View full case

PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Guillermo Lomaque was charged with thirteen counts of Rape by Sexual Intercourse allegedly committed against his stepdaughter "AAA" on various dates from September 1996 to June 1999, as well as one count of Acts of Lasciviousness. The accusations were made in separate Informations filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The Informations all contained similar descriptions of the alleged acts of rape and lasciviousness committed by Lomaque against AAA. Upon arraignment, Lomaque pleaded not guilty to all the charges. During the pre-trial, the minority of AAA was stipulated upon, leading to a joint trial on the merits. The prosecution presented evidence that Lomaque had been molesting and sexually abusing AAA since she was eight years old. The acts of abuse included smelling and sniffing AAA's private parts, inserting his finger inside her vagina, and engaging in sexual intercourse with her. AAA's mother, BBB, confronted Lomaque after learning of the abuse, but he threatened to kill AAA and her mother if she reported the incidents.

The case involves the sexual abuse of AAA, a minor, by the accused Guillermo Lomaque. The incidents occurred on multiple occasions. On October 24, 1998, while AAA was embracing her mother, Lomaque positioned himself behind AAA, held her mother's breasts, and then lowered his hand towards AAA's waist, removing her shorts. Lomaque then inserted his penis into AAA's vagina. In December 1998, while clad only with a towel, Lomaque summoned AAA to go upstairs. He asked AAA to hold his penis and inserted it into her mouth, as well as rubbing it against her lips. On February 11, 1999, Lomaque went on top of AAA, kissed her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. These acts of abuse continued, resulting in AAA becoming pregnant. When AAA gave birth, it was revealed that Lomaque was the father. AAA eventually filed a complaint against Lomaque with the assistance of Bantay-Bata 163. Medico-legal examination confirmed that AAA had experienced chronic penetration and had given birth. Lomaque denied the charges, asserting alibi and presenting plane tickets as evidence of his whereabouts during the incidents. However, the Regional Trial Court found AAA credible and rejected Lomaque's defense. Lomaque was convicted of multiple counts of rape and acts of lasciviousness.

The appellant was charged with the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. He was also ordered to indemnify the offended party, pay moral damages, and pay the costs. In another case, he was found not guilty on the ground of reasonable doubt. In the third case, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced accordingly. In the fourth case, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. The appellant appealed his convictions before the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA affirmed the trial court's decisions. Unsatisfied, the appellant brought the case before the Supreme Court, insisting on his innocence. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant for the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness. The resolution of the issue rests upon the credibility of the testimony of the offended party.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of the victim should be disturbed.

  2. Whether the victim's delay in reporting the rape incidents diminishes her credibility.

  3. Whether the victim's failure to offer resistance during the rape incidents affects her credibility.

  4. Whether the victim's resumption of her normal life after the rapes can be taken against her.

  5. Whether the appellant's defense of denial and alibi are credible.

  6. Whether the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were properly proven in the case of qualified rape.

  7. Whether there is a variance between the mode of commission as alleged in the information and as proven during trial in one of the rape charges.

  8. Whether the conviction for acts of lasciviousness is valid.

  9. Whether the accused committed the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

  10. Whether the act was performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.

  11. Whether the child was below 18 years of age.

  12. Whether or not the appellant is guilty of Simple Rape, Rape by Sexual Assault, and Acts of Lasciviousness.

  13. Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper.

  14. Whether or not the appellant is liable to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

RULING:

  1. The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of the victim should not be disturbed. The trial court's findings are accorded great weight and respect, and can only be discarded if certain facts or circumstances were overlooked, ignored, or disregarded which would have altered the result.

  2. The victim's delay in reporting the rape incidents does not diminish her credibility. The delay can be attributed to the fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm from the appellant, who exerted moral ascendancy over the victim. The victim's young age and lack of experience contributed to the fear and intimidation she felt, making it understandable for her to have delayed reporting the rapes.

