Case Digest (G.R. No. 95156-94)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 95156-94)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Dulay, G.R. No. 95156-94, January 18, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant Rodolfo Dulay (stay‑in family driver) was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 57, in consolidated Criminal Cases Nos. 24167–24205 (39 counts) with having, by force, threats and intimidation, carnal knowledge of Joan B. Corpuz on dates from June 20, 1982 to January 18, 1983. Dulay pleaded not guilty and was defended by a court‑appointed counsel; trial ran from August 5, 1987 to May 31, 1990.On August 20, 1990 the RTC (Judge Francisco X. Velez) convicted Dulay of 39 counts of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count to be served simultaneously pursuant to Article 70, ordered indemnity of P30,000 and reimbursement of P50,000 for legal expenses, and imposed costs. The court relied on the complainant’s testimony, a typewritten diary (purported copy of entries allegedly written contemporaneously), and medico‑legal and psychiatric reports noting old healed hymenal lacerations and an impression of psychosis/borderline psychotic condition.
Dulay testified in his defense that he and Joan were lovers who voluntarily had sexual relations; he pointed to a prior conviction for qualified seduction (Crim. Case No. 1880) covering conduct in February–March 1983. He moved to quash the information below on double jeopardy grounds (based on the seduction conviction), but did not raise duplicity under Rule 110; that motion was denied. Dulay appealed the RTC conviction to the Supreme Court, seeking reversal on (1) alleged duplicity of the information (Rule 110, Sec. 13) and (2) insufficiency of evidence to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
- Did the accused waive the objection that the information was duplicitous under Section 13, Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dulay committed the 39 charged rapes by means of force, threats or intimidation?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)