THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 178775. January 22, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. RUBEN DELA CRUZ Y CUARESMA, accused.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 22, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 178775 (People of the Philippines v. Ruben Dela Cruz y Cuaresma). — The Provincial Public Prosecutor charged accused Ruben Dela Cruz y Cuaresma with rape in relation to Republic Act 7610 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City in Criminal Case 8751-2001-C. 1
The prosecution evidence showed that in the afternoon of August 16, 2001 XYZ 2 was sent by her mother to the store to buy salt when accused Ruben Dela Cruz, a neighbor and her father's kumpadre, suddenly grabbed her hands and pulled her into the house of a certain Ka Danny. Armed with a balisong, Dela Cruz ordered her to lie down on the bamboo floor and remove her shorts. 3
Because XYZ refused, accused Dela Cruz himself undressed her, took off his own clothes, and ravished her. Feeling tremendous pain, she pleaded with him to stop. But he continued until he was done. He then stood up, put on his clothes, gave XYZ P30.00, saying, "Bukas naman." 4 She was 10 years old and a third grade student. 5cDCaTS
XYZ recalled that accused Dela Cruz had repeatedly abused her from when she was still in first grade but had not told anyone about it for fear that he would make good his threat to harm her family if she did so. But, unable to stand it further, XYZ finally told her parents about it the day following the last time he raped her. 6 XYZ's parents brought her to the barangay authorities and eventually to the police for investigation. She was later medically examined at Camp Vicente Lim. 7
The medico-legal officer found shallow healed lacerations on XYZ's genitalia at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock positions and concluded that she was no longer a virgin and the lacerations were most likely caused by a male organ because of a foul smelling greenish secretion from her. 8
While admitting that he knew XYZ, they being from the same place and her father being his kumpare, accused Dela Cruz denied raping her on the day in question. Indeed, he did not see her during the whole of August 16, 2001 since he had been busy repairing tires in his vulcanizing shop from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. When his nephew came to relieve him, he just went home not far from his shop. 9
On February 24, 2005 the RTC rendered a Decision 10 finding accused Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A (d) of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim P50,000.00 moral damages, P50,000.00 civil indemnity, and P25,000.00 exemplary damages. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) but the CA rendered judgment 11 on March 23, 2007 affirming the RTC Decision, hence, his recourse to this Court. SAHITC
Accused Dela Cruz claims that the RTC and CA should not have given weight to XYZ's story since it is contrary to common human experience. He faults XYZ's assertion that he raped her after removing his pants, forgetting that a man would also have to remove his underwear before committing that crime.
But XYZ in fact testified in no uncertain terms that accused Dela Cruz removed not only his pants, but his underwear as well, before raping her. Thus:
Q: You said also, by way of continuing your answer, you said this, "pero patuloy pa rin sya at hinubo nya ang kanyang pantalon at brief at dinaganan niya ako at ipinasok ang kanyang titi sa aking pepe, ito ay labas pasok at bigla pong may lumabas at tumayo po sya kaagad at nagsuot ng pantalon niya at brief." Were you also the one who narrate this answer?
A: Yes, sir. 12 (Emphasis supplied) AIcECS
xxx xxx xxx
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION:
Q: You mentioned in your Affidavit wherein this was repeated to you wherein you said in your statement. . . "nakikiusap ako sa kanya TAMA NA PO MASAKIT NA! MAAWA KA NA!" what was it that he was doing to you that you felt pain and you were pleading for him to stop?
Was he using his hands to you or was his organ already being inserted in your vagina that's why you felt pain?
A: He inserted his penis, sir.
Q: All right, so you are saying that when you said "Tama na po, masakit na," the accused was already inserting the private part into yours?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: That was after he removed his pants and brief and placed himself on top of you that was the time you felt pain when you said, "masakit na, tama na po!"?
A: Yes, sir. 13 (Emphasis supplied) CAaDTH
Accused Dela Cruz claims that the prosecution made a fatal omission in that it failed to ask XYZ to point a finger at him during trial as the same person who raped her, thereby warranting his acquittal. 14 But Dela Cruz forgets that he entered into a stipulation during the pre-trial conference regarding his identity. The pre-trial order attests to this:
PRE-TRIAL ORDER
xxx xxx xxx
1) STIPULATION OF FACTSBY THE DEFENSE:
1) the identity of the accused; 15cTECIA
xxx xxx xxx
Sections 1 16 and 2, 17 Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly sanction stipulation of facts among the parties in criminal cases to expedite trial and dispense with the presentation of evidence on matters that the accused is willing to admit. Since accused Dela Cruz stipulated at the pre-trial hearing that he is the same Dela Cruz charged in the information with rape, he effectively waived the need for the prosecution to present proof each time his name is mentioned that he is the same person.
Finally, accused Dela Cruz claims that XYZ had been coached to pin the crime on him. But Dela Cruz has pointed to no clear or categorical evidence indicating that this was so. The Court finds no error in the CA Decision finding accused Dela Cruz guilty of the crime charged. Consonant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, accused Dela Cruz was likewise correctly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court also finds the award of P50,000.00 moral damages and P50,000.00 civil indemnity proper under existing jurisprudence but increases the award of P25,000.00 exemplary damages to P30,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. 18
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01292 dated March 23, 2007 subject to the MODIFICATION in that