People vs Lizada G.R. No. 143468-71. January 24, 2003

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FREDIE LIZADA (G.R. No. 143468-71. January 24, 2003)

Ponente: Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.

 Doctrine: The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by him before his desistance.

 

This is an automatic review of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54, finding accused-appellant Freedie Lizada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four (4) counts of qualified rape and meting on him the death penalty for each count as provided for in the seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

sometime in August 1998, on or about November 5, 1998, on or about October 22, 1998,on or about September 15, 1998,

ISSUE:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT MAKING A FINDING OF FACT IN ITS DECISION AND SUCH FAILURE IS A REVERSIBLE ERROR.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF FOUR (4) COUNTS OF RAPE DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

In this case, the trial court failed to comply with the requirements under the Constitution and the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It merely summarized the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution and of accused-appellant on direct and cross examinations and merely made referral to the documentary evidence of the parties then concluded that, on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution, accused-appellant is guilty of four (4) counts of rape and sentenced him to death, on each count.

The trial court even failed to specifically state the facts proven by the prosecution based on their evidence, the issues raised by the parties and its resolution of the factual and legal issues, as well as the legal and factual bases for convicting accused-appellant of each of the crimes charged. The trial court rendered judgment against accused-appellant with the curt declaration in the decretal portion of its decision that it did so based on the evidence of the prosecution. The trial court swallowed hook, line and sinker the evidence of the prosecution. It failed to explain in its decision why it believed and gave probative weight to the evidence of the prosecution. Reading the decision of the trial court, one is apt to conclude that the trial court ignored the evidence of accused-appellant. The trial court did not even bother specifying the factual and legal bases for its imposition of the supreme penalty of death on accused-appellant for each count of rape. The trial court merely cited seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The decision of the trial court is a good example of what a decision, envisaged in the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, should not be.

The Court would normally remand the case to the trial court because of the infirmity of the decision of the trial court, for compliance with the constitutional provision. However, to avert further delay in the disposition of the cases, the Court decided to resolve the cases on their merits considering that all the records as well as the evidence adduced during the trial had been elevated to the Court. The parties filed their respective briefs articulating their respective stances on the factual and legal issues.

CONCLUSIONS of the Medico Legal on Analia Orillosa:

1). No evident sign of extragenital physical injuries noted on the body of the subject at the time of examination.

2). Hymen, intact and its orifice small (1.5 cms. in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury

The barefaced fact that private complainant remained a virgin up to 1998 does not preclude her having been repeatedly sexually abused by accused-appellant. The private complainant being of tender age, it is possible that the penetration of the male organ went only as deep as her labia. Whether or not the hymen of private complainant was still intact has no substantial bearing on accused-appellants commission of the crime. Even the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ or the mere entry of the penis into the aperture constitutes consummated rape. It is sufficient that there be entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 54, is SET ASIDE. Another judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

sometime in August 1998, SC – simple rape, reclusion perpertua

on or about November 5, 1998, SC - attempted rape, six years of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum to ten years of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum

on or about October 22, 1998,  SC – simple rape, reclusion perpertua

on or about September 15, 1998, SC – simple rape, reclusion perpertua

 SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,