PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DICK OCAPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Dick Ocapan and Joselyn Ocapan, the woman who
lived with him in an ostensible marital relationship, were charged on March 11, 1985 before the Regional
Trial Court of Lanao del Norte at Iligan City
with the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention.

The case against Joselyn Ocapan was dismissed while Dick Ocapan
was convicted and sentenced accordingly for the crime of serious illegal
detention.  The decision of the trial
court was appealed to the Court of Appeals which elevated its decision to this
Court for final determination in accordance with Section 13 of Rule 124 of the
Rules of Court which provides:

“Whenever a Criminal Cases Division should be of the opinion that
the penalty of death or life imprison­ment should be imposed in a case, the
said Division after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall
render judgment imposing the penalty of either death or reclusion perpetua as the circumstances warrant, refrain from
entering judgment and forthwith certify the cast and elevate the entire record
thereof to the Supreme Court for review.”

and with the
ruling in People v. Daniel (86 SCRA 511).

The decision of the Court of Appeals penned by Associate Justice
Vicente Mendoza and concurred in by Associate Justices Josue
N. Bellosillo and Hector C. Fule
reads as follows:

“The accused-appellant, Dick Ocapan,
and his common-law wife, Joselyn Ocapan,
were accused of rape with serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court
of Lanao Del Norte. 
The information, dated March 11, 1985, alleged:

‘That on or about January 17, 1985, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the juris­diction of this
Honorable Court, accused Dick Ocapan conspiring and
confederating with his common-law wife, Joselyn O. Ocapan, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and by means of force and intimidation have carnal knowledge with
one Arlene Yupo, a minor and who was working as househelper of the said accused; that thereafter, in order
to prevent the said Arlene Yupo from reporting to the
proper authorities, detained and deprived her of her liberty far more than five
(5) days.’

“Later, on motion of the City Fiscal, the trial court
dismissed the case against Joselyn Ocapan on May 23, 1985 on the ground that there was no
prima facie case against her.  The case
proceeded with respect to Dick Ocapan who pleaded not
guilty to the charge.  Trial was thereafter held.  The prosecution versions is
as follows:

“The offended party, Arlene Yupo,
was househelper of the accused-appellant, Dick Ocapan, and the latter’s common-law wife, Joselyn Ocapan.  In the evening of January 17, 1985, Joselyn Ocapan made Arlene drink
half a glass of Tanduay Rhum,
as a result of which she felt drowsy. 
She therefore went to bed, but as she was about to fall asleep, somebody
knocked on the door.  When she opened it,
she saw the accused-appellant Dick Ocapan.  Dick Ocapan had a
knife and threatened to kill her
if she shouted.  He pushed her to the
floor, placed himself on top of her, tore her blouse and fondled her
breasts.  He then pulled up her skirt,
kissed her and pulled down her
underwear and inserted his finger into her vagina.  Arlene said she lost con­sciousness and when
she came to, she felt some pain and found her blanket stained with blood.  The accused, who was
still in the room; gave her money and warned her not to tell anybody about the
incident, or he would kill her.

“The next day, Arlene told Joselyn
about the incident.  Joselyn
told her not to tell anybody and asked her to stay, but as she insisted on
going home, Joselyn slapped her.  Joselyn locked her
inside a room whose only window was closed. 
According to Arlene, the ground below was muddy and there were many
broken glasses, making it dangerous for her to jump to the ground.  Besides, the accused and Joselyn
guarded her.  Arlene said she was not
allowed to go out, except to go to the toilet. 
However, as she refused to eat, she became weak and so, on January 23,
1985, after five days of detention, the accused-appellant finally released
her.  According  to Arlene, she stayed at the Cristan Commercial until January 29, 1985, when she saw her
aunt, Saturnina Dagting,
passing by and called her to tell her what had happened to her.  At 7:00 in the evening of that day, she was
taken by her mother and her aunt to the police station where she reported the
incident.  Later she was examined by Dr. Carmina Barte, who found that the
hymen had healed lacerations at 1.4 and 6
o’clock positions, and that such lacerations could have been caused
from one week to one year before.

“On the other hand, the defense presented evidence to show
that Arlene Yupo and the accused-appellant were
lovers and that Arlene complained to the police only because her relationship
with the accused-appellant had been discovered by the latter’s common-law wife,
Joselyn Ocapan, and that it
is not true that Arlene Yupo had been detained. 
According to the accused-appellant, Arlene and he became lovers in
September, 1984 and that they first had sexual intercourse on September 20,
1984, after which he said he
found that Arlene was no longer a virgin. 
The accused-appellant said he wanted to go to bed with Arlene on January 17, 1985 but it was Arlene’s menstrual period.  According to him, in the evening of January 19, 1985, as they were about to have sex, his common-law wife, Joselyn,
suddenly came home from the Molave Disco House, where
she was an entertainer and noticed that Dick was perspiring.  This prompted her to go to the room of
Arlene, where she found her completely naked under the blanket.

“Arlene denied having an affair with the accused-appellant but
the latter admitted that he and Arlene were lovers.  On January 20, 1985, Joselyn
drove the accused-appellant out of the house, but kept Arlene because she
needed her to look after their children. 
Joselyn finally dismissed Arlene on January
23, 1985.

“The defense also presented Juliet Pasco, who said that twice,
on January 19, 1985 and January 20, 1985, she and Arlene and a certain Caloy went to a place called Abuno to gather young coconuts and, on January 21, they
went to the Big Dipper Restaurant where they had beer, with Arlene paying the
bill.  Obviously, the purpose of her
testimony was to show that Arlene
was under no restraint at a time when she claimed she was detained.  This witness said that on January 22, 1985
she accompanied Arlene to Kanaway to see a herb doctor who found her to be pregnant and prescribed a
drink, (‘camias’) which made Arlene menstruate.  On January 23, 1985 she said, Arlene
transferred to the Cristan Commercial.

“On October 7, 1985 the trial court rendered judgment
dismissing the rape charge on the ground that the offended party had not filed
a complaint, but finding the accused-appellant guilty of serious illegal
detention.  The dispositive
portion of the trial court’s decision states:

‘In view of the foregoing, considering that the prosecution failed
to present a signed complaint of the offended
party the case of rape against the accused is hereby dismissed.  However, with regards to the crime of serious
illegal detention, the accused is hereby sentenced after consider­ing the indetermine sentence law and there being no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance, to suffer a penalty of from 12 years and 1 day of
reclusion temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua
as maximum and to indemnify the offended party the sum of P20,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages.’

“Hence, this appeal. The accused-appel­lant contends:

“(1) That
the information against him was filed by the City Fiscal without giving him the
right to be heard in a preliminary investigation and that his motion for rein­vestigation
was summarily denied by the trial court.

“(2)  That the evidence
does not support the finding that he detained the offended party Arlene Yupo from January 17 to January 23, 1985.

“(3) That since the
information was for the complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention,
it was error for the trial court to split the crime into two separate offenses
of rape and serious illegal detention.

“We shall deal with these contentions in their order.

“First.  The record shows that on March 6, 1985
the accused-appellant, with the assistance of counsel, filed a written waiver
of the ‘right to the Second Stage of Preliminary Investigation’ with the
Municipal Trial Court.  Accordingly, the
case was remanded to the Fiscal’s Office for the
filing of the corresponding information in the Regional Trial Court. 
(Rec. pp. 11-12) Nonetheless, a reinvestigation was conducted by the
City Fiscal which on April 25, 1985 recommended the dismissal of the case with
respect to Joselyn Ocapan.  On the basis of this recommendation, the
trial court ordered the case against Joselyn Ocapan dismissed. 
There is, therefore, no basis for the accused-appellant’s claim that he
was denied the right to a preli­minary investigation.

“Moreover, it appears that on May 24, 1985, the accused-appellant
pleaded to the charge and took no further step to raise the question of denial
of the right to preliminary investigation either to this Court or to the
Supreme Court.  Instead, he entered into
trial.  He thus waived whatever right he
might have to preliminary investigation. 
(People v. Lambino, 103 Phil. 504 (1958);
People v. Magpalo, 70 Phil. 176 (1940); People v. Oliveria, 67 Phil. 427 (1939))

“Second.  The
accused-appellant cites the testimony of the offended party, Arlene Yupo, to the effect that ‘(she) was detained by her (Joselyn Ocapan) inside the room’ (TSN, 10, Aug. 15,
1985).  The accused?
appellant argues that, therefore, it was not he who detained Arlene.  The accused-appellant also cites the
testimony of Arlene that ‘He (the accused-appellant) usually went out during
the evening’ (Id. p. 13) to show that he could not have kept watch over
her during her detention.

“The testimony of Arlene Yupo is
taken out of context.  What Arlene said
was this:

“COURT

When you insisted that
you will go home, what was the reply of Joselyn Ocapan?

