Title
People vs. Dela Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 192820
Decision Date
Jun 4, 2014
Father convicted of raping and committing lascivious acts against his daughter, affirmed by Supreme Court with modified penalties and damages.
qualified rape
acts of lasciviousness
sexual abuse
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192820)

Factual Background

The prosecution evidence, as recounted by the courts below, showed that AAA was the third of four girls in the family of AAA’s mother, CCC, and the accused-appellant, Renato dela Cruz. The family lived in a one-storey house in [XXX] with one bedroom. AAA’s mother usually left early in the morning to sell in the market. The father was described as a mananari during cockfights.

In October 1999, AAA testified that she was roused from sleep after feeling a touch. She said it was her father who immediately covered her mouth and told her to keep quiet. She claimed that because of shock and fear she could not resist, and her father kissed and touched her private parts. She stated that she was eleven years old at the time.

For the incident on September 9, 2003, AAA narrated that she and her three sisters were in the bedroom while their parents were sleeping in the sala. At about 3:00 a.m., she was awakened by her father’s touch (kalabit) on her foot. When she sat on the bed, she alleged that the accused-appellant forcibly held her hand, made her stand up, and led her out of the room. She stated that she offered no resistance due to fear. She said that the accused-appellant laid her on the bed in the sala and inserted his penis into her vagina. She further narrated that later her eldest sister BBB woke up to urinate, and when BBB switched on the lights she saw the accused-appellant on top of AAA with a blanket covering the lower part of their bodies. According to AAA, the accused-appellant hurriedly stood up, put on his pants while holding his brief, and went to the kitchen in pursuit of BBB, while AAA left the house without speaking.

The prosecution presented a medico-legal report through the medico-legal officer, which concluded that AAA was in a non-virgin state physically.

Defense Evidence

The defense evidence consisted solely of the accused-appellant’s testimony. He admitted the family relationship and testified that he resided in [XXX] with his wife and children during the relevant periods. He acknowledged that BBB testified against him. He alleged that before September 2003, he and BBB had frequent arguments concerning his child with another woman and his insistence that the child go to school. He also claimed that, before the filing of the cases, BBB told him: “Putang-ina mo, Tatay. Wala kang kwentang magulang.”

On the merits, he denied that anything happened on September 9, 2003 and in 1999. He testified that on September 9, 2003 at 3:00 a.m. he was sleeping in the sala, while AAA slept in the room together with her siblings. On cross-examination, he stated that on September 9, 2003 he lived under one roof with AAA and his wife. He denied raping AAA on September 9, 2003 and denied touching her maseselang bahagi ng katawan in 1999.

Trial Court Proceedings

In its September 24, 2007 Decision, the RTC found that the prosecution evidence proved the September 9, 2003 incident beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent. However, the RTC limited the October 1999 incident to kissing and touching and convicted the accused-appellant of acts of lasciviousness rather than rape for the October 1999 charge. The RTC imposed separate penalties and awards in the two criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 3254-M-2004, it convicted him of the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum. It also ordered him to pay AAA P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. In Criminal Case No. 3253-M-2004, it found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape as charged and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, ordering payment of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s findings of guilt but modified the penalty and the damages.

In Criminal Case No. 3253-M-2004, the Court of Appeals found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and imposed reclusion perpetua “with no possibility of parole.” It ordered the payment of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.

In Criminal Case No. 3254-M-2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed conviction for acts of lasciviousness and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum, with civil indemnity of P50,000.00, and costs de oficio.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Before the Court, the accused-appellant contended that the prosecution witnesses allegedly harbored ill motives to falsely incriminate him, and he argued that inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony should not have been disregarded. He insisted that AAA and BBB’s admissions of ill feelings against him due to his having another family affected their credibility. He also argued that AAA allegedly stated in direct testimony that he only kissed and touched her in October 1999, while in cross-examination she supposedly indicated that he raped her at that time.

Legal Framework on Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness

The Court recited that Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines rape by sexual intercourse as committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman under circumstances such as through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the offended party is under twelve years of age, among others. For the charge to prosper, the prosecution must prove (1) carnal knowledge, and (2) that the act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation, or under circumstances such as deprivation of reason, unconsciousness, or age under twelve, or dementia.

For acts of lasciviousness, the Court cited Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements were stated as: (1) the offender commits an act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) the act is done under circumstances such as by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the offended party is under twelve years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.

The Parties’ Contentions and the Court’s Evaluation of Credibility

The Court denied the appeal and sustained the factual findings of the RTC and Court of Appeals.

First, it held that no cogent reason existed to overturn the lower courts’ findings of fact. It relied on established doctrine that when credibility is primordial, the trial court’s calibration of testimonies and assessment of probative weight, anchored on its opportunity to observe demeanor, are accorded respect. Because the Court of Appeals affirmed those findings, they were generally treated as binding upon the Court.

Second, it found the accused-appellant’s defense of denial insufficient against the positive identification and affirmative testimony of AAA and the corroboration provided by BBB and the medico-legal report. The Court rejected the contention that purported ill motives destroyed credibility. It held that ill motives become inconsequential when there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim establishing the accused’s liability. It noted that AAA never wavered in identifying the accused-appellant as her abuser.

The Court also found persuasive the reasoning in People v. Balunsat that it is unlikely for a young girl and her family to impute rape to a blood relative and face social humiliation absent a real commission of the offense, especially where the offender is the father and the victim is the daughter.

Third, the Court addressed the alleged inconsistency about whether AAA was actually raped in October 1999. It held that the alleged inconsistency lacked merit, explaining that during cross-examination AAA was confronted with seemingly conflicting answers and clarified that she was not raped at that time. It further invoked the principle from Dizon v. People that in rape cases, the complainant’s testimony must be considered and calibrated in its entirety, not in isolated portions or truncated passages. The Court stated that meaning is to be determined with due consideration of the entire series of questions and answers, and that imperfect statements may be supplied or clarified by other answers in the same testimony.

Proper Characterization of the September 9, 2003 Rape and the Penalty

The Court affirmed guilt for the September 9, 2003 incident. It held that AAA’s age and her relationship to the accused-appellant qualified the rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. It stated that AAA was fifteen (15) years old on September 9, 2003, based on her Certificate of Live Birth, which indicated she was born on March 24, 1988. The Court also noted that the Certificate stated AAA’s biological father was Renato dela Cruz, a fact admitted by the accused-appellant during trial.

While the Court recognized that Article 266-B calls for the death penalty if the qualifying circumstances apply, it explained that Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of death. It held that under Section 2 of R.A. 9346, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed in lieu of death. It further held that the Court of Appeals correctly imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness and Correction of Damages

For Criminal Case No. 3254-M-2004, the Court sustained conviction for acts of lasciviousness. It noted that the crime was punishable with prision correccional, and in light of the alternative circumstance of relationship attendant in the case, the penalty prescribed was imposed in its maximum period, which it identified as the range of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it treated that maximum as the m

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms