G.R. No. 138876 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the above facts, law and jurisprudence, after the prosecution has presented thorough and convincing evidence, the Court finds accused EGMEDIO LAMPAZA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the period of Twelve (12) Years and one (1) Day to Fourteen (14) Years and Eight (8) Months as minimum to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years as maximum and to indemnify Teodora Wacay [in] the amount of P30,000.00 as damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs." On June 1, 1994, appellant, through Counsel Cezar C. Tajanlangit, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). [6] After the defense and the prosecution filed their respective Briefs, the appellate court [7] rendered a Decision affirming the conviction of appellant, but modifying the penalty to reclusion perpetua . The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads: [8] " WHEREFORE , the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant EGMEDIO LAMPAZA is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay complainant Teodora Wacay the amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages." In the light of Section 13, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, [9] the CA "recalled" the entry of the above judgment, certified the case to this Court and elevated the records. [10] The Facts Version of the Prosecution In its Brief, [11] the Office of the Solicitor General adopted the following facts as summarized by the trial court: [12] "The first witness presented was a college student who is the nephew of the private offended party, who went to the house of the latter on March 20, 1988, without finding her there. Witness looked for Teodora, proceeding to the place where farm animals are grazed, which was two hills away. (pp. 2-4 TSN, September 27, 1989) "Witness saw [his] aunt running out [of] one of the nipa huts in the farm. When [his] aunt reached him, she was sobbing and very pale. She immediately asked him to accompany her back to her house. His aunt explained to him that she ha[d] to leave that place immediately because she was afraid of somebody and therefore could not stay in Sitio Namontonan, Brgy. Camandagan, Tobias Fornier, Antique. (pp. 5-7, TSN, Ibid .) "During cross examination, defense counsel verified the details regarding the testimony under direct-examination of this witness, as to the reason witness was in that sitio (p. 8, TSN, id.), the distance between the house and the grazing area of the farm animals, the location of the nipa hut and other details. (p. 9, TSN, id. ) "Witness repeated to the Court that [his] aunt was very afraid when he met her running out of the nipa hut although she did not tell him yet what happened. That [his] aunt was trembling, very pale and looking very weak. (p. 10, TSN, id. ) "The private offended party herself te