Case Digest (G.R. No. 166441)
Facts:
Norberto Cruz y Bartolome v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Norberto Cruz y Bartolome, was criminally charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, in two informations arising from events of December 21, 1993: Criminal Case No. 2388 for attempted rape against AAA (then 15 years old) and Criminal Case No. 2389 for acts of lasciviousness against BBB. The victims’ real names were withheld pursuant to protective statutes. At arraignment the petitioner pleaded not guilty to both charges.
The prosecution’s theory was that petitioner, while the victims slept in a tent, removed AAA’s undergarments, climbed on top of her, embraced and touched her vagina and breasts and threatened to kill her if she screamed; when AAA resisted and left the tent, she later saw petitioner touching BBB’s private parts. The victims later reported the incidents to local authorities and executed sworn statements on January 10, 1994. The petitioner denied the allegations, claiming the tent location and presence of people made the acts improbable, and suggested the complaints were extortionate.
After a joint trial, the RTC, by judgment dated April 6, 2000, convicted petitioner of both attempted rape (Crim. Case No. 2388) and acts of lasciviousness (Crim. Case No. 2389), imposing indeterminate sentences and awarding moral damages to the victims. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals (decision penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. Delos Santos, July 26, 2004) affirmed the conviction for attempted rape as to AAA but acquitted petitioner for the acts of lasciviousness charge involving BBB due to insufficiency of evidence.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, assailing (1) the CA’s acceptance of AAA’s testimony and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustai...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court disturb the Court of Appeals’ and trial court’s factual findings and assessment of witness credibility in this appeal?
- Did the petitioner’s acts — climbing on top of a naked AAA, mashing her breasts and touching her genitalia — constitute attempted rape under Article 335 and Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, or only acts of la...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)