View full case

PEOPLE v. ROMEO H. LAMBID

FACTS:

Romeo H. Lambid was charged with two counts of qualified rape against his daughter, Lyzel S. Lambid. The incidents occurred on October 31, 1997, and November 1, 1997, in Cebu City. Lyzel reported that her father threatened her with death if she shouted and proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her against her will. Her sister, Mary Ann, witnessed their father's actions and reported the incidents to their neighbors. A physical examination conducted on Lyzel revealed new hymenal lacerations. Romeo H. Lambid pleaded not guilty and claimed that he was drunk at the time of the incidents.

The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape based on complaints filed by Lyzel Lambid. The accused failed to question the complaints before his arraignment and was deemed to have waived this right. The accused attacks the credibility of the complainant, pointing out minor inconsistencies in her testimony. However, the court rules that these discrepancies are inconsequential and do not affect the complainant's credibility. The complainant's testimony is supported by her sister and physical evidence, including fresh lacerations on her hymen. The lacerations were estimated to have occurred within six days prior to the examination, consistent with the complainant's claim.

The appellant argues that if he had sexual intercourse with the victim, it was done without force and intimidation. However, Lyzel testified that her father removed her panty and inserted his penis into her vagina. She did nothing during the incident because her father threatened her not to tell her mother and she was afraid of him.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the fear experienced by the victim is a valid ground for her failure to resist or report the sexual abuse to others.

  2. Whether the lack of resistance on the part of the victim affects her credibility and the finding of rape.

  3. Whether the force or violence necessary in rape is present in a case where the accused is the victim's father.

  4. Whether the absence of physical evidence of force used against the victim negates the occurrence of rape.

  5. Whether the victim's failure to seek immediate help and her behavior after the rape undermine her credibility.

  6. Whether the accused's plea for forgiveness can be considered as an admission of guilt.

  7. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

  8. Whether the complaints/informations filed against appellant failed to allege the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender.

  9. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty.

  10. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding moral damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) to the petitioner.

  11. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reducing the amount of moral damages awarded to the petitioner by the trial court.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the fear experienced by the victim is a valid ground for her failure to resist or report the sexual abuse to others. The victim clearly testified that she was afraid of her father and his threat to kill her if she told anyone about the incidents. This fear, coupled with the previous traumatic experience, prevented her from seeking help or resisting the sexual abuse. Fear can be a strong deterrent to reporting or resisting rape, especially when the victim is a minor and the perpetrator is someone in a position of authority or trust.

  2. No, the lack of resistance on the part of the victim does not affect her credibility and the finding of rape. The victim's failure to shout or offer resistance can be attributed to her fear and the power dynamics involved in the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. The victim's credibility is not solely determined by her physical resistance, but also by other factors such as her consistency in her testimony, demeanor on the witness stand, and the overall coherence of her narrative. In this case, the victim's testimony was consistent and corroborated by other evidence, making it credible despite her lack of physical resistance.

  3. The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends on the age, size, and strength of the persons involved, as well as their relationship to each other. In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the father's parental authority and moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation. It would be fallacious to say that the victim's failure to shout or offer resistance makes her submission voluntary. (Principle: In rape cases, the force or violence necessary depends on the circumstances and relationship between the parties involved.)

  4. The absence of physical evidence of force used against the victim does not negate the occurrence of rape. Proof of injury is not an essential element of the crime. What is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of the accused. (Principle: Physical evidence of force is not required to prove rape.)

  5. The behavior of the victim after the rape cannot be used to undermine her credibility. The workings of the human mind under emotional stress are unpredictable, and there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident. The victim's failure to seek immediate help can be explained by the fact that the accused threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the rape. (Principle: The behavior of rape victims under emotional stress is unpredictable and should not be used against them.)

  6. The accused's plea for forgiveness can be considered as an admission of guilt. A plea for forgiveness may be analogous to an attempt to compromise, and an offer of compromise can be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (Principle: A plea for forgiveness can be considered as an admission of guilt.)

  7. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. The aggravating circumstance that the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent qualifies the crime of rape for the death penalty. However, the Supreme Court, in agreement with the appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General, held that the imposition of the death penalty is incorrect. (Principle: The death penalty can be imposed for rape committed by a parent against a victim under eighteen years of age.)

  8. The complaints/informations filed against appellant failed to allege the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender. As per Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, both qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in the complaint or information. In this case, the complaints/informations did not allege the minority of the complainant and her relationship with appellant. Therefore, appellant may only be convicted of simple rape.

  9. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. Existing jurisprudence requires 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. In this case, the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that the second rape was committed in full view of appellant's daughter was also not alleged. Hence, the appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua in each count.

  10. The Court of Appeals did not err in awarding moral damages of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) to the petitioner.

  11. The Court of Appeals erred in reducing the amount of moral damages awarded to the petitioner by the trial court. The original amount awarded by the trial court, which was Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), should be maintained.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Fear can be a valid ground for a victim's failure to resist or report sexual abuse.

  • Lack of physical resistance does not necessarily affect the credibility of a rape victim.

  • The credibility of a rape victim is determined by various factors, including consistency in testimony and demeanor on the witness stand.

  • Both qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in the complaint or information. (Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

  • 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. (Existing jurisprudence)

  • The presence of an aggravating circumstance justifies an award for exemplary damages. (Article 2230 of the Civil Code)

  • Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of fact of rape and should not be less than P50,000.00. (Existing jurisprudence)

  • The Court of Appeals has the authority to award moral damages to a petitioner.

  • The Court of Appeals should not reduce the amount of moral damages awarded by the trial court, unless there is clear error or abuse of discretion.