GR 132635; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132635 & 143872-75 February 21, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAMBERTO VELASQUEZ, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Lamberto Velasquez was charged with multiple crimes against family members. In Criminal Case No. 97-307, he was convicted of acts of lasciviousness against his two-year-old granddaughter, Aira Velasquez, for inserting his finger into her vagina. In Criminal Case No. 97-311, he was convicted of the rape of his thirteen-year-old stepdaughter, Mary Joy Ocampo, which occurred in October 1994. The trial court sentenced him to death for the rape and to imprisonment for the acts of lasciviousness. Three other charges for acts of lasciviousness were either dismissed or resulted in acquittal. Velasquez appealed the convictions.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crimes of acts of lasciviousness and rape beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for acts of lasciviousness but modified the rape conviction from qualified rape to simple rape, imposing reclusion perpetua instead of death. The Court found the testimonies of the victims, particularly Mary Joy Ocampo, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. For the rape charge, the Court held that while the Information alleged the victim’s age (13) and the accused’s relationship as stepfather, it failed to specifically allege that the rape was committed by “sexual intercourse,” a necessary element for qualifying the crime under the relevant law ( Republic Act No. 7659 ). The Information only used the phrase “carnal knowledge,” which, while often synonymous with sexual intercourse, was deemed insufficiently specific to warrant the death penalty under the strict requirements for qualifying circumstances. The Court applied the rule that qualifying circumstances must be alleged with particularity in the Information. Thus, the crime was simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The conviction for acts of lasciviousness was upheld based on the credible testimony of the child’s mother and the medical findings. The Court ordered the accused to pay civil indemnity and moral damages to both victims.