courting her,16 and, after five
days, as AAA celebrated her 18th birthday, they became lovers. Mirandilla was then 33 years old.
Immediately, Mirandilla and AAA had sex nightly in their friends’ houses and in cheap motels. On 24
October 2000, after Mirandilla went to his mother’s house in Kilikao, they met again at the park, at
their usual meeting place, in front of the park’s comfort room, near Arlene Moret, a cigarette vendor
who also served as the CR’s guard.17 They decided to elope and live as a couple. They found an
abandoned house in Rawis, at the back of Gallera de Legazpi. Emilio Mendoza who owned the
house, rented it to them for ₱1,500.00.18 They lived there from 28 October until 11 December
2000.19 From 12 December 2000 until 11 January 2001,20 Mirandilla and AAA stayed in Rogelio
Marcellana’s house, at the resettlement Site in Banquerohan, Legazpi City.
Mirandilla and AAA’s nightly sexual intimacy continued, with abstentions only during AAA’s
menstrual periods, the last of which she had on 7 December 2000.21 In late December, however,
Mirandilla, who just arrived home after visiting his mother in Kilikao, saw AAA soaked in blood,
moaning in excruciating stomach pain.22 AAA had abortion – an inference he drew upon seeing the
cover of pills lying beside AAA. Mirandilla claimed that AAA bled for days until she left him in
January 2001 after quarrelling for days.23
Mirandilla, however, had a second version of this crucial event. He claimed that AAA missed her
menstruation in December 200024 and that he would not have known she had an abortion had she
not confessed it to him.25
THE RTC RULING
Mirandilla was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 5, with
kidnapping with rape (Crim. Case No. 9278), four counts of rape (Crim. Case Nos. 9274 to 9277),
and rape through sexual assault (Crim. Case No. 9279).
The RTC, in its decision dated 1 July 2004, convicted Mirandilla of kidnapping, four counts of rape,
and one count of rape through sexual assault with this finding:
This Court has arrived at the factual conclusion that Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., in the company of three
others [conferrers], kidnapped AAA in Barangay xxx, City of xxx, on or on about midnight of
December 2, 2000 or early morning of December 3, 2000, held her in detention for thirty-nine days in
separate cells situated in the City of xxx; xxx; and xxx. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., carnally abused her
while holding a gun and/or a knife for twenty seven times, employing force and intimidation. The
twenty seven sexual intercourses were eventually perpetrated between the City of xxx and the towns
of xxx and xxx. At least once, Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., put his penis inside the mouth of AAA against
her will while employing intimidation, threats, and force.26
On review, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, convicting Mirandilla. It found him guilty
of the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of kidnapping as the RTC ruled), four
counts of rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault.27 It rejected Mirandilla’s defense that he and
AAA were live-in partners and that their sexual encounters were consensual.28 It noted that
Mirandilla failed to adduce any evidence or any credible witness to sustain his defense.29
Mirandilla repeats his allegations that the prosecution’s lone witness, AAA, was not a credible
witness and that he and AAA were live-in partners whose intimacy they expressed in consensual
sex.
OUR RULING
We find Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape.
Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual intercourse with AAA, which happened almost
nightly during their cohabitation. He contended that they were live-in partners, entangled in a
whirlwind romance, which intimacy they expressed in countless passionate sex, which headed
ironically to separation mainly because of AAA’s intentional abortion of their first child to be – a
betrayal in its gravest form which he found hard to forgive.
In stark contrast to Mirandilla’s tale of a love affair, is AAA’s claim of her horrific ordeal and her flight
to freedom after 39 days in captivity during which Mirandilla raped her 27 times.
First Issue:
Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be
credible in itself – such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its
conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs
to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.32
First, the trial judge, who had the opportunity of observing AAA’s manner and demeanour on the
witness stand, was convinced of her credibility: "AAA appeared to be a simple and truthful woman,
whose testimony was consistent, steady and firm, free from any material and serious
contradictions."33 The court continued:
The record nowhere yields any evidence of ill motive on the part of AAA to influence her in
fabricating criminal charges against Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. The absence of ill motive enhances the
standing of AAA as a witness. x x x.
When AAA testified in court, she was sobbing. While she was facing Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., to
positively identify him in open court, she was crying. Felipe Mirandilla Jr.’s response was to smile.
AAA was a picture of a woman who was gravely harmed, craving for justice. x x x.34
Second, the trial court found AAA’s testimony to be credible in itself. AAA’s ordeal was entered into
the police blotter immediately after her escape,35 negating opportunity for concoction.36 While in
Mirandilla’s company, none of her parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, classmates, or anyone who
knew her, visited, saw, or talked to her. None of them knew her whereabouts.37 AAA’s testimony was
corroborated by Dr. Sarah Vasquez, Legazpi City’s Health Officer, who discovered the presence not
only of hymenal lacerations but also gonorrhoea, a sexually transmitted disease.
More importantly, AAA remained consistent in the midst of gruelling cross examination. The defense
lawyer tried to impeach her testimony, but failed to do so.
The Court of Appeals confirmed AAA’s credibility in affirming the RTC decision.
We emphasize that a trial court’s assessment of a witness’ credibility, when affirmed by the CA, is
even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight or influence.38 This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts
are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves
and having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under gruelling
examination.39 Thus, in Estioca v. People,40 we held:
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following
principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless there is a
showing that it overlooked or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that
may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are
entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanour
when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and
convincing manner is a credible witness.41
Second Issue
Accused’s bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot alone, stand. To be credible, it must be
corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.42 Usually, these are letters, notes,
photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers.43
The sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first
element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation,
the coupling element of rape. Love, is not a license for lust.44
This admission makes the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative
defense that needs convincing proof;45 after the prosecution has successfully established a prima
facie case,46 the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused,47 who has to adduce evidence that the
intercourse was consensual.48
A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence
sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation.49
Burden of evidence is "that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during the
trial to create a prima facie case in his favour or to overthrow one when created against
him."50(Emphasis supplied)
Mirandilla with his version of facts as narrated above attempted to meet the prosecution’s prima
facie case. To corroborate it, he presented his mother, Alicia Mirandilla; his relatives, Rogelio
Marcellana and Emilio Mendoza; and, his friend Arlene Moret.
Arlene Moret, the cigarette vendor who also served as the CR’s guard, testified that on 30 October
2000, AAA and Mirandilla arrived together at the park.51 They approached her and chatted with her.
On cross examination, she claimed otherwise: Mirandilla arrived alone two hours earlier, chatting
with her first, before AAA finally came.52 She also claimed meeting the couple for the first time on 30
October 2000, only to contradict herself on cross examination with the version that she met them
previously, three times at least, in the previous month.53 On the other hand, Mirandilla claimed first
meeting AAA on 3 October 2000 at the park.54
The accused’s mother, Alicia Mirandilla, testified meeting her son only once, and living in Kilikao only
after his imprisonment.55 This contradicted Mirandilla’s claim that he visited his mother several times
in Kilikao, from October 2000 until January 2001.56
Even Mirandilla contradicted himself. His claim that he saw AAA soaked in blood, agonizing in pain,
with the abortifacient pills’ cover lying nearby, cannot be reconciled with his other claim that he came
to know AAA’s abortion only through the latter’s admission.57
Taken individually and as a whole, the defense witnesses’ testimonies contradicted each other and
flip-flopped on materials facts, constraining this Court to infer that they concocted stories in a
desperate attempt to exonerate the accused.
To completely disregard all the testimony of a witness based on the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus, testimony must have been false as to a material point, and the witness must have a
conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a material point. In other words, its requirements, which
must concur, are the following: (1) that the false testimony is as to one or more material points; and
(2) that there should be a conscious and deliberate intention to falsity.63
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:
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
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
la detención, la prición, la privación de la libertad de una persona, en cualquier forma y por cualquier
medio ó por cualquier tiempo en virtud de la cual resulte interrumpido el libre ejercicio de su
actividad."69
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 to reclusion 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 NOT85 less than ₱75,000.00. 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 Victor88 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 ₱75,000.00 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) 1avv phi1
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 ₱30,000.00, pursuant to the present jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
00271 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with rape under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, by R.A.
No. 7659, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole,
and to pay the offended party AAA, the amounts of ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto,
₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
SO ORDERED.