PEOPLE vs.

EGAN
382 SCRA 326
FACTS:
Lito Egan alias Akiao, thirty-six (36) years old, was an avid admirer of a twelve (12)-year
old girl named Lenie T. Camad. Both the accused and Lenie were members of the
Manobo indigenous cultural community in Mindanao and residents of Sitio Salaysay,
Marilog, Davao City.
On 6 January 1997 Lenie and her cousin Jessica Silona were fetching water at a deep
well several meters from Lenies house in Sitio Salaysay. At around 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon, the accused appeared from nowhere and forcibly dragged and pushed Lenie
towards Sitio Dalag, Arakan, Cotabato. He threatened to kill her if she resisted. Before
leaving the site of the deep well, he likewise terrorized Jessica by brandishing his
hunting knife which forced the girl to scamper for safety. About 5:00 o'clock that same
afternoon, Jessica was able to report to Lenies father, Palmones Camad, the abduction
of his daughter. Palmones with a friend proceeded to Sitio Dalag to look for Lenie.
They sought the help of the barangay captain of Sitio Dalag while the accused and
Lenie stayed that same night in a house in Sitio Dalag.
On 7 January 1997 accused Lito Egan forced Lenie to escort him to Sitio Sayawan,
Miokan, Arakan, Cotabato, still threatening to kill her if she shouted or resisted, and
there stayed in the house of a sister of Lito. It was in this place where under the cover of
darkness and desolation he allegedly raped Lenie. (She would however change her
recollection of the alleged rape when she later testified that the crime had happened on
6 January 1997 at the house where they lodged in Sitio Dalag and that no other
incidents of rape subsequently took place).
For four (4) months the datus of Sitio Salaysay, who interceded for Lenies safe release,
attempted a customary settlement of the abduction in accordance with Manobo
traditions. It appears that the accused agreed to give two (2) horses to the family of
Lenie in exchange for her hand in marriage. The accused however reneged on his
promise to give two (2) horses. So since the amicable settlement was not realized, the
accused forcibly relocated Lenie to Cabalantian, Kataotao, Bukidnon, where she was
eventually rescued on 15 May 1997.
Lenie lost no time in denouncing the accused and exposing to her village elders the
disgrace that had befallen her. She and her father also reported the crime at the police
station in Lamundao, Marilog, Davao City. She was turned over to the Balay Dangupan,
a shelter house of the DSWD, which helped her in obtaining a medico-legal examination
and executing the necessary affidavit-complaint against accused Lito Egan.
Information for forcible abduction with rape was filed against the accused and was
finally arrested.
The trial court rejected the defenses of accused Lito Egan and convicted him of a
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape; hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of forcible abduction with rape.
HELD: No. Accused-appellant is instead declared guilty of Forcible Abduction only
under Art. 342 of The Revised Penal Code.
All the elements of forcible abduction were proved in this case. Accused-appellant Lito
Egan was charged with forcible abduction with rape of twelve (12)-year old Lenie T.
Camad. Although from the records it appears that Lenie was less than twelve (12)
years old as shown by her birth certificate when the abduction took place and the
alleged rape was perpetrated a day after, the criminal liability of accused-appellant
would nevertheless be confined only to the crime alleged in the Information.
Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the crime of forcible
abduction. The elements of forcible abduction are; that the person abducted is a
woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; that the abduction is against
her will; and,
That the abduction is with lewd designs. On the other hand, Art. 335 of the same Code
defines the crime of rape and provides for its penalty. The elements of rape pertinent to
this case are: that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and, That such act
is accomplished by using force or intimidation.
Nonetheless even assuming that the accused and the complainant were engaged by
virtue of the dowry he had offered, this fact alone would not negate the commission of
forcible abduction. An indigenous ritual of betrothal, like any other love affair, does not
justify forcibly banishing the beloved against her will with the intention of molesting her.
It is likewise well-settled that the giving of money does not beget an unbridled license to
subject the assumed fiance to carnal desires. By asserting the existence of such
relationship, the accused seeks to prove that the victim willingly participated in the act.
But, as shown by the evidence, she certainly did not. The evidence clearly does not
speak of consensual love but of criminal lust which could not be disguised by the socalled sweetheart defense or its variant as in the instant case. Finally, as held in People
v. Crisostomo, the intention to marry may constitute unchaste designs not by itself but
by the concurring circumstances which may vitiate such an intention, as in the case of
abduction of a minor with the latter's consent, in which the male knows that she cannot
legally consent to the marriage and yet he elopes with her. In the case at bar, there is
no denying the fact that Lenie was incapacitated to marry accused-appellant under
Manobo or Christian rites since she was still a minor thereby demonstrating the
existence of lewd designs.
As to the charge of rape, although the prosecution has proved that Lenie was sexually
abused, the evidence proffered is inadequate to establish carnal knowledge. Sexual
abuse cannot be equated with rape. In the case at bar, there is no evidence of entrance
or introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum. Lenie's testimony did
not establish that there was penetration by the sex organ of the accused or that he tried
to penetrate her. The doctor who examined Lenie's vagina would in fact admit upon
questioning of the trial judge that "there was no interlabia contact." Under the
circumstances, the criminal liability of accused-appellant is only for forcible abduction

under Art. 342 of The Revised Penal Code. The sexual abuse which accused-appellant
forced upon Lenie constitutes the lewd design inherent in forcible abduction and is thus
absorbed therein. The indecent molestation cannot form the other half of a complex
crime since the record does not show that the principal purpose of the accused was to
commit any of the crimes against chastity and that her abduction would only be a
necessary means to commit the same. Surely it would not have been the case that
accused-appellant would touch Lenie only once during her four (4)-month captivity, as
she herself admitted, if his chief or primordial intention had been to lay with her.
Instead, what we discern from the evidence is that the intent to seduce the girl forms
part and parcel of her forcible abduction and shares equal importance with the other
element of the crime which was to remove the victim from her home or from whatever
familiar place she may be and to take her to some other. Stated otherwise, the intention
of accused-appellant as the evidence shows was not only to seduce the victim but also
to separate her from her family, especially from her father Palmones, clearly tell-tale
signs of forcible abduction.
Verily the single sexual abuse of Lenie although accused-appellant had other
opportunities to do so was itself the external manifestation of his lewd design, and
hence he could not be punished for it either separately or as part of a complex crime.