People V.
Lambid
G.R. No. 169777| April 20,2006|
Topic:Compromises
Syllabus as per original text:Criminal Law; Rape; Evidence; Under R.A. No. 8353, it is
required that prosecution for the crime of rape as in any other public crimes, is
commenced in court by the filing of an information by the public prosecutor and no
longer by a mere complaint filed by the offended party, parents, godparents or
guardian.—Under this law, rape has been reclassified from a private crime or crime
against chastity into a crime against persons. Consequently, the prosecution for the
crime of rape was removed from the ambit of Chapter Five, Title Eleven of the Revised
Penal Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which
required that in crimes against chastity, the complaint must be filed by the offended
party, or her parents, godparents or guardian, as the case may be under the law.
Thus, effective October 22, 1997, R.A. No. 8353, it is required that prosecution for
the crime of rape, as in any other public crimes, is commenced in court by the filing
of an information by the public prosecutor and no longer by a mere complaint filed
by the offended party, parents, godparents or guardian.
Same; Same; Same; It is a settled rule that discrepancies in details which are
irrelevant to the elements of the crime such as the exact time of the commission of
the crime are not grounds for acquittal; To be material, discrepancies in the testimony
of the victim should refer to significant facts which are determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.—We agree with the contention of the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) that the failure of complainant to correctly pinpoint the day of the
week when she was raped and to recall the exact date of her mother’s arrival from
Leyte are inconsequential matters. It is a settled rule that discrepancies in details
which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the
commission of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal. To be material, discrepancies
in the testimony of the victim should refer to significant facts which are determinative
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Same; Same; Same; Laceration of the hymen, whether fresh or healed is the
best physical evidence of defloration.—Lyzel’s testimony is strongly corroborated by
her sister Mary Ann and buttressed by physical evidence. The physician’s findings on
her physical examination conducted on November 3, 1997 indicated the presence of
fresh lacerations on her hymen. Laceration of the hymen, whether fresh or healed, is
the best physical evidence of defloration.
Same; Same; Same; Under Article 266-A paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, rape is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman through fear, threat or intimidation.—Under Article
266-A, paragraph 1(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, rape
is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through fear,
threat or intimidation.
Same; Same; Same; In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter,
the former’s parental authority and moral ascendancy over the latter substitutes for
violence or intimidation.—As we have held in People vs. Rodriguez: The defense
argument that the accused has not employed force upon his daughter in order to
have sex with him does not at all persuade. The force or violence necessary in rape is
a relative term that depends not only on the age, size, and strength of the persons
involved but also on their relationship to each other. In a rape committed by a father
against his own daughter, the former’s parental authority and moral
ascendancy over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation who, expectedly,
would just cower in fear and resign to the father’s wicked deeds. It would be plain
fallacy to say that the failure to shout or to offer tenacious resistance makes
voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal act of the offender.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; It is a settled rule that the workings of the
human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable and there is no standard form
of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident.—Appellant further
questions the credibility of Lyzel in enabling him to rape her in two successive days.
He contends that after Lyzel was raped for the first time on October 31, 1997, her
logical reaction should have been to immediately seek the help of other people; that
despite her opportunity to do so, she did not. We are not persuaded. It is a settled
rule that the workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable
and there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking
incident. Verily, under emotional stress, the human mind is not expected to follow a
predictable path.
Same; Same; Same; Offer of Compromise; A plea for forgiveness may be
considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise and an offer of compromise
by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.—
Appellant raised no defense whatsoever. He virtually admitted his guilt. A review of
the transcript of stenographic notes taken during his direct and cross examinations
shows that he never disowned the acts imputed against him. Appellant merely
claimed that he was drunk and he asked for forgiveness from Lyzel, if he had really
raped her and for compassion from the trial court. In People vs. Alvero, we held that
a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise
and an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt. Thus, by asking for forgiveness, appellant has admitted his guilt.
 Same; Same; Death Penalty; The death penalty may be imposed only if the
complaint or information has alleged and the evidence has proven both the minority
of the victim and her relationship to the offender by the quantum of proof required
for conviction.—However, the complaints/ informations in those two cases failed to
allege Lyzel’s minority or appellant’s relationship to her. Section 9, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires that both qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in the complaint or information. Existing jurisprudence
instructs that the death penalty may be imposed only if the complaint or information
