Case Digest: People vs Lupac

People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Lupac

G.R. No. 182230 ; 19 September 2012

PONENTE: Bersamin

SUBJECT: Rape

FACTS:

On 21 March 1999, AAA was home alone with her uncle, the accused. At 1:30PM, he told the accused that she would take a nap but she did not lock the door. When she woke up at 2:30PM, she was shocked to discover that she was naked waist down. She felt soreness in her body and pain in her genitals. The accused was standing inside the room wearing only his underwear and apologizing that he did not intend to do “that” to her. She escaped from the house and immediately told the incident to a neighbor. During trial, the accused denied the charges against him and claimed that during the incident, he was sleeping in his own house and not at the house of the victim. The RTC convicted the accused for Statutory Rape pursuant to Par. 1(d) of 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the penalty imposed is proper
2. Whether or not the absence of credible direct evidence of his having carnal knowledge with the victim, being asleep during the incident, creates a reasonable doubt

HELD:

1. No, the prosecution was not able to effectively establish the victim’s minority under 12 years because of the non-submission of AAA’s birth certificate, such fact being essential in qualifying the offense to statutory rape. However, the accused is still liable for simple rape, the essence of rape being carnal knowledge with a female against her will or without her consent. The victim couldn’t give her consent because she was asleep at that time.
2. No. Direct evidence was not the only means of proving rape beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence would also be the reliable means to do so, provided that (a) there was more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences were derived were proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances was such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. What was essential was that the unbroken chain of the established circumstances led to no other logical conclusion except the appellant’s guilt.