People v. Lucas
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: A seventeen-year-old complainant, Chanda Lucas y Austria, charged her natural father, Jose Conrado Lucas, with attempted rape on February 12, 1991. She also alleged that the first rape occurred on November 26, 1982, when she was nine years old, and that it was repeated several times. Two separate sworn criminal complaints for rape and attempted rape were filed. Procedural History: The cases were jointly tried. The prosecution presented the complainant, her sister Cynthia, and Dr. Emmanuel Aranas. The defense presented only the accused. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two crimes of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua in both cases. The Petition: The accused appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in giving unmerited veracity to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, in convicting him of rape in the attempted rape case (Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466), and in convicting him of rape in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 despite insufficient proof.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving unmerited veracity to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and whether the accused's guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465. Whether the accused could be convicted of rape in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466 when the charge was attempted rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 for rape, with modification in the penalty. In Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466, the Court modified the conviction from rape to attempted rape, as charged. WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of 28 October 1992 of Branch 104 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465 and Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466 is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modifications indicated above. As modified: (1) In Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465, accused JOSE CONRADO LUCAS y BRIONES is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Thirty-four (34) years, Four (4) months and One (1) day of reclusion perpetua and to pay the offended party the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity; and (2) In Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466, said accused is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ATTEMPTED RAPE only and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from Four (4) years, TWO (2) months and One (1) day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to Ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as maximum and to pay the offended party the sum of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity. Costs against the accused-appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses and proof beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18465: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the trial court's finding that the accused raped his daughter on November 26, 1983. While there was a variance between the complaint (alleging November 26, 1982) and the testimony (November 26, 1983), this was not fatal as no objection was raised, and the complaint could be amended to conform to the evidence. The victim's tender age (ten years, five months, and twenty-four days old at the time) made the act statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, requiring only carnal knowledge. The delay in reporting the incident was understandable given the victim's immaturity, dependence on her father, lack of a decent home, and her mother's initial indifference, thus not affecting her credibility. The Court reiterated that the equanimity of mature persons cannot be expected from a young and immature girl, and people react differently under emotional stress. The Court also noted that the victim's delay in reporting, making public her humiliating experiences, and risking shame to her family, strongly indicated she was seeking justice for grievous wrongs, not fabricating a story. On the conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. Q-91-18466, where the charge was attempted rape: The Court agreed with the accused and the Office of the Solicitor General that he could not be convicted of consummated rape when the complaint charged attempted rape. Applying Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, when there is a variance between the offense charged and that proved, and the offense charged includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is charged. Here, attempted rape is necessarily included in consummated rape. Therefore, the accused should be convicted of attempted rape only. The penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than that for rape, and the accused is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The Court considered the aggravating circumstance of relationship, as the victim was his descendant, which is aggravating in crimes against chastity.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for rape on November 26, 1983, applying the principle of statutory rape due to the victim's age. For the incident on February 12, 1991, the Court modified the conviction from consummated rape to attempted rape, as the charge was for attempted rape and the evidence proved the commission of the lesser offense, which is necessarily included in the greater offense charged.