has alleged and the evidence has proven both the minority of the victim and her
relationship to the offender by the quantum of proof required for conviction. In the
present case, not only were the minority of the complainant and her relationship with
appellant not alleged in the two complaints/informations filed against appellant, but,
also, the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the second rape was committed in
full view of appellant’s daughter. Consequently, appellant may be convicted only of
simple rape; hence, the trial court erred in imposing death penalty in both cases. The
appropriate penalty which could be imposed on the appellant is reclusion perpetua in
each count.
Same; Same; Civil Indemnity; Civil indemnity is distinct from moral damages as
it is based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of
its sound discretion; The award of civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of
fact of rape.—Civil indemnity is distinct from moral damages as it is based on
different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of its sound
discretion. The award of civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape.
Based on existing jurisprudence, the civil indemnity for the victim in simple rape shall
not be less than P50,000.00.
Same; Same; Exemplary Damages; The presence of an aggravating
circumstance justifies an award for exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil
Code even in the absence of an allegation of the aggravating circumstance in the
Information.—It is settled that the presence of an aggravating circumstance justifies
an award for exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code even in the
absence of an allegation of the aggravating circumstance in the Information. The
award of exemplary damages should serve to deter other fathers with perverse
tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon and sexually abusing
their daughters. Thus, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 for each
count of rape should be awarded to the victim in view of the presence of the
aggravating circumstances of relationship and dwelling.
Facts:
 On October 31, 1997, 14-year old Lyzel was sleeping in their house located
at Inayawan, Cebu City together with her father, herein appellant, and two
sisters. Around 5:00 in the morning, she woke up and noticed her father
lying beside her.
 The father succeeded in removing the panties of the child despite the
resistance of the victim. But the accused succeeded in his carnal desires.
 The crime again happened the day after the 1st instance of rape.
 The two instances of crime were witnessed by Mary Ann the sister of the
victim. This was done when she was suspicious of the activities of her father
at 5am in the morning and by lying on the near the foot of the victims she
was able to see their father threaten the victim and move up and down while
breathing heavily at the same time him wearing only his underwear. She also
heard that the same should not be relayed to the mother or else the victim
shall be killed.
 Mary Ann relayed the information to their neighbours which lead to the
arrest of the father.
 The appellant was the lone witness for the defence
 The Dr. Who examined the vicitim stated that there were lacerations but
there was negative results for spermatozoa.
 The father said upon cross examination that he did not know that he raped
the daughter as he was drunk but he asked for a lesser penalty as the
children was still under his care.
 Court sentenced him two death sentences.
 Hence, the present automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.
Issue: WON THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT.
WON THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF
DEATH NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ALLEGE THE AGE
AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE VICTIM AND THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Held: At the outset, it is noted that since the crimes were committed on October 31,
1997 and November 1, 1997, the applicable law is R.A. 8353, otherwise known as
“The Anti-Rape Law of 1997”10 which took effect on October 22, 1997.
Under this law, rape has been reclassified from a private crime or crime against
chastity into a crime against persons. Consequently, the prosecution for the crime of
rape was removed from the ambit of Chapter Five, Title Eleven of the Revised Penal
Code and Section 5, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure which required
that in crimes against chastity, the complaint must be filed by the offended party, or
her parents, godparents or guardian, as the case may be under the law.
Effective October 22, 1997, R.A. No. 8353, it is required that prosecution for the crime
of rape, as in any other public crimes, is commenced in court by the filing of an
information by the public prosecutor and no longer by a mere complaint filed by the
offended party, parents, godparents or guardian.

In the present cases, the indictments charging appellant with the crimes of rape were
each captioned as a “Complaint” signed by Lyzel herself; but, there is a Certification
on the second page of each of the complaints by the investigating prosecutor treating
the complaint as an information.

The apparent defect in the form of indictment, that is by way of a complaint by the
offended party, is merely one of form which does not invalidate the proceedings had
in the trial court.

As to the COMPROMISE

Appellant raised no defense whatsoever. He virtually admitted his guilt. A review

of the transcript of stenographic notes taken during his direct and cross
examinations shows that he never disowned the acts imputed against
him.28 Appellant merely claimed that he was drunk and he asked for forgiveness
from Lyzel, if he had really raped her and for compassion from the trial court.
In People vs. Alvero, we held that a plea for forgiveness may be considered as
analogous to an attempt to compromise and an offer of ompromise by the accused
may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.29 Thus, by asking for
forgiveness, appellant has admitted his guilt.

Cummulative and Corroborative Testimony of the victim and the sister Mary Ann
cemented the guilt of the father