ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 116600 July 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO LANDICHO

  • G.R. No. 119527 July 3, 1996 - EVELYN J. GARCIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121910 July 3, 1996 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. Nos. 98121-22 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO R. SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. 100629 July 5, 1996 - ENELYN E. PEÑA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100699 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR C. GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 102377 July 5, 1996 - ALFREDO SAJONAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102998 July 5, 1996 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105583 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO TAMPON

  • G.R. No. 106296 July 5, 1996 - ISABELO T. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106413 July 5, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. TACLOBAN CITY ICE PLANT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107698 July 5, 1996 - GLORIA Z. GARBO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107824 July 5, 1996 - SUPERCLEAN SERVICES CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109173 July 5, 1996 - CITY OF CEBU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111324 July 5, 1996 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111549 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO P. ORTALEZA

  • G.R. Nos. 113178 & 114777 July 5, 1996 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113549 July 5, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113827 July 5, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113948 July 5, 1996 - ARMANDO NICOLAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114002 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO C. COMPENDIO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 115216 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID CABILES

  • G.R. No. 115825 July 5, 1996 - FRANKLIN DRILON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116208 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SALIDO

  • G.R. No. 116693 July 5, 1996 - PURITA DE LA PEÑA, ET AL. v. PEDRO R. DE LA PEÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118203 July 5, 1996 - EMILIO A. SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118231 July 5, 1996 - VICTORIA L. BATIQUIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 118284 July 5, 1996 - MAMERTO REFUGIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118562 July 5, 1996 - ANGLO-KMU v. SAMANA BAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118691 July 5, 1996 - ALEJANDRO BAYOG, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. NATINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745 July 5, 1996 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118824 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 119069 July 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO EXCIJA

  • G.R. No. 119845 July 5, 1996 - ANTONIO M. GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120949 July 5, 1996 - ARACELI RAMOS FONTANILLA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 121180 July 5, 1996 - GERARD A. MOSQUERA v. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121592 July 5, 1996 - ROLANDO P. DELA TORRE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122807 July 5, 1996 - ROGELIO P. MENDIOLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-91-712 July 9, 1996 - BEN D. MARCES, SR. v. PAUL T. ARCANGEL

  • G.R. No. 88189 July 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBURCIO ABALOS

  • G.R. No. 103922 July 9, 1996 - SANTIAGO LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104312 July 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CABALLERO

  • G.R. No. 109563 July 9, 1996 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114058 July 10, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZALDY B. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 74495 July 11, 1996 - DUMEZ COMPANY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80437-38 July 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO B. ABORDO

  • G.R. Nos. 94376-77 July 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER O. BELGA

  • G.R. No. 103174 July 11, 1996 - AMADO B. TEODORO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103968 July 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIMSON M. GARDE

  • G.R. No. 104860 July 11, 1996 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106418 July 11, 1996 - DANIEL L. BORBON II, ET AL. v. SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109156 July 11, 1996 - STOLT-NIELSEN MARINE SERVICES (PHILS.) INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110207 July 11, 1996 - FLORENTINO REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116221 July 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO G. GABRIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-995 July 12, 1996 - ROBERTO JALBUENA v. EGARDO GELLADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88126 July 12, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96795 July 12, 1996 - ANTONIO M. CORRAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108926 July 12, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116128 & 116461 July 12, 1996 - ALLIED BANKING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121139 July 12, 1996 - ISIDRO B. GARCIA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88822 July 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO M. TUVILLA

  • G.R. No. 117661 July 15, 1996 - DANIEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83437-38 July 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO R. GUARIN

  • G.R. No. 98458 July 17, 1996 - COCOLAND DEV. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102037 July 17, 1996 - MELANIO IMPERIAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106977 July 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AQUILIO ACABO

  • G.R. Nos. 109396-97 July 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO S. OARGA

  • G.R. No. 114795 July 17, 1996 - LUCITA Q. GARCES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116728 July 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO S. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120496 July 17, 1996 - FIVE STAR BUS CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1088 July 19, 1996 - RODOLFO G. v. HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY

  • G.R. Nos. 70168-69 July 24, 1996 - RAFAEL T. MOLINA, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95940 July 24, 1996 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108052 July 24, 1996 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110241 July 24, 1996 - ASIA BREWERY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115008-09 July 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL C. QUIJADA

  • G.R. No. 120043 July 24, 1996 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120099 July 24, 1996 - EDUARDO T. RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120303 July 24, 1996 - FEDERICO GEMINIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET Al.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1336 July 25, 1996 - JOCELYN TALENS-DABON v. HERMIN E. ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 95223 July 26, 1996 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105673 July 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MAGANA

  • G.R. Nos. 105690-91 July 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODOLFO CAGUIOA, SR.

