Case Digest (G.R. No. 78492)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Dick Ocapan, G.R. No. 78492, May 29, 1987, the Supreme Court Second Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Accused-appellant Dick Ocapan and his common-law wife Joselyn Ocapan were charged by information dated March 11, 1985 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Norte, Iligan City, with the complex crime described as “rape with serious illegal detention” of Arlene Yupo. The information alleged that on or about January 17, 1985 Dick, with Joselyn, had carnal knowledge of Arlene (alleged in the information as a minor and househelper) and thereafter detained her for more than five days to prevent her from reporting the rape.
On motion of the City Fiscal, the RTC dismissed the case against Joselyn on May 23, 1985 for lack of prima facie evidence; Dick pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial. The prosecution’s witnesses, including the offended party and a physician, testified that Dick raped Arlene on January 17, 1985 and that Arlene was detained until January 23, 1985; the physician found healed lacerations of the hymen. The defense presented evidence that Arlene and Dick were lovers, that sexual relations had occurred earlier, and that Arlene was free to go about on several days during the relevant period.
On October 7, 1985 the RTC rendered judgment dismissing the rape charge for failure to present a signed complaint by the offended party, but convicted Dick of serious illegal detention and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum, plus P20,000 damages. Dick appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA (Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, with Bellosillo and Fule, JJ., concurring) reviewed the evidence, found the rape charge properly dismissed for lack of a complaint under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, concluded that the prosecution proved serious illegal detention beyond reasonable doubt, and held that because article 267(4) of the Revised Penal Code prescribes as the penalty reclusion perpetua to death when the detained person is female, the Indeterminate Sentence Law did not apply and the proper punishment was reclusion perpetua. The CA modified the RTC sentence to reclusion perpetua, denied bail, and in conformity with Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court and People v. Daniel, certified the case to the Supre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the accused denied his right to preliminary investigation?
- Did the evidence support the conviction for serious illegal detention?
- Was the trial court deprived of jurisdiction by charging the complex crime “rape with serious illegal detention” and by dismissing the rape count for lack of complaint?
- Did the Indeterminate Sentence Law apply and was the accused entitled to b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)