203. People v.

Lizada
G.R. No. 143468-71 | 24 January 2003 | Callejo, Sr., J.
Aggy | Topic: Judgment – Definition & Form; Types of Judgment & remedies against such judgment
Summary & Doctrine (the one in bold): Lizada was charged and convicted of 4 counts of qualified rape under
4 separate informations. Upon automatic review, he now contends that RTC erred in convicting him because
his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that RTC’s decision did not comply with the
requirements under Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.

SC held that trial courts are mandated to set out in its decisions the facts which had been proved and
its conclusions culled therefrom, as well as its resolution on the issues and the factual and legal basis
for its resolution. It should NOT merely reproduce the testimonies of the parties and come out with its
decretal conclusion. Here, RTC merely summarized the testimonies of the witnesses and merely made
referral to the documentary evidence of the parties then concluded that on the basis of the evidence of the
prosecution, Lizada is guilty, which is clearly in violation of the Constitution and the Rules.

Facts:
1. Freddie Lizada was charged with 4 counts of qualified rape under 4 separate informations for rapes
during (1) August 1998, (2) November 5, 1998, (3) October 22, 1998, and (4) September 15, 1998.
(Complete informations are under Notes). He was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. A joint trial
ensued.
2. Prosecution alleged that during the period of 1996 to 1998, Lizada sexually abused Analia twice a week.
a. Analia’s parents separated so her mother, Rose, decided to leave Cebu (where they previously
resided) and settle in Manila together with Analia and her 2 siblings—Rossel and Jepsy. In 1994,
Rose met Lizada and afterwards they decided to live together as husband and wife. They also
opened a business of a video shop.
b. Analia alleged that sometime in 1996, while their mother was out, Lizada went to her room where
he removed her clothes, then inserted his finger and later his penis to her vagina. After ejaculating,
Lizada threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to anyone. The same encounter
repeatedly took place from 1996 to 1998 where Lizada would enter Analia’s room to have carnal
knowledge with the latter against her will.
c. On November 5, 1998, the same thing happened. However, at that time, as Analia was struggling
to get free, her brother, Rossel (who was then manning the video shop) entered the house
because he was thirsty. As he got water, he saw Lizada on top of his sister. When Lizada saw
him, the former got out of Analia’s room and berated Rossel and ordered him to sleep.
d. On November 9, 1998, Analia was manning the video shop when Lizada ordered her to go inside
the house. She refused so it infuriated Lizada. They were in a heated argument when Rose came
home. Rose sided with Lizada and even hit Analia. This prompted Analia to shout “Ayoko na,
ayoko na.” Thereafter, Rose and Analia left the house to retrieve some tapes which had not yet
been returned. On their way out, Rose inquired Analia about her previous statement. Analia then
told her that Lizada had been touching her sensitive parts so the two proceeded to Kagawad
Santos to place Lizada under arrest, and to the Western Police District where Analia gave her
Affidavit-Complaint.
e. Analia then submitted herself to a genitalia examination. Dr. Umil, NBI medico-legal officer,
found that “hymen intact and its orifice small as to preclude complete penetration by an
averaged-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital
injury.”
f. After such, Analia told Rose that “mabuti na lang iyong panghihipo lang sinabi ko.” Thereafter,
she revealed that Lizada did not just touch her private parts but sexually abused her.
g. On December 15, 1998, Analia executed a Dagdag na Salaysay ng Paghahabla and charged
Lizada with rape.
3. Lizada denied raping Analia and contended that he loved Rose’s children as if they were his own (ULUL
MU KA). He also argued that Rose coached her children to testify against him because she wanted to
 manage their video shop business and take control of all the properties they acquired during their
coverture (colored TV set, VHS recorders, VHS player, washing machine, scooter motor, VHS rewinders,
sala set, and disc player).
4. RTC convicted Lizada of 4 counts of qualified rape and meted on him the death penalty1.
5. Lizada now argues that:
a. RTC decision failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 14, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
and Sec. 1, Rule 36 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure because it made no findings of fact and
merely summarized the testimonies of the parties and forthwith set forth the decretal portion of
the decision.
b. RTC erred in convicting him when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
6. OSG argued that there should be no mechanical reliance on the constitutional provision. TC may
synthesize and simplify their decisions.

Issue/s and Holding:

1. [TOPIC] W/N the decision of RTC sufficiently complied with the constitution and Sec. 2, Rule 120?–No
 Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the Constitution provides that “no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”
o This is reiterated and implemented by Sec. 2, Rule 1202.
 The purpose of the provision is to inform the parties and any person reading the decision on how it
was reached by the court after consideration of the evidence of the parties and relevant facts, of the
opinion it has formed on issues, and of the applicable laws. Parties must be assured from a reading of
the decision that they were accorded their rights to be heard by an impartial and responsible judge. Other
reasons:
o This is so the losing party may be given an opportunity to analyze the decision so that he may
elevate what he may consider its errors for review by a higher tribunal.
o The decision, if well-presented and reasoned, may convince the losing party of its merits and
persuade it to accept the verdict in good grace instead of prolonging litigation.
o The decision will constitute a valuable body of case law that can serve as useful references and
even as precedents in the resolution of future controversies.
 Trial courts then are mandated to set out in its decisions the facts which had been proved and its
conclusions culled therefrom, as well as its resolution on the issues and the factual and legal basis
for its resolution. It should NOT merely reproduce the testimonies of the parties and come out with its
decretal conclusion.
 IN THE CASE AT BAR, RTC merely summarized the testimonies of the witnesses and merely made
referral to the documentary evidence of the parties then concluded that on the basis of the evidence of
the prosecution, Lizada is guilty.
o It even failed to specifically state the facts proven by the prosecution based on their evidence, the
issues of the parties, and its resolution of the factual and legal issues as well as the legal and
factual bases. It failed to explain why it believed and gave probative weight to the prosecution’s
evidence.

1 RTC DECISION: From all the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the Court concludes that the accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him in these 4 cases, convicts him thereof, and sentences him to
DEATH PENALTY in each and every case as provided for in the 7th paragraph, no. 1, of Art. 335 RPC
2 Rule 120, Sec. 2, 1985 Rules on CrimPro: Form and contensts of judgment – The judgment must be written in the

official language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a
statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused and the law upon which the judgment is based.

If it is of conviction, the judgment shall state (a) the legal qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by
the accused, and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances attending the commission thereof, if there are any; (b)
participation of the accused in the commission of the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the
fact; (c) the penalty imposed upon the accused; and (d) the civil liability or damages caused by the wrongful act to be
recovered from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a separate
action has been reserved or waived.
 o The decision of the trial is a good example of what a decision, envisaged in the Constitution and
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, should NOT be. (lol)
 SC noted that normally it would remand the case because of the infirmity of the decision.
HOWEVER, to avert further delay in the disposition of the cases, SC decided to resolve the cases on
their merits considering that all the records and evidence adduced during trial had been elevated.

NEXT MATTERS IS JUST A RESOLUTION OF SC ON LIZADA’S GUILT/INNOCENCE SO DI NA SIYA

CRIMPRO

2. W/N Lizada is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

For criminal cases 99-171392 & 99-171393 (covering Oct. 22, 1998 & Sept. 15, 1998)
 Lizada: prosecution failed to prove that he raped Analia precisely on said dates. Further, the medical
findings that Analia’s hymen was intact belies prosecution’s claim that Analia had been deflowered by
accused on 4 different occasions.
 Although Analia did not testify that she was raped exactly on Sept 15 and Oct 22, accused may
nevertheless be convicted for the 2 counts of rape because Analia clearly testified that she was raped
when she was only 11 years old in 1996 until 1998. The 2 dates are clearly within said period.
 The words “on or about” in the information contemplates a period, months, or even 2 or 4 years before
Sept. 15 or Oct. 22 of 1998. The prosecution may then prove that the crime was committed on or about
Sept. 15, 1998 or on or about Oct. 22, 1998.
 Further, when Analia testified on how accused raped her from 1996-1998, accused did not raise any
objection. The prosecution’s presentation of evidence took place without any protest from the defense.
This constituted a waiver by Lizada of his right to object to any perceived infirmity in the information to
conform to the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
 Finally, the fact that the medical findings showed that Analia’s hymen was still intact is irrelevant. It is
possible that Lizada’s penis merely went only as deep as the victim’s labia. Under the RPC, even the
slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ or the mere entry of the penis into the aperture or
labia of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. In People v. Baculi, SC held that there could be
a finding of rape even if despite repeated intercourse, the complainant still retained an intact hymen
without injury.
 HOWEVER, SC noted that Lizada may only be convicted of simple rape because the special qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship were NOT alleged in the information. HENCE, the 2
informations, Lizada is convicted of 2 counts of simple rape and sentenced with reclusion perpetua.

For criminal case 99-171390 (August 1998)

 Lizada: the information is defective because the date of the offense “on or about August 1998” is too
indefinite, in violation of Sec. 11, Rule 110.
 SC disagreed with Lizada and noted that the precise date of the commission of the crime is not an
essential element of rape. The gravamen of the crime being carnal knowledge of the victim under any of
the circumstances enumerated under Art. 335 of RPC.
 Further, Lizada did not even bother to file a motion for a bill of particulars before he was arraigned. He
entered a plea without any complaint on the sufficiency of the information. He even adduced evidence
after the prosecution rested its case and only questioned the informations’ sufficiency before SC. It is
now too late in the day for him to do so.
 HOWEVER, Lizada can only be convicted of simple rape for the same reasons as the 2 cases above.

For criminal case 99-171391 (November 5, 1998)

 SC looked at the testimonies of Analia and her brother, Rossel, and found that there was no penetration.
 Analia testified that Lizada touched her genitals with his finger until the latter saw Rossel and got out of
the room. This was corroborated by Rossel’s testimony who said that he only saw Lizada on top of his
sister attempting to remove her panty.
 SC then resolved whether Lizada should be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness or Attempted Rape.
  Under Art. 6 RPC, there is an attempted felony when: (1) offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts, (2) he does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony, (3) offender not be stopped by his own spontaneous desistance, and (4) non-performance of all
acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
o An overt act is some physical activity indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, which
if carried out to its complete termination will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
o An attempt to commit a felony is distinct from preparatory acts which consist of devising means
or measures necessary for the accomplishment of a desired end.
o For acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be known and
established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should obviously disclose
the criminal objective necessarily intended.
 HERE, SC believes that Lizada intended to have carnal knowledge of Analia. Though he desisted, his
desistance was not spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because of Rossel’s sudden arrival.

Ruling: RTC decision is set aside: (1) Criminal Cases 99171390, 392-393, convicted of simple rape, sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, (2) Criminal Case 99-171391, convicted of attempted rape, sentenced of an indeterminate
penalty of 6 years of prision correccional in its max period, as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor in its medium
period, as maximum.

Notes:

The four informations had the same content. Literally ang difference lang ay yung dates nila.

 Crim Case No.99-171390: in August 1998,

 Crim Case No. 99-171391: on or about November 5, 1998
 Crim Case No. 99-171392: on or about October 22, 1998
 Crim Case No. 99-171393: on or about September 15, 1998

That sometime in August 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with lewd designs, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, violence and intimidation upon the person of
one ANALIA ORILLOSA y AGOO, by then and there embracing her, kissing and touching her private
parts, thereafter removing her skirt and panty, placing himself on top of her and trying to insert his penis
into her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the said ANALIA ORILLOSA y AGOO,
against her will and consent.