G.R. No. L-33305. June 28, 1983.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUSTAQUIO LAMPITAO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Eustaquio Lampitao, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Cebu for the rape of his ten-year-old daughter, Araceli Lampitao, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with an indemnity of P10,000. The prosecution established that on the evening of October 28, 1967, in Consolacion, Cebu, the appellant called his daughter from a public plaza, brought her to a nearby bamboo grove, and forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. The child testified with candor about the act, her resistance, and her father’s threat not to tell anyone. She returned to the plaza bleeding from her vagina, later fainted, and was brought to a hospital where she finally disclosed the rape.
The evidence included the victim’s blood-stained panty, medical testimony confirming fresh hymenal lacerations, and corroborative testimony from her mother. The appellant, in his defense, denied the accusation and claimed his extrajudicial confession was coerced. He also insinuated that another man, Sanico Llaban, caused the injuries, a claim rebutted by Llaban’s denial and deemed inconsistent with the medical findings and the appellant’s own failure to seek redress for his daughter if true.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence overwhelming and conclusive. The victim’s testimony, delivered with the innocence and simplicity of a child, was credible and consistent. Her account was powerfully corroborated by physical evidence: the bloodied panty and the medical findings of fresh lacerations, which were logically attributable to the violent sexual assault described. The Court emphasized that a young daughter would not falsely accuse her own father of such a heinous crime without compelling reason.
The appellant’s alternative explanation for the injuries was rejected as a fabrication, being unsupported and illogical given his own inaction. His claim of a coerced confession was also dismissed, as the municipal officials testified to its voluntariness. Furthermore, his procedural argument regarding the lack of preliminary investigation was deemed waived, as he proceeded to arraignment and trial without timely objection. The award of civil indemnity was upheld as proper under the Civil Code. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.