  • G.R. No. 110731 July 26, 1996 - SHOPPERS GAIN SUPERMART, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996 - ENGRACIO FABRE, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112175 July 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DIAZ

  • G.R. Nos. 114280 & 115224 July 26, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115683 July 26, 1996 - DELIA MANUEL v. DAVID ALFECHE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118434 July 26, 1996 - SIXTA C. LIM v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119225 July 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO G. ABUTIN

  • G.R. No. 119328 July 26, 1996 - PROVIDENT INT’L. RESOURCES INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119673 July 26, 1996 - IGLESIA NI CRISTO (INC.) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-783 July 29, 1996 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. FILOMENO PASCUAL

  • G.R. Nos. 97556 & 101152 July 29, 1996 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111639 July 29, 1996 - MIDAS TOUCH FOOD CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114313 July 29, 1996 - MGG MARINE SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1148 July 30, 1996 - PEDRO ROQUE, ET AL. v. ZENAIDA GRIMALDO

  • G.R. No. 102557 July 30, 1996 - ALFONSO D. ZAMORA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108028 July 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 116512 July 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO BACANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116542 July 30, 1996 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118590 July 30, 1996 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. v. RAMON S. ESGUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122241 July 30, 1996 - BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, ET AL. v. ANGEL B COLET, ET. AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 111517-19 July 31, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER N. AUSTRIA

  • G.R. No. 112233 July 31, 1996 - COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES v. OMAR U. AMIN

  • G.R. No. 112611 July 31, 1996 - CLARA ATONG VDA. DE PANALIGAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116015 July 31, 1996 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119306 July 31, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 121917 July 31, 1996 - ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122274 July 31, 1996 - SUSAN V. LLENES v. ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122749 July 31, 1996 - ANTONIO A. S. VALDES v. RTC, BRANCH 102, QUEZON CITY, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 116728   July 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO S. CRUZ

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 116728. July 17, 1996.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO CRUZ y SAN JOSE, Accused-Appellant.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    Accused-appellant Rodelio Cruz appeals from a judgment of conviction 1 meted out to him by the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal for raping his twelve year old niece, Mary Jane Alonzo.

    In a Complaint 2 dated October 30, 1991, Mary Jane Alonzo charged accused-appellant with the crime of rape committed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    That on or about the 25th day of April, 1991, in the Municipality of Taytay, province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs (sic) and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with a twelve (12) year old girl, Mary Jane Alonzo y Cruz, without her consent and against her will.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    Accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. 3

    The evidence for the prosecution shows that accused-appellant is the brother of Mary Jane’s mother, Belinda Alonzo. 4 He lives at the house adjoining the Alonzos’ dwelling in Elwood Street, Taytay, Rizal. 5 On April 25, 1991, around three o’clock in the afternoon, Mary Jane was about to take a bath, when accused-appellant entered the bathroom of the Alonzos located at the back of their house. Accused-appellant entered through the side of the bathroom which was covered only by jute sack. Once inside, Accused-appellant took off his clothes and forcibly undressed Mary Jane. Mary Jane tried to run but accused-appellant blocked her way and forced her to lie down. Then, he mounted her and tried to have sexual intercourse with her. 6 By stroke of fate, Mary Jane’s brother, Roberto Alonzo, passed by the bathroom and saw accused-appellant lying on top of her. Accused-appellant saw Roberto hurriedly put on his clothes and rushed to their house. Roberto pursued accused-appellant and challenged him to a fight. 7 Later that night, Roberto revealed the incident to their father, Juanito Alonzo. The following day, April 26, 1991, Juanito accompanied Mary Jane to the police station where she executed a sworn statement. 8 Mary Jane alleged in her sworn statement that accused-appellant deflowered her for the first time in 1988 when she was only nine years old. This was followed by several more assaults, the last of which happened on April 25, 1991 when she was already twelve years old. 9 The medical examination conducted by Dr. Vlademir Villaseñor, medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, disclosed the presence of deep healed lacerations in Mary Jane’s genitalia, showing that she has had sexual experience in the past. 10

    For his defense, Accused-appellant denied forcing any sexual intercourse with Mary Jane on April 25, 1991. He claimed that at the time when the alleged rape was committed, he was at the factory of High Grades Packaging Product located at Libid, Kay Tikling, Taytay, Rizal where he worked as machine operator. He went home at four o’clock in the afternoon. Upon reaching their house, he rested for a few minutes, and then went to the bathroom to freshen himself. Their bathroom is located at the back of their house, beside the bathroom of the Alonzos. While in the bathroom, he heard a rustling sound. He peeped through a hole on the wall to determine its source, and saw Mary Jane bathing at the back of their bathroom. Surprised, he immediately covered the hole and continued to wash himself. Moments later, he heard somebody calling his name. It turned out to be Roberto, Mary Jane’s brother, who accused him of peeping at Mary Jane. 11

    The trial court found the accused guilty as charged. Accused was sentenced as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Rodelio Cruz y San Jose GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer and undergo imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, to pay the complaining witness the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.

