People v. Lactao | G.R. No. 56768 | October 29, 1993


Facts: Apolonia Aramburo, then in the early bloom of her youth, she was allegedly detained by the accused in his 2m. x 3m. dwelling for about two weeks, and there raped every night while his wife, at one time, watched with amusement. This is the version of the prosecution. Thus by reason of the evidence presented by the prosecution, which the trial court pronounced to be credible, accused PABLO LACTAO was found guilty of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention. He is now before us insisting on his innocence. The accused on the other hand asseverated the he never raped nor had sexual intercourse with Apolonia before or after 15 April 1979. He was merely accused of raping Apolonia because he failed to leave the land of Gabriel Aramburo, father of Apolonia and Avelina.

Issue: Is there a complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention?

Ruling: It may be worth to mention at the outset that there is no complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. If the purpose is to deprive the offended party of liberty, the crime committed is illegal detention. And, if during the course of the illegal detention, the offended party is raped, a separate crime of rape is committed; in this instance, two independent crimes are committed. However, if the objective of the offender is to rape the victim only, and in the process, the latter had to be illegally detained, only the crime of rape is committed since illegal detention is deemed absorbed in rape.
Hence, in People v. Ching Suy Siong,  Sionga was found guilty of two independent crimes, i.e., serious illegal detention and acts of lasciviousness, because the two acts did not come within the purview of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code which applies to complex crimes, for certainly, one cannot be considered as a means to commit the other. And, in People v. Bernal,  the appellants were held guilty of the separate crimes of illegal detention and of multiple rape since the illegal detention was not a necessary means to the commission of the crime of rape, and the offended party could have been raped even if she was not illegally detained. Thus, in People v. Gan, on which the lower court entirely based its judgment in convicting the accused in the instant case, Joaquinito Gan was found guilty only of the crime of rape even if he kept the offended party in a hut for about four nights, and there repeatedly raped her. But notwithstanding the Gan ruling, the trial court erroneously declared accused Lactao guilty of the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention, instead of rape.
Still, however, the case of People v. Gan is not applicable since, in the case at bar, the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court reverse the judgment of conviction.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more