Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Lizada PDF
People V Lizada PDF
Short version:
Lizada is being charged with 4 counts of raping his stepdaughter (first rape occurred when she was about 11 yrs old). TC and CA
found him guilty. On appeal to the SC, Lizada assails the information against him for violating Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised
Rules on CrimPro because the phrase “on or about August 1998"stated in the information is too indefinite. SC says the failure to
specify the exact date when it was committed does not make the Information defective because the gravamen of rape is not the
date and time of its commission, but the carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances in RPC 335.
Facts:
Lizada is charged with 4 counts of qualified rape, and meting on him the death penalty for each count. (He is charged of
raping a certain Analia Agoo in August, September, October, and November of 1998)
The words used in the complaints were:
o First: “sometime in August 1998”
o Second: “on or about September 15, 1998”
o Third: “on or about October 22, 1998”
o Fourth: “on or about November 5, 1998”
The prosecution:
A couple in Bohol had 3 children, one of them being Analia (born 1985). They separated and the wife left to settle in
Manila, took with her the kids, and worked as a waitress.
1994: Wife met Lizada and lived together.
The wife put up a video shop in the house and sold Avon products door to door. When she was out, her kids tended to the
video shop.
1996: By this year, Analia was about 11 yrs old. One night, Lizada entered Analia’s room and removed her clothes, had
intercourse with her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone what happened. This happened in less than an hour.
This happened again the following year.
And from 1996-98, Lizada sexually abused Analia twice a week.
1998: Lizada, wearing only shorts, entered Analia’s room. Analia was not afraid because her younger brother was just
around the house. However, Lizada was still able to have intercourse with her.
The brother passed by Analia’s room and saw Lizada on top of her. Lizada dismounted and berated the brother, told him
to go to his room and sleep.
4 days later, Analia was in the video shop when Lizada ordered her to go to the sala. She refused bec no one would tend
to the video shop. They fought.
When the mother arrived, she sided with Lizada which prompted Analia to shout “Ayoko na, ayoko na.” Analia then left to
retrieve unreturned tapes.
When she got home, the mother asked her what she meant by “ayoko na” so Analia told her that Lizada had been
touching her private parts.
They then went to the police and made a report.
She was examined by a doctor who found her hymen intact.
Later on, she also told her mother of the rapes. Analia then executed a “Dagdag na Salaysay ng Paghahabla” and
charged Lizada with rape.
The defense:
Lizada denied the rapes, claimed that he loved the children as if they were his own. He cooked and prepared their food,
ironed their school uniforms, and bathed them, except Analia who was already big.
Analia was har headed and often disobeyed him. This caused Lizada and the mother to quarrel. The relatives of the
husband also frequently visited, which irritated him.
He says that the mother probably coached the children so that she could manage the business and take control of all the
property (VHS, 2 TVs, washing machine, scooter, sala set, CD player, videoke).
Also, the mother was exasperated bec he was unemployed.
-------
th
TC found him guilty of 4 counts of rape in 7 par, no 1, RPC 335. Death penalty for each count.
Issue:
Held:
Ratio:
o In People v. Garcia, Court upheld a conviction for 10 counts of rape based on an information alleging multiple
rape "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994," a time difference of almost four years. Such was longer than
that involved in this case.
o In any case, Lizada's failure to raise a timely objection based on this ground constitutes a waiver of his right to
object.
"Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. — It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date
the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have
been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. "
SC does not agree with Lizada. The precise date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.
Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not make the Information defective.
The reason for this is that the gravamen rape is carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under
RPC 335.
SC cites People v. Salalima:
o Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not make the information defective
because the precise date or is not an element of the offense.
o As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense
was committed an information is sufficient.
o In previous cases, “before and until”, “sometime in the year”, “some occasions prior and/or subsequent” have
been ruled as sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro
So, he cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the cases against him and that he
was deprived of the opportunity to prepare for his defense
Re: Hymen
The fact that Analia remained a virgin does not preclude her having been raped. She being of tender age, it is possible
that the penetration went only as deep as her labia.
o Even, the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ constitutes consummated rape
o Whether or not the hymen was still intact has no substantial bearing
Judgment set aside. Lizada guilty of simple rape in 3 cases, in the other one attempted rape.