“A

She refused.

“COURT

What did she do to you, if any?

“A

She slapped me.

“COURT

After slapping you, what
else did she do to you?

“A

I was detained by her
inside the room.

 “COURT

How many days were you locked
inside the room?

“A

Five days

“RECORD:

Witness is on the brink
of tears.

“COURT

From Jan. 18 when you
were locked inside the room, did you notice the accused Dick Ocapan?

“A

He was there.

“COURT

What was Dick Ocapan doing, if any?

“A

They were watching
outside

(TSN, p. 10, Aug. 15,
1985)

“On the other hand, when Arlene said that Dick Ocapan, the accused-appellant, ‘usually went out during the
evening,’ she was answering the question of the trial court as to the work of
the accused-appellant.  She was not
referring to the period of her detention. 
(TSN, p. 13, Aug. 15, 1985)

“The accused-appellant also contends:  ‘Since the accused
was no longer at his resi­dence where Arlene Yupo
claimed to have been detained, how could he be held liable for illegal detention?’
That the accused-appellant was allegedly driven out of his house on January 20,
1985 was his own testimony (TSN, p. 6, September 19, 1985) and that of his
wife, Joselyn (TSN, p. 21, Aug. 16, 1985).  As far as the prosecution is concerned, Dick Ocapan was not driven out of their house.  On the contrary, the offended party testified
that she could not leave the house of the accused-appellant because the latter
and his wife were guarding her.

“Nor is there merit in the claim of the accused-appellant that
the trial court relied, on the weakness and supposed inconsis­tencies of the
defense evidence rather than the strength of the prosecution evidence.  In finding the accused-appellant guilty, the trial
court stated:

‘The prosecution
presented sufficient proof showing that Arlene Yupo
was raped by the accused Dick Ocapan on January 17,
1985 and detained up to January 23, 1985 but had to allow her to leave the
house because by then Arlene Yupo was not eating
anymore and was be­coming weak presumably because of shock suffered by
her.  The accused denied having raped
Arlene Yupo and claimed that he did not even have
sexual intercourse with her on January 17, 1985 because Arlene Yupo was menstruating and had sexual intercourse only on
January 19, 1985 and that was the date when they were discovered by his common
law wife.  He also claims that Arlene Yupo had been his sweetheart since September 15, 1984 and
they had sexual intercourse for several times. 
However, the court finds that
the testimonies of the witnesses for the accused to be incredible and
contradictory.  The accused claims that
he did not have sexual intercourse with Arlene Yupo
on January 17, 1985 because the latter was menstruating but the witness for the
accused Juliet Pasco testified that on January 22, 1985 they went to see a quack doctor because of the delayed
menstruation of Arlene Yupo and it was only after
Arlene Yupo drank, ‘camias‘
on January 22, 1985 that her menstruation came. 
According to Joselyn Ocapan,
the common-law wife of Dick Ocapan, she discovered
Arlene Yupo and the accused had sexual intercourse on
January 19, 1985 when she went home from her work as a hostess in the Molave Disco House and she confronted Arlene Yupo at 9:00 o’clock in the morning and that she did not
dismiss, Arlene Yupo until January 23, 1985 because
there was no one who could take care of her children in the house if she would
drive her away.  Yet the witness Juliet
Pasco testi­fied that on January 19, 1985 they went on an excursion to Abuno to eat young coconuts, going back there again on
January 20 to get coconuts which were eaten by Dick Ocapan;
that on January 21, 1985 they went drinking beer at the Big Dipper at 7:00
o’clock in the evening and stayed for two hours; that on January 22, 1985 they
went to Kanaway to consult a quack doctor about the
condition of Arlene Yupo.  Certainly this is in conflict with the
testimony of Joselyn Ocapan
who claimed that she confronted Arlene Yupo regarding
her relationship with Dick Ocapan on January 20, 1985
and would not dismiss Arlene Yupo because she needed
her to watch her children.  If it is true
that Arlene Yupo was confronted regarding her illicit
relationship with Dick Ocapan on January 19, 1985 she
would not have gone gallivanting to Abuno with the
witness Juliet Pasco going back there again on January 20, 1985 and then on
January 21, going out to drink.  If the
claim of Joselyn 
Ocapan that she did not dismiss immediately
Arlene Yupo because she needed her to watch her
children were true, then Arlene Yupo could not have
gone to Abuno on January 19 and 20 and go out again
in the evening of January 21 and 22 with Juliet Pasco as she would be watching
the children.  Not only did the
testimonies of Juliet Pasco and Joselyn Ocapan contradict each other but their testimonies were so
full of inconsis­tencies that it could not merit credence.  Juliet Pasco even admitted that she had made
several mistakes during the questioning by the court, mistakes that could not
have been made by a truthful witness. 
The same thing can be
said of Joselyn Ocapan.  She stated that she testi­fied because she loves Dick Ocapan
(p. 19, TSN August 16, 1985) but later she also testified that she does not
love him anymore (p. 21, TSN, August 16, 1985).

‘The accused himself also admitted that there was no motive at all
for Arlene Yupo to charge him for rape because
according to him he never had any quarrel with Arlene Yupo
at the time he last saw her up to the filing of this case against him is so
flimsy that it could not merit credence. 
According to him Arlene Yupo filed this case
against him in order to save her honor and in order that she would not be put
to shame and embarassment because their relationship
was already known.  A woman would not
file a case for rape in order to
just save her honor if she was
not really raped because by doing so she would be further exposed to public
ridicule.

“Third.  The
accused-appellant argues that the crime charged in the information is the
complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention and that since the
offended party did not file a complaint for this crime, the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction.  He further claims
that, in holding that the information charged two separate offenses, the trial
court violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.

“On the other hand, the prosecution argues that the trial
court erred in dismissing the charge for rape because the requirement in art.
344 of the Revised Penal Code that the crime of rape must be prosecuted by com­plaint
of the offended party is not a jurisdictional requirement as held in Valdepenas  v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966).

“Neither contention, we believe, is
correct.  While the
information is indeed entitled. 
‘For Rape with Serious Illegal Detention,’ it clearly charges two
separate offen­ses, namely, rape and serious illegal detention.  The accused-appellant could have objected on
the ground of duplicity (Rule 110, sec. 13), but since he did not file a motion
to quash on this ground in accordance with Rule 117, sec. 3(e), he must be
deemed to have waived the objection. 
(People v. Policher, 60 Phil. 770 (1934))

“On the other hand, we do not think that the Supreme Court
intended to reverse a uniform course of decisions holding that, with respect to
crimes against chastity, the filing of a complaint by the offended party
is jurisdictional.  Valdepenas v.
People, supra, which the prosecution cites in support of its contetion that such complaint is not jurisdictional, simply
holds that if the offended party files a complaint for forcible abduction, the
accused can be found guilty under such complaint of abduction with
consent.  The fact is that, in that case,
both the offended party and her mother gave their assent to the complaint.  Indeed, as the prosecution acknowledges, in People
v.  Zurbano,
37 SCRA 565 (1971), decided after Valdepenas
v. People, the Court reiterated the rule that ‘The filing of a complaint for rape or for any other
offense enumerated in Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code by the person or
persons mentioned therein is jurisdictional.’

“We hold that the trial court correctly dismissed the
rape charge for lack of complaint by the offended party.  (3 Aquino, The Revised Penal Code 1771 (1976))

“Fourth.  The
trial court sentenced the accused-appellant to an indeterminate sentence of 12
years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum. 
Because of this and contending that the evidence against him is
insufficient, the accused-appellant petitions
to be released on bail.

“The Solicitor General opposes the bail petition and points
out that this case falls under art. 267, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code,
which prescribes the penalty of reclusion perpetual to death ‘If the
person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female, or a public officer.’
Accordingly, the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply.  In accordance with art.
63, par. 2, as there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances, the penalty to be imposed must be reclusion perpetua as the lesser penalty.

“This contention is well taken.  Since there is no question that Arlene Yupo was at the time of her illegal detention 18 years old
and the guilt of the accused-appellant has been established beyond reasonable
doubt, the accused-appellant is not entitled to bail.

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED by
sentencing the accused?appellant to reclusion perpetua.  In all other respects the decision is
AFFIRMED.  Costs against
the accused-appellant.

“The petition for bail of the accused-appellant is DENIED.

“In accordance with the ruling in People v. Daniel, 86
SCRA 511 (1979), let this case be forthwith elevated to the Supreme Court for
final determination.” (Rollo,
pp. 70-78).

A careful review of the original records of this case and of the
briefs and various pleadings submitted on appeal shows that the findings of
facts and conclusions of law of the Court of Appeals are correct.  We adopt its decision as our own.

Considering the foregoing, the accused-appellant is sentenced to
reclusion perpetua. 
The decision of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects with costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.