    In the service of his sentence he shall be credited with the full benefits of the preventive imprisonment undergone by him, pursuant to Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 6127, if he voluntarily agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

    SO ORDERED. 12

    In this appeal, Accused-appellant faults the trial court for finding him guilty of the crime of rape and for giving weight and credence to the improbable and inconsistent testimony of Mary Jane. 13

    We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that accused-appellant is guilty of consummated rape. It appears from the records that accused-appellant did not succeed in having sexual intercourse with Mary Jane on April 25, 1991 because her brother happened to pass by the scene of the crime just when the accused-appellant was about to ravish her. Mary Jane admitted on several occasions that accused-appellant was unable to consummate the act of rape. 14

    In the earlier part of her direct testimony, Mary Jane gave a detailed account on how accused-appellant violated her:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    PROS. JURADO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: Miss Witness, do you remember where you were on April 25, 1991 at around three o’clock in the afternoon?

    WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Where were you and what happened to you?

    A: I was at home and I was in our bathroom.

    Q: What were you doing in your bathroom?

    A: I was taking a bath.

    Q: Was there anything unusual that happened to you when you were taking a bath in your bathroom?

    A: Yes, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q: You said that there was something unusual that happened to you. What is that?

    A: While I was taking a bath in our bathroom my uncle get (sic) inside the bathroom and he forced me to strip.

    Q: What happened next?

    A: He would first finger (dadaliriin) me and he wanted his penis inserted inside my vagina.

    Q: What do you mean by dadaliriin? What was the manner of "dadaliriin" ?

    A: He would first finger my vagina and he would insert his penis into my vagina.

    Q: Was he successful in placing his finger in your vagina?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: After that what did he do next?

    A: After that he wanted to place his penis into my vagina.

    Q: You were talking about "finger" what hand or finger of what hand was used by the accused in this case?

    A: His right hand.

    Q: Which finger did he use?

    A: I do not know, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q: After he inserted his finger what did the accused do to you next?

    A: He wanted to insert his penis into my vagina and caress my body.

    Q: Was the accused able to insert his penis into your vagina?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: How did the accused do it?

    A: After he fingered me he inserted his penis into my vagina.

    x       x       x 15

    However, the later part of her direct testimony, Mary Jane clarified that she was actually referring to incidents which happened prior to April 25, 1991. She testified:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    Q: How did you(r) brother able to know (sic) about the incident?

    A: Because my brother saw what Rodelio Cruz did to me.

    Q: Why do you say that your brother witnessed the said incident?

    A: Because while we were (witness referring to her and accused Rodelio Cruz) inside the comfort room, my brother passed thru (sic) the comfort room and saw Rodelio lying on top of me.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    This brother of yours is he older or younger than you?

    WITNESS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A: He is older, sir.

    Q: How old is he?

    A: Nineteen (19) years old, sir.

    Q: Did you see him peeping when both of you are inside the bathroom?

    A: No, sir.

    Q: How did you come to know that your brother was peeping?

    A: Because Rodelio Cruz saw my brother peeping at us and Rodelio Cruz suddenly wear (sic) his clothes and ran to their house and my brother followed him to their house.

    Q: When did you(r) brother chase him?

    A: On that very day, April 25.

    Q: In relation to the rape incident when did your brother chase Rodelio?

    A: When Rodelio was about to ran to their house my brother followed suit.

    Q: Do you mean after the accused had finished what he had done to you your brother waited first and gave chase to the accused, is that correct?

    A: What I am telling this honorable court are those that happened during 1988, 1989, 1990. What I am relating now is about April 25, 1991 when my brother saw that Rodelio Cruz was about to rape me and my brother chased Rodelio and Rodelio ran to their house.

    Q: Before we started questioning you Miss witness I asked you the particular date and time and you mentioned that the accused raped you on such date and time and a little while back you mentioned that the accused raped you on the dates you are now mentioning how would you cor(r)elate this incident?

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Fiscal did you read the affidavit of the witness?

    PROS. JURADO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, your honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    And in the affidavit it is mentioned that there are several incidents?

    PROS. JURADO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, your honor. (Emphasis supplied)

    x       x       x 16

    On cross-examination, Mary Jane admitted that the alleged rape committed on April 25, 1991 was not consummated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    Q: Ms. witness, you testified on June 10, 1992 (sic) that you were about to be raped by the accused on April 25, 1991 when your brother saw the incident and chased the accused, do you remember having said that?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Do we understand from you M(s). witness that this supposed rape was not consummated on April 25, 1991?

