G.R. No. 252226 - People vs. Rommel Dela Cruzymendoza

People of the Philippines filed an appeal-seeking prosecution matter against Rommel dela Cruz y Mendoza (accused-appellant) arising from convictions in the Regional Trial Court.
Accused-appellant sought reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated December 11, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11874.
The CA Decision affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated August 7, 2018, Branch 68, Pangasinan, which found accused-appellant guilty of two (2) counts of Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 in Criminal Case Nos. L-10160 and L-10161.

The RTC case involved two Informations with substantially similar accusatory allegations:

Criminal Case No. L-10160 alleged that on February 10, 2012, in Pangasinan, accused-appellant, an adult, taking advantage of the vulnerability of AAA, a fourteen (14) year old minor child (DOB: August 25, 1998), coerced and influenced AAA to indulge in sexual intercourse with him inside the bedroom of his grandmother’s residential house, to the prejudice and damage of AAA, in violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
Criminal Case No. L-10161 alleged that on October 18, 2013, in Pangasinan, accused-appellant, an adult, taking advantage of the vulnerability of AAA, a fifteen (15) year old minor child (DOB: August 25, 1998), willfully and unlawfully coerced and influenced AAA to indulge in sexual intercourse with him inside the bedroom of his grandmother’s residential house, and caused damage to AAA, in violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.

AAA was on her way to school when she saw accused-appellant, her textmate.
Accused-appellant held AAA’s hand, hailed a tricycle, and brought her to the house of his grandmother in Pangasinan.
They watched television for about thirty (30) minutes.
Accused-appellant then pulled AAA toward a room, kissed her on the lips, undressed her, pushed her onto the bed, and kissed her.
Accused-appellant removed his pants and inserted his penis into AAA’s vagina for about twenty-five (25) minutes.
AAA believed the act succeeded.
After the incident, they left the house, boarded a tricycle, and headed to the town proper.
AAA did not disclose the incident due to fear.

AAA was in the public market when accused-appellant saw her and called a tricycle.
Accused-appellant again brought her to his grandmother’s house in Pangasinan.
They watched television for some time when accused-appellant pulled AAA toward a room.
Inside the room, accused-appellant kissed her on the lips, undressed her, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
AAA tried to resist by slapping and pushing him away, but she failed.
After the incident, accused-appellant called a tricycle and they went to the town proper.

Accused-appellant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with AAA.
Accused-appellant denied that he forced AAA.
Accused-appellant asserted that AAA was his girlfriend.
Accused-appellant claimed that they often went to the house of a friend or to his grandmother’s house to watch television shows and listen to music.

Accused-appellant induced and unduly influenced AAA to have sexual intercourse with him.
Even if they were sweethearts, the relationship did not exonerate accused-appellant because AAA was a minor during the incidents, while accused-appellant was about twenty (20) years old.
Based on his age, accused-appellant could easily force his will upon AAA.

For Criminal Case No. L-10160: accused-appellant was found guilty of other sexual abuse under Section 5(b), RA 7610, and was sentenced to twelve (12) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum (as minimum) and seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua (as maximum).
For Criminal Case No. L-10160: accused-appellant was ordered to pay AAA P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages; the damages would earn 6% interest per annum from the date of finality until fully paid; accused-appellant was ordered to pay a fine of P15,000.00.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the RTC’s conviction under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 was supportable on the prosecution’s evidence and legally correct under the statutory elements.
Whether the prosecution’s evidence more appropriately established the elements of Rape under paragra...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest