G.R. No. 143468-71 - People vs. Lizada

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143468-71)

Factual Background

The complainant, referred to in the records as AAA, was born on December 18, 1985 and lived with her mother and siblings after her parents separated. From 1994 the accused-appellant lived with AAA’s mother as her common-law husband at their residence in Tondo, Manila. AAA testified that from 1996 until 1998 accused-appellant repeatedly sexually abused her, as often as twice a week, by embracing, kissing, fondling, inserting his finger and inserting his penis into her vagina, and ejaculating, while threatening to kill her if she disclosed the acts. Specific incidents were alleged to have occurred in August 1998, on September 15, 1998, on October 22, 1998, and on November 5, 1998. AAA finally reported the incidents to her mother in November 1998, filed an Affidavit-Complaint on November 10, 1998, and submitted to a medico-legal examination by Dr. Armie Umil.

The Criminal Charges

Each of the four Informations charged accused-appellant with qualified rape, alleging that he, with lewd designs and by means of force, violence and intimidation, embraced, kissed and touched AAA’s private parts, removed her clothing and placed himself on top of her and “succeeded in having carnal knowledge” of AAA, against her will and consent, on or about the dates above, contrary to law. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty at arraignment on April 15, 1999, and a joint trial ensued.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented AAA, her younger brother, their mother, and Dr. Armie Umil. AAA testified in detail to repeated sexual assaults from 1996 to 1998, describing penetration by finger and penis and ejaculation, and threats by accused-appellant. Her younger brother testified that on November 5, 1998 he saw accused-appellant remove AAA’s panty, touch her and lie on top of her. Dr. Umil’s medico-legal report recorded that AAA’s hymen was intact, with an orifice of 1.5 cms, and concluded that no genital injury was evident and that complete penetration by an average adult male organ without producing injury would be unlikely.

Defense Evidence and Contentions

Accused-appellant testified and denied the charges. He asserted that he treated AAA as his own child and denied any act of rape. He claimed that AAA and her mother fabricated the charges to dispossess him of property and control of their business after quarrels and his temporary unemployment. Accused-appellant did not move for a bill of particulars and presented his evidence after the prosecution rested.

Trial Court Proceedings and Decision

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, convicted accused-appellant of four counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count. The written decision, however, consisted largely of summaries of testimony and concluded with a brief decretal paragraph citing the seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, without an adequate statement of the facts proved, issues resolved, the reasons for accepting witness credibility, or the factual and legal basis for the imposition of the death penalty.

Assigned Errors on Appeal

Accused-appellant assigned as errors the trial court’s failure to make findings of fact and the alleged inadequacy of the prosecution proof to sustain convictions beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the trial court’s decision violated Section 14, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution and pertinent rules requiring judgments to state clearly the facts and law on which they were based. He also challenged the sufficiency and particularity of the date allegations and the legal characterization of the acts.

Constitutional and Procedural Defect in the Trial Court’s Decision

The Court found merit in the contention that the trial court’s decision failed to comply with Art. VIII, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution and Rule 120, Sec. 2 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure because it did not set out the facts proved, the issues, the court’s findings on credibility, and the legal bases for conviction and imposition of the death penalty. The Court explained the purposes of those requirements, including notice to the parties, facilitation of appellate review, and development of jurisprudence. Although the usual remedy is remand for compliance, the Court declined to remand and instead resolved the cases on the merits to avoid delay because the full trial record was before the Court and both parties briefed the appeals.

Standards for Reviewing Rape Cases

In reviewing the evidence the Court reiterated guiding principles: allegations of rape are easy to make and difficult to disprove; a complainant’s testimony must be scrutinized with care; the prosecution’s case must stand on its own; and if reasonable doubt on any material element exists the accused must be acquitted. The Court noted that, by nature, rape prosecutions often hinge on the complainant’s credibility because only the participants usually testify to the act.

Assessment of Evidence Regarding September 15 and October 22, 1998 (Criminal Cases Nos. 99-171392 and 99-171393)

The Court rejected accused-appellant’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove the offenses on or about September 15 and October 22, 1998. It held that the allegations “on or about” permitted proof of acts within a period, and that AAA’s testimony that she was assaulted repeatedly two times a week from 1996 to 1998 covered the dates charged. The Court further held that the intact hymen did not preclude a finding of penetration or of rape because penetration need not be complete to constitute consummated rape; even slight penetration of the labia or entrance of the penis within the pudendum sufficed. Consequently, the Court sustained convictions on two counts but concluded that accused-appellant was guilty of simple rape, not qualified rape punishable by death, because the special qualifying circumstance relied upon by the prosecution — that accused-appellant was the common-law husband of AAA’s mother and that AAA was a minor — was not alleged in the Informations as required by Rule 110, Sec. 8 and thus could not support the imposition of the death penalty.

