People v Lampaza!

GR No. 138876 | November 24, 1999 | J. Panganiban

Case: Egmedio Lampaza appeals the RTC of San Jose, Antique decision finding him guilty of rape
and applying the indeterminate sentence law sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
for the period of 12 yrs and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months as minimum to 17 years, 4 months, 1
day to 20 years as maximum.!

!
CA affirmed the conviction of Lampaza, but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua.!
!
FACTS:!
!

Version of Prosecution!
1. In the morning of March 20, 1988, victim Teodora Wacay was in her farm lot in Sitio
Namontonan, Barangay Camandangan, Tobias Fornier, Antique. When she was about to graze
their animals, all of a sudden accused Lampaza came from behind her and twisted both her
arms then brought her to an uninhabited nipa hut.!

2. Accused dropped the victim to the floor of the nipa hut, pinned both her legs, including her right
hand, with his knees and took off his pants. The accused had his bolo beside him with which he
threatened the victim.!

!
3.
!

Victim testifies that the accused raped her then, explained in details the commission of the act.!

4. First witness presented, a college student who is the nephew of the victim, went to the house of
his aunt Teodora during the same date, and did not find her there. He looked for Teodora and
proceeded to a farm where animals are grazed. Witness saw his aunt running out of one of the
nipa huts in the farm. She was very pale and sobbing, and said she was afraid of somebody.
She asked the witness to accompany her back to her house.!

5. Another witness, the husband of the victim, testified that the latter informed him about her
being raped by the accused and he wanted to kill the Lampaza, if not prevailed upon by his
wife. Instead, they filed the criminal complaint to the police authorities.!

Version of the Defense!

1. Accused insisted that he and the complainant, his neighbour, were sweethearts, however, they
married different persons. Notwithstanding this, they have and intimate relations.!

2. In the morning of March 20, 1988, accused heard a signal from the complainant. The latter
informed him that her husband was in another town.!

3. The 2 of them went up the nipa hut and had sexual intercourse, with the complainant taking her
clothes first. They made love consensually. He did not threaten nor force the complainant;
neither did he use force in consummating the sexual act because the same was with the
consent of the complainant.!

People v Lampaza!
GR No. 138876 | November 24, 1999 | J. Panganiban
4. The lawfully wedded wife of the accused, Filomena Lampaza, testified that the complainant is a
mistress of her husband.!

!
*Conviction of rape affirmed by SC.!
!

*Under the law in effect when the crime was committed, the penalty for simple rape was reclusion
perpetua. !

ISSUE / HELD: Whether or not the RTC correctly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law > NO!
RATIO:!

!
!

In imposing a lower indeterminate penalty, the trial court erred, because the Indeterminate
Sentense Law does not apply when the offence involved is punishable with reclusion
perpetua.!
CA decision affirmed, with modification that the appellant shall pay the victim P50,000 as
indemnity ex delicti in addition to the P50,000 awarded as moral damages.