People V. Lizada 483v70

d2015member

People v. Lizada (2003) Callejo, Sr. J. Short version: Lizada is being charged with 4 counts of raping his stepdaughter (first rape occurred when she was about 11 yrs old). TC and CA found him guilty. On appeal to the SC, Lizada assails the information against him for violating Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro because the phrase “on or about August 1998"stated in the information is too indefinite. SC says the failure to specify the exact date when it was committed does not make the Information defective because the gravamen of rape is not the date and time of its commission, but the carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances in RPC 335. Facts:  

Lizada is charged with 4 counts of qualified rape, and meting on him the death penalty for each count. (He is charged of raping a certain Analia Agoo in August, September, October, and November of 1998) The words used in the complaints were: o First: “sometime in August 1998” o Second: “on or about September 15, 1998” o Third: “on or about October 22, 1998” o Fourth: “on or about November 5, 1998”

The prosecution:  A couple in Bohol had 3 children, one of them being Analia (born 1985). They separated and the wife left to settle in Manila, took with her the kids, and worked as a waitress.  1994: Wife met Lizada and lived together.  The wife put up a video shop in the house and sold Avon products door to door. When she was out, her kids tended to the video shop.  1996: By this year, Analia was about 11 yrs old. One night, Lizada entered Analia’s room and removed her clothes, had intercourse with her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone what happened. This happened in less than an hour. This happened again the following year.  And from 1996-98, Lizada sexually abused Analia twice a week.  1998: Lizada, wearing only shorts, entered Analia’s room. Analia was not afraid because her younger brother was just around the house. However, Lizada was still able to have intercourse with her.  The brother ed by Analia’s room and saw Lizada on top of her. Lizada dismounted and berated the brother, told him to go to his room and sleep.  4 days later, Analia was in the video shop when Lizada ordered her to go to the sala. She refused bec no one would tend to the video shop. They fought.  When the mother arrived, she sided with Lizada which prompted Analia to shout “Ayoko na, ayoko na.” Analia then left to retrieve unreturned tapes.  When she got home, the mother asked her what she meant by “ayoko na” so Analia told her that Lizada had been touching her private parts.  They then went to the police and made a report.  She was examined by a doctor who found her hymen intact.  Later on, she also told her mother of the rapes. Analia then executed a “Dagdag na Salaysay ng Paghahabla” and charged Lizada with rape. The defense:  Lizada denied the rapes, claimed that he loved the children as if they were his own. He cooked and prepared their food, ironed their school uniforms, and bathed them, except Analia who was already big.  Analia was har headed and often disobeyed him. This caused Lizada and the mother to quarrel. The relatives of the husband also frequently visited, which irritated him.  He says that the mother probably coached the children so that she could manage the business and take control of all the property (VHS, 2 TVs, washing machine, scooter, sala set, CD player, videoke).  Also, the mother was exasperated bec he was unemployed. ------th  TC found him guilty of 4 counts of rape in 7 par, no 1, RPC 335. Death penalty for each count. Issue: Held: Ratio: Argument of Lizada #1:  That his conviction for rape in December 1992 was so remote from the date (November 1995) alleged in the Information, so that the Nov 1995 could no longer be considered as being "as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed" as provided under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.  SC says: o Does not agree.

d2015member

o o

In People v. Garcia, Court upheld a conviction for 10 counts of rape based on an information alleging multiple rape "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994," a time difference of almost four years. Such was longer than that involved in this case. In any case, Lizada's failure to raise a timely objection based on this ground constitutes a waiver of his right to object.

Argument of Lizada #2:  The information is defective because the date of the offense "on or about August 1998" is too indefinite, in violation of Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro: "Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. "    



SC does not agree with Lizada. The precise date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not make the Information defective. The reason for this is that the gravamen rape is carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under RPC 335. SC cites People v. Salalima: o Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not make the information defective because the precise date or is not an element of the offense. o As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. o In previous cases, “before and until”, “sometime in the year”, “some occasions prior and/or subsequent” have been ruled as sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro So, he cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the cases against him and that he was deprived of the opportunity to prepare for his defense

Re: Lizardo’s failure to protest and object  When Analia testified how Lizada defiled her twice a week, Lizada did not protest. Lizada even cross-examined her.  The presentation by the prosecution to prove the charges, without objection by Lizada, constituted a waiver of his right to object to any perceived infirmity.  Also, Lizada did not even file a motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 116, Section 9 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro before he was arraigned.  So, Lizada was duly arraigned under the Information and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge without any plaint on the sufficiency of the Information.  It was only on appeal to the SC that he questioned for the first time the sufficiency of the Information. It is now too late in the day for him to do so. Re: Hymen  The fact that Analia remained a virgin does not preclude her having been raped. She being of tender age, it is possible that the penetration went only as deep as her labia. o Even, the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ constitutes consummated rape o Whether or not the hymen was still intact has no substantial bearing Re: Criminal liability of Lizada  Prosecution proved through the testimony of Analia that Lizada raped her twice a week in 1998. In 3 criminal cases, Lizada is guilty only of simple rape.  As to the other one, the testimony of Analia and her brother leads SC to believe Lizada is guilty of attempted rape. Based on the testimony, the brother was able to interrupt the acts and so there was no introduction of the penis into the vagina. Judgment set aside. Lizada guilty of simple rape in 3 cases, in the other one attempted rape.