People v. Lucena Digest

People v.
Lucena
Ponente | Date
Topic 1: Sufficiency of complaint or information: duplicity of the offense
Nature: Appeal from decision of CA
PARTIES:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs. MANOLITO LUCENA y VELASQUEZ, alias Machete, accused-appellant
DISPUTED MATTER:
DOCTRINE: This Court sustains the findings of both lower courts that, indeed, the three
insertions into AAA were in satiation of successive but distinct criminal carnality. Therefore, the
appellant’s conviction for three counts of rape is proper.
SUMMARY: Lucena raped AAA three times with intervals of five minutes in between. Lower
court convicted him of three counts of rape. Lucena argued on the basis of Aaron case that he
should also be convicted for only one count as he was motivated by only a single criminal
intent. SC affirmed the decision saying that this case is different from Aaron case as Lucena
was not motivated by a single impulse but several criminal intent.
FACTS:
• Decision appealed: Manolito Lucena y Velasquez alias Machete Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of three counts of rape, thereby sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count and ordering him to pay AAA[3] the amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity also for each count.
• Three (3) similarly worded Informations, all dated 24 June 2003 allege:
That on or about the 28th day of April 2003, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], a
Barangay Tanod Volunteer, who took advantage of his position to facilitate the
commission of the crime, by means of force, threat or intimidation and with the
use of a gun did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the complainant AAA, a minor, 17 years of age, against her will
and consent. (Emphasis and italics supplied).
• Testimonies of the above-named prosecution:
o AT 11:30 p.m., while AAA, who was then 17 years old, was walking and chatting
with her friends along one of the streets of San Dionisio, Parañaque City, two
(2) barangay tanods, one of whom is the appellant, approached and informed
them that they were being arrested for violating a city ordinance imposing
curfew against minors.
o AAA’s companions, however, managed to escape, thus, she alone was
apprehended. AAA was then ordered by the barangay tanods to board the
tricycle. AAA was then brought within the vicinity of the San Dionisio Barangay
Hall. Appellant told the other tanod that he will just be the one to bring AAA
back to her house. But, instead of escorting AAA back to her house, the
appellant brought her to Kabuboy Bridge in San Dionisio, Parañaque City.
o While on their way, the appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her once
she resists or jumps off the tricycle. Upon arrival, the appellant ordered AAA to
alight from the tricycle.
o The appellant then took out the backseat of the tricycle and positioned it
in a grassy area. He subsequently pointed a gun at AAA and commanded
her to lie down and to take off her clothes. The appellant later put the gun
down on the ground and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina despite the
latter’s plea not to rape her. Satisfied, the appellant stopped. But, after a
short while, or after about five (5) minutes, the appellant, once again,
inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina. Thereafter, he stopped. On the third
time, the appellant inserted again his penis into AAA’s vagina. Fulfilling his
bestial desire, the appellant stopped and finally ordered AAA to dress up.
The appellant even threatened AAA that he would kill her should she tell
anyone about what happened between them.
o The appellant, thereafter, directed AAA to board the tricycle. He then brought
AAA in front of a school in Parañaque City. But, before allowing AAA to get off,
the appellant repeated his threat to kill her should she tell anyone about the
incident.
• Appellant Lucena: he cannot be convicted of three counts of rape. The intervening period of
five (5) minutes between each penetration does not necessarily prove that he decided to
commit three separate acts of rape. He maintains that what is of prime importance is that he
was motivated by a single criminal intent.
o People v. Aaron (Aaron Case): insists that he cannot be convicted of three (3) counts
of rape despite the three (3) penetrations because he was motivated by a single
criminal intent.
o In the Aaron Case, the accused inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina; he then
withdrew it and ordered the latter to lie down on the floor and, for the second time,
he inserted again his penis into the victim’s vagina; the accused, thereafter, stood up
and commanded the victim to lie near the headboard of the makeshift bed and, for
the third time, he inserted again his penis into the victim’s vagina and continued
making pumping motions. From these sets of facts, this Court convicted the accused
therein for only one count of rape despite the three successful penetrations because
there is no indication in the records from which it can be inferred that the
accused decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault
other than his lustful desire to change positions inside the room where the crime
was committed. This Court, thus, viewed that the three penetrations occurred
during one continuing act of rape in which the accused was obviously motivated
by a single criminal intent.
ISSUE/HELD: WON there was a duplicity of offense – None, the three insertions into AAA
were in satiation of successive but distinct criminal carnality.
RATIO: The circumstances in the present case are far different from the Aaron Case.
• It appears from the facts that the [appellant] thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the
private part of [AAA]. The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of
five (5) minutes wherein the [appellant] would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim
and, after he has regained his strength, he would again rape [AAA]. Hence, it can be
clearly inferred from the foregoing that when the [appellant] decided to commit those
separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon [AAA], he was not motivated by a
single impulse[,] but rather by several criminal intent. Hence, his conviction for three (3)
counts of rape is indubitable.
• This Court sustains the findings of both lower courts that, indeed, the three insertions into
AAA were in satiation of successive but distinct criminal carnality. Therefore, the appellant’s
conviction for three counts of rape is proper.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03371 dated 24 August 2009 finding herein appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of three counts of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS that:
(1) the exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000.00, for each count of rape, is awarded in
favor of AAA; and (2) the appellant is ordered to pay AAA the interest on all damages at the legal
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED. 

People v. Lucena Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Lucena Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in

You might also like