    A: Yes, sir. 17

    x       x       x


    Q: You likewise testified during the direct examination that what you testified was the incident that did not happen on April 25, 1991 but on some other dates mentioned earlier, is that correct?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: You testified also that you were about to take a bath at the comfort room?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Were you already naked when you entered the comfort room?

    A: Not yet.

    Q: How about the accused was he already naked when he entered the comfort room on April 25, 1991?

    A: No, sir.

    Q: What did you do when the accused entered your comfort room?

    A: I went out right away.

    Q: And what did the accused do when you went out of the comfort room right away?

    A: He called me inside.

    x       x       x


    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    What happened after the accused called you?

    A: He immediately closed the door and tried to undress me.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Did he succeed in undressing you?

    A: No, your honor. (Emphasis supplied)

    x       x       x 18

    Again, on re-direct examination, Mary Jane confirmed her prior statement by testifying thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Prosecutor Glorioso:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: Tell us Maryjane did you(r) uncle succeed in raping you on April 25, 1991 in the afternoon?

    A: No, sir.

    Q: Now tell us Maryjane the reason why your uncle Rodelio Cruz did not succeed in raping you on April 25, 1991?

    A: When he suddenly saw my brother, he ran so the rape was not consummated.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Can you please try to recall if you were investigated by the police officer on your complaint?

    A: Yes, your honor.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    And the result of that investigation was your statement now marked as Exhibit A, is it not?

    A: Yes, your honor.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Did you read your statement before you affixed your signature?

    A: Yes, your honor.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Did you understand the contents of this statement before you affix (sic) your signature?

    A: Yes, your honor.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    When you came to that portion of question No. 10 and the answer thereto which states that the accused raped you inside your comfort room of the afternoon of April 25, 1991 at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon which is not true because you said now that the accused did no(t) succeed in raping you on said date?

    A: I was confused your honor.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In other words you were raped by your uncle not on April 25 but in some other date as you mentioned?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    How many times were you raped by your uncle before April 25, 1991?

    A: I do not remember. (Emphasis supplied)

    x       x       x 19

    It is clear from Mary Jane’s testimony that accused-appellant succeeded in raping her in the past, but not on April 25, 1991. Accused-appellant cannot be convicted for consummated rape on the basis of such evidence as the complaint specifically refers to the offense committed on April 25, 1991. Due process demands that the accused in a criminal case should be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged before he is put on trial. To convict him for an offense not alleged in the complaint or information will violate such right. 20

    Considering the evidence presented, we find the accused-appellant guilty of attempted rape. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. By using force or intimidation;

    2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

    3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. 21

    In the case at bar, there was no carnal knowledge although accused-appellant has commenced the commission of the offense by overt acts. He surreptitiously entered the bathroom when Mary Jane was about to take a bath. He removed his clothes, afterwhich he started to disrobe Mary Jane. The intention of accused-appellant is obvious. The circumstances show that he had nothing in mind at that time but to satisfy his carnal desire. If it were not for the timely intervention of Mary Jane’s brother, Accused-appellant would have again consummated his lust against Mary Jane’s will.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed judgment is MODIFIED. Accused-appellant Rodelio Cruz y San Jose is hereby declared GUILTY of ATTEMPTED RAPE. He is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to ten (10) years of prision mayor as maximum and to pay the offended party the sum of P30,000.00 as civil indemnity. 22

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero, Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Decision penned by Judge Felix S. Caballes, Rollo, pp. 11-14.

    2. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

    3. Original Records, p. 35.

    4. TSN, August 11, 1992, p. 5.

    5. TSN, August 11, 1992, p. 2.

    6. TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 3-16.

    7. TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 19-20.

    8. TSN, June 9, 1992, p. 19.

    9. Exhibit "A" .

    10. Exhibit "C’; TSN, August 13, 1992, p. 3.

    11. TSN, November 4, 1993, pp. 2-5.

    12. Rollo, p. 14.

    13. Appellant’s Brief, Rollo, p. 32.

    14. See People v. Dela Peña, 233 SCRA 573 (1994).

    15. TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 3-7.

    16. TSN, June 9, 1992, pp. 19-22.

    17. TSN, August 11, 1992, p. 2.

    18. TSN, August 11, 1992, pp. 2-4.

    19. TSN, August 11, 1992, pp. 5-6.

    20. See People v. Vitor, SCRA 392 (1995); People v. Joya, 227 SCRA 9 (193).

    21. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

    22. See People v. Lucas, 232 SCRA 537 (1994).

    G.R. No. 116728   July 17, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO S. CRUZ


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED