G.R. Nos. 133066-67 October 1, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROMEO H. LAMBID, Appellant

G.R. Nos.
133066-67 October 1, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROMEO H. LAMBID, appellant.
FACTS:
On October 31, 1997, 14-year old Lyzel was sleeping in their house located at Inayawan, Cebu City
together with her father, herein appellant, and two sisters. Around 5:00 in the morning, she woke up and
noticed her father lying beside her. Then, her father started removing her panty at the same time warning
her not to tell her mother what he was doing. After her father succeeded in removing her panty, he went
on top of her and started inserting his penis into her vagina. She initially tried to resist the sexual
advances of her father by kicking him and by moving her body from left to right and vice versa. She
stopped resisting when her father stared hard at her and threatened to kill her (Lyzel). Her father
succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina. The following day, November 1, 1997, she was again
roused from her sleep and noticed her father lying beside her. Repeating what he did the previous day, her
father removed her panty. Thereafter, he successfully inserted his penis into her vagina. Lyzel did nothing
out of fear. She did not tell anybody about these two incidents.
Her sister, Mary Ann, aged 13, witnessed both incidents. She was awakened by the act and heard her
father’s threat to her sister. She also tried to kick her father, but her father covered her with a blanket, but
she was able to peep through the blanket. On November 2, 1997, Mary Ann informed three of their
neighbors about the incident.
In the physical examination made on November 3, it was found that Lyzel’s vagina had hymenal
lacerations and it was sustained within six days prior to examination.
As a defense, Romeo pleaded forgiveness from his daughter if he really raped her. According to him, he
was only drunk during those times.
ISSUE:
WON respondent Romeo Lambid is guilty of the crime of rape

WON it was proper for the RTC to impose death penalty despite failure by the prosecution to allege age
and relationship of the victim and the accused.
RULING:
Yes, accused is guilty of rape. The accused attack on the credibility of the complainant is untenable. The
failure of complainant to correctly pinpoint the day of the week when she was raped and to recall the
exact date of her mother’s arrival from Leyte are inconsequential matters. It is a settled rule that
discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the
commission of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal. To be material, discrepancies in the testimony of
the victim should refer to significant facts which are determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. In the present case, the mental lapse on the part of Lyzel in failing to accurately recall the exact
days of the week when she was raped and the date of her mother’s arrival from Leyte does not detract
from her credibility. It only indicates that her account is spontaneous, neither rehearsed nor contrived.
What is important is that she was able to clearly recall how she was raped and testify on this matter in a
categorical and straightforward manner. Moreover, Lyzel’s testimony is strongly corroborated by her
sister Mary Ann and buttressed by physical evidence. The physician’s findings on her physical
examination conducted on November 3, 1997 indicated the presence of fresh lacerations on her hymen.
Laceration of the hymen, whether fresh or healed, is the best physical evidence of defloration.
The defense argument that the accused has not employed force upon his daughter in order to have sex
with him does not at all persuade. The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends
not only on the age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship to each other.
In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former’s parental authority and moral
ascendancy over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation who, expectedly, would just cower in
fear and resign to the father’s wicked deeds. It would be plain fallacy to say that the failure to shout or to
offer tenacious resistance makes voluntary the victim’s submission to the criminal act of the offender.
Lastly, section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires that both qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in the complaint or information. Existing jurisprudence
instructs that the death penalty may be imposed only if the complaint or information has alleged and the
evidence has proven both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender by the quantum
of proof required for conviction.31 In the present case, not only were the minority of the complainant and
her relationship with appellant not alleged in the two complaints/informations filed against appellant, but,
also, the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the second rape was committed in full view of
appellant’s daughter. Consequently, appellant may be convicted only of simple rape; hence, the trial court
erred in imposing death penalty in both cases. The appropriate penalty which could be imposed on the
appellant is reclusion perpetua in each count.

G.R. Nos. 133066-67 October 1, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROMEO H. LAMBID, Appellant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. Nos. 133066-67 October 1, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ROMEO H. LAMBID, Appellant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. Nos.

133066-67 October 1, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROMEO H. LAMBID, appellant.

WON respondent Romeo Lambid is guilty of the crime of rape

You might also like