Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

People v Lucas (The 1995 case is connected on the 1994 case. Facts based on the 1994 case.

Doctrine
based on 1995 case).
CA Labitoria Gallardo

Chanda Lucas, 17 years old, charged her natural father Conrado Lucas of rape and attempted
rape. Accordingly, she was first raped when she was only 9 years old. Her father molested her many times
after that incident. However, at the age of 17, her father attempted to rape her again by putting himself on
top of her while placing his hand inside her panty, but her siblings were awakened and shouted upon their
father. Conrado however denied and claimed that the charges were fabricated as the siblings do not like
him. The Supreme Court however in 1994 found him guilty Accordingly, in view of the intrinsic nature of
the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution. In this case however, the trial court found the testimony of the witness
that she was raped by her own father credible. In fact, it was a consummated rape given that he already
inserted his penis to her vagina. Given however that the information only charged attempted rape, he
could only be convicted of attempted rape, with the aggravating circumstance of relationship.

The issue in the 1995 case lies with the applicable penalty. Prior to R.A. No. 7659, the presence of
modifying circumstances would not affect the penalty for rape because such a penalty was then
indivisible. Under Art 63 of the RPC, when the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended
the commission of the deed. However, pursuant to Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659, reclusion perpetua has
now a defined duration, i.e., from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years. There is,
however, no corresponding amendment to Article 76 of the same Code for the purpose of
converting reclusion perpetua into a divisible penalty. Nonetheless, the court applied Art 65 of the RPC
and divided the penalty into 3 equal portions for the purpose of applying the aggravating circumstance.
The accused was sentenced to 34 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion perpetua.

Issue in 1995 case: W/N the SC in the 1994 case correctly divided an “indivisible penalty” into 3 portions
for the purpose of applying the aggravating circumstance

Held: No, SC corrected itself

Again, Art 63 of the RPC clearly provides that in cases of indivisible penalty, it shall be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the
deed. Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from
twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear
legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. Reclusion perpetua,
therefore, retains its nature as having no minimum, medium and maximum
periods and is imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the crime. Hence, the court modified its ruling by deleting
the discussion about the divisibility of penalties, and applied the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Potrebbero piacerti anche