Case Digest (G.R. No. 207943)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Robert Balanza, G.R. No. 207943, September 11, 2017, First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged Robert Balanza (appellant/accused) and a 13‑year‑old referred to as “BBB” with the rape of a 14‑year‑old girl identified in the records as “AAA,” alleging the offense occurred on or about October 7, 2006, at around 8:00 p.m. in Cebu City. The Information alleged that the accused and others used force and intimidation and took turns in having carnal knowledge of the minor. Because “BBB” was 13 at the time, he was exempted from criminal liability under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act; he was therefore not arraigned and was subjected to a DSWD intervention program pursuant to RA 9344 (as amended).
At trial, AAA testified she knew Balanza as a neighbor, was accosted by acquaintances who brought her to Balanza’s nipa hut, and was thereafter taken to a cornfield where Balanza forcibly removed her shorts and had sexual intercourse with her, after which “BBB” allegedly also raped her. Balanza denied the charge and offered an alibi: that he was at his neighbor Joseph’s house from about 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. with several others that night; Joseph’s house was testified to be about 100 meters from his nipa hut.
On September 25, 2009, Branch 14, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City found Balanza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in relation to RA 7610 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering Php50,000 civil liability. Balanza appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On March 29, 2012, the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 01087 affirmed the conviction but modified the damages award: it ordered payment of Php50,000 civil indemnity, Php50,000 moral damages, and Php30,000 exemplary damages. Balanza filed a Notice of Appeal on April 24, 2012; the CA gave due course to the Notice of Appeal on May 21, 2013, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court, which invite...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was appellant Robert Balanza positively identified as the perpetrator of the rape beyond reasonable doubt?...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)