People v Lampaza

People v Lampaza GR No. 138876 | November 24, 1999 | J. Panganiban Case: Egmedio Lampaza appeals the RTC of San Jose, Antique decision finding him guilty of rape and applying the indeterminate sentence law sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the period of 12 yrs and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months as minimum to 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years as maximum. CA affirmed the conviction of Lampaza, but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. FACTS: Version of Prosecution Version 1. In the morning morning of March 20, 1988, 1988, victim victim Teodora Teodora Wacay Wacay was in in her farm lot in in Sitio Namontonan, Barangay Camandangan, Tobias Fornier, Antique. When she was about to graze their animals, all of a sudden accused Lampaza came from behind her and twisted both her arms then brought her to an uninhabited nipa hut. 2. Accused Accused dropped the victim victim to the floor of the the nipa hut, pinned pinned both her legs, legs, including including her right right hand, with his knees and took off his pants. The accused had his bolo beside him with which he threatened the victim. 3. Vict Victim im testifies testifies that that the accused accused raped her then, then, explained explained in details details the commissi commission on of the act. 4. First witness witness present presented, ed, a college college student student who is the nephew of the victim, victim, went went to the house house of his aunt Teodora during the same date, and did not find her there. He looked for Teodora and proceeded to a farm where animals are grazed. Witness saw his aunt running out of one of the nipa huts in the farm. She was very pale and sobbing, and said she was afraid of somebody. She asked the witness to accompany her back to her house. 5. Another witness, witness, the the husband of the victim, victim, testifie testified d that the latter latter informed informed him about her her being raped by the accused and he wanted to kill the Lampaza, if not prevailed upon by his wife. Instead, they filed the criminal complaint to the police authorities. Version of the Defense 1. Accus Accused ed insisted insisted that he and the complainant, complainant, his neighbour neighbour,, were sweethearts, sweethearts, however however,, they married different persons. Notwithstanding this, they have and intimate relations. 2. In the morning morning of March March 20, 1988, 1988, accused accused heard a signal signal from from the complaina complainant. nt. The latter latter informed him that her husband was in another town. 3. The 2 of them went went up the nipa nipa hut and had sexual sexual intercou intercourse, rse, with with the complainan complainantt taking her her clothes first. They made love consensually. He did not threaten nor force the complainant; neither did he use force in consummating the sexual act because the same was with the consent of the complainant.

People v Lampaza GR No. 138876 | November 24, 1999 | J. Panganiban 4. The lawfully wedded wife of the accused, Filomena Lampaza, testified that the complainant is a mistress of her husband. *Conviction of rape affirmed by SC. *Under the law in effect when the crime was committed, the penalty for simple rape was reclusion perpetua. ISSUE / HELD: Whether or not the RTC correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law —> NO RATIO: In imposing a lower indeterminate penalty, the trial court erred, because the Indeterminate Sentense Law does not apply when the offence involved is punishable with reclusion perpetua. CA decision affirmed, with modification that the appellant shall pay the victim P50,000 as indemnity ex delicti in addition to the P50,000 awarded as moral damages.