Case Digest (G.R. No. 267163)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dela Cruz y Tolentino, G.R. No. 267163, October 29, 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lazaro-Javier, J., writing for the Court. The prosecution charged Eduardo Dela Cruz y Tolentino (accused-appellant) by Information alleging that on February 25, 2015 he willfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of AAA267163, a “special child,” 16 years old. The case was tried before the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxxxx, where Dela Cruz pleaded not guilty.At trial the victim, AAA267163, testified in detail that Dela Cruz touched her breasts and vagina, inserted his finger in her vagina, removed her shorts and underwear, kissed her genitalia, and then inserted his penis into her vagina. Her contemporaneous Sinumpaang Salaysay repeated these facts. A medical certificate dated February 26, 2015, found the hymen intact and no bleeding, abrasions, or erythema; the defense admitted the certificate. The trial court observed that AAA267163’s demeanor suggested a mental age different from her chronological age and treated her as a child witness; the defense did not object.
Dela Cruz denied the charge, testifying he had only pulled up the victim’s shorts and that the mother accused him falsely; he admitted knowing the victim and that she appeared mentally challenged. By Decision dated March 3, 2020, the RTC found him guilty of statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with awards of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages of PHP 30,000.00 each; his motion for reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR HC No. 14824 issued a Decision dated October 28, 2022 affirming conviction but increasing ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the absence in the Information of an allegation that the offender knew of the victim’s mental disability preclude appreciation of that qualifying circumstance?
- Was the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to convict accused-appellant of rape beyond reasonable doubt?
- If guilty, should the offense be characterized as statutory rape under Article 266‑A(1)(d) or as rape under Article 266‑A(1)(a)/(b), what is the proper penalty, and are the awards for civil indemnity, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)