GR 56768; (October, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-56768 October 29, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pablo Lactao, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On April 15, 1979, Apolonia Aramburo was allegedly fetched by Luz Lactao, wife of accused Pablo Lactao, under the pretext that her father wanted to see her. Instead, she was brought to the accused’s house, detained in a small room for about two weeks, and raped by the accused every night, with his wife allegedly watching. Apolonia also claimed the accused had raped her multiple times prior to this incident in a nearby camarin. Her half-sister, Avelina Cadag, reported her disappearance to the police. Apolonia escaped on April 29, 1979, and was medically examined the same day. The physician found old healed lacerations on her hymen, which could have been caused by various factors including sexual contact. The accused denied the allegations, claiming the charge was fabricated because he refused to vacate the land he tenanted from Apolonia’s father. Luz Lactao also denied fetching Apolonia, as she was recuperating from childbirth. The trial court convicted Pablo Lactao of the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention.
ISSUE
1. Whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
2. Whether the crime committed is the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED accused Pablo Lactao.
1. The prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant, Apolonia Aramburo, was replete with inconsistencies regarding the length of her detention, the conditions during the alleged rape, and her age. The medical findings were inconclusive and did not corroborate the claim of recent, repeated rape. The Court found her version implausible and contrary to human experience, as it was improbable the accused would rape her in the presence of his wife and five children.
2. The Court clarified that there is no complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. If the purpose is to deprive the victim of liberty, the crime is illegal detention, and if rape is committed during detention, two separate crimes exist. If the objective is solely to rape and detention is incidental, only rape is committed, with illegal detention absorbed. The trial court erred in convicting the accused of a complex crime. However, given the insufficiency of evidence, the accused was acquitted.