Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 192820 -

G.R. No. 192820 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENATO DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 9346RA 7610RA 9346,RA 770,RA 9262RA 233,RA 77,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Cases Nos. 3253-M-04 and 3254-M-04 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: (1) In Criminal Case No. 3253-M-04, appellant Renato dela Cruz is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with no possibility of parole and is further ordered to pay the following: a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) P75,000.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Cases Nos. 3253-M-04 and 3254-M-04 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: (1) In Criminal Case No. 3253-M-04, appellant Renato dela Cruz is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with no possibility of parole and is further ordered to pay the following: a) P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; b) P75,000.00 as moral damages; and c) P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. [2] In Criminal Case No. 3254-M-04, appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum and to indemnify the private complainant the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. Costs de oficio . [12] The Ruling of the Court Before this Court, the accused-appellant contends that the prosecution witnesses ill motive to falsely incriminate him and the inconsistencies in AAAs testimony should not have been disregarded by the courts a quo . The accused-appellant argues that the admissions of AAA and BBB that they harbored ill feelings against him for having another family affected their credibility as witnesses. The accused-appellant also avers that AAA stated in her direct testimony that he merely kissed and touched her in October 1999. However, in her cross-examination, the accused-appellant points out that AAA testified that he was able to rape her at the said time. We resolve to deny the appeal. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of rape by sexual intercourse as follows: ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed . Rape is committed 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must be able to prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. [13] On the other hand, the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, is defined as follows: ART. 336. Acts of lasciviousness .- Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional. The elements of this crime are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or