  3. The victim's failure to offer resistance during the rape incidents does not affect her credibility. Physical resistance is not necessary when intimidation is present, especially when the victim submits out of fear. The victim's young age and fear may have prevented her from offering resistance or shouting for help.

  4. The victim's resumption of her normal life after the rapes cannot be taken against her. There is no standard form of behavior expected of rape victims, particularly children who may not comprehend the ways of an adult. Different people react differently to emotional stress, and it is not unusual for rape victims to resume their normal lives after the incident.

  5. The defense of denial and alibi put forth by the appellant are not credible. The victim's positive identification of the appellant as the assailant prevails over his denial. The appellant failed to substantiate his alibi with clear and convincing evidence, as the plane tickets presented were from a different timeframe than the incidents in question.

  6. The court found that while the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove the minority of the victim, they failed to prove the fact of relationship between the victim and the accused. The mere testimony of the accused and the victim referring to the accused as her stepfather were not considered as sufficient evidence. Therefore, the accused should only be convicted of simple rape and not qualified rape.

  7. In one of the rape charges, there was a variance between the mode of commission as alleged in the information and as proven during trial. However, since the accused failed to object to this variance, his conviction for rape by sexual assault was sustained.

  8. The court also upheld the conviction for acts of lasciviousness, as the elements of the offense were duly proven.

  9. The court found that the accused committed the act of lascivious conduct when he smelled and inserted his finger inside the victim's genital area.

  10. The act was performed with a child who was exploited and subjected to sexual abuse.

  11. The victim was below 18 years of age.

  12. The appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Rape in Criminal Case Nos. Q-00-96390, Q-00-96394, Q-00-96395, Q-00-96397, Q-00-96398, Q-00-96399, and Q-00-96401; Rape by Sexual Assault in Criminal Case No. Q-00-96392; and Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case No. Q-00-96402.

  13. The penalty imposed on the appellant is proper. The appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the cases of Simple Rape. In the case of Rape by Sexual Assault, the appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum. In the case of Acts of Lasciviousness, the appellant is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

  14. The appellant is ordered to pay the reduced amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and an additional amount of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of Simple Rape. In the case of Rape by Sexual Assault, the appellant is ordered to pay P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. In the case of Acts of Lasciviousness, the appellant is ordered to pay P20,000.00 as civil indemnity and P15,000.00 as moral damages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect. They can only be overturned if the trial court overlooked, ignored, or disregarded significant facts or circumstances.

  • Delay in reporting rape incidents does not necessarily diminish the credibility of the victim. Fear and intimidation can prevent immediate reporting, especially when threats of bodily harm were made by the perpetrator.

  • Lack of physical resistance during a rape incident does not tarnish the credibility of the victim. Intimidation can overpower the victim's ability to offer resistance or call for help.

  • Resumption of normal life after rape does not detract from the credibility of the victim. There is no standard behavior expected of rape victims, and different people respond differently to emotional stress.

  • Denial and alibi as defenses are not credible when faced with a victim's direct, positive, and categorical assertion. Alibi must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.

  • In a criminal case, an appeal throws the whole case open for review.

  • In order for rape to be qualified and carry the penalty of death, the special qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be properly alleged in the information and duly proved during the trial.

  • Relationship as a qualifying circumstance must be proven by competent evidence and cannot be established by mere testimony or admission of the accused.

  • Variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what was alleged.

  • The conviction for acts of lasciviousness requires proof of specific elements, such as the commission of acts of lasciviousness or lewdness under certain circumstances.

  • The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.

  • Definition of lascivious conduct as stated in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610.

  • The penalty for simple rape and the reduction of civil indemnity.

  • Automatic award of moral damages to a rape victim.

  • Treatment of qualifying circumstances in the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

  • The penalty imposed should be the proper penalty next lower in degree as provided under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

  • Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages may be awarded in cases of rape and acts of lasciviousness.