Assessment of Evidence Regarding the August 1998 Allegation (Criminal Case No. 99-171390)

The Court likewise found that the allegation dated “on or about August 1998” was sufficiently definite under Rule 110, Sec. 11 because the precise date is not an essential element of rape and the information adequately apprised accused-appellant of the charges. Given AAA’s testimony of repeated assaults in the period in question and the absence of a timely objection or request for bill of particulars, the Court convicted accused-appellant of simple rape for the August 1998 charge and imposed reclusion perpetua.

Assessment of Evidence Regarding November 5, 1998 (Criminal Case No. 99-171391)

The Court examined the evidence concerning November 5, 1998 and found that although accused-appellant entered AAA’s room, fondled her, removed her panty and mounted her, the testimony and corroboration showed no introduction of the penis into the pudendum. The Court analyzed whether the facts established consummated acts of lasciviousness, attempted rape, or consummated rape, and applied the elements of Article 336 and the definition of attempt under the last paragraph of Article 6. The Court concluded that accused-appellant commenced the direct commission of rape by overt acts that had immediate relation to consummation and that his desistance was not spontaneous but caused by the timely arrival of AAA’s brother. For that reason accused-appellant failed to complete all acts of execution through no spontaneous desistance on his part and therefore was guilty of attempted rape rather than acts of lasciviousness or consummated rape.

Legal Characterization, Penalties and Damages Imposed

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentences and rendered the following judgment on the merits:

In Criminal Case No. 99-171390 (on or about August 1998) accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape under Article 335 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He was ordered to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
In Criminal Case No. 99-171391 (November 5, 1998) accused-appellant was found guilty of attempted rape under Article 335 as amended in relation to Article 6 and was meted an indeterminate penalty from six years of prision correc

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143468-71)

Parties and Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted four Informations charging Freedie Lizada with four counts of qualified rape.
The four Informations were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 99-171390, 99-171391, 99-171392 and 99-171393 and the accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
The trial proceeded before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54, and culminated in a conviction and imposition of the death penalty on each count.
The decision of the trial court was the subject of an automatic review before the Court en banc.

Key Factual Allegations

The private complainant, AAA, was born December 18, 1985 and lived in the household where accused-appellant cohabited with her mother.
The four Informations alleged incidents on or about August 1998, November 5, 1998, October 22, 1998 and September 15, 1998 involving force, violence and intimidation.
AAA testified that from 1996 until 1998 accused-appellant sexually abused her about two times a week, including acts of insertion of finger and penis and ejaculation.
On November 5, 1998 the younger brother allegedly observed accused-appellant atop AAA and removing her panty, which prompted accused-appellant to desist and leave.

Charges

Each Information charged qualified rape with substantially identical accusatory phrasing alleging penetration, force, and ejaculation.
The Informations used the phrase “on or about” to allege dates for the offenses.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented testimony of AAA, her mother, her younger brother, and the medico-legal officer Dr. Armie Umil.
AAA recounted repeated sexual assaults beginning when she was about eleven years old and described penetration by finger and penis and the emission of a sticky substance.
Dr. Umil examined AAA and reported an intact hymen with an orifice measuring 1.5 cms and concluded that complete penetration by an average adult Filipino male organ without injury was precluded.
The younger brother testified that he saw accused-appellant remove AAA's panty and lay on top of her on November 5, 1998.

Defense Evidence

Accused-appellant testified and denied the charges and asserted a longstanding consensual cohabitation with AAA's mother since 1994.
Accused-appellant contended that AAA and other household members were coached by her mother to fabricate accusations to gain control of shared property.
Accused-appellant offered testimony and evidence of family life and claimed economic contributions and domestic care of the children.

Trial Court Decision

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of four counts of rape and imposed the death penalty for each count under the cited seventh paragraph, no. 1, of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code.
The trial court’s decision principally summarized witness testimonies and concluded guilt without a detailed statement of facts and the legal reasoning that led to the imposition of the death penalty.

Assigned Errors

Accused-appellant asserted that the trial court’s decision failed to comply with Article VIII, paragraph 14 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule requirements by not clearly and distinctly stating facts and law.
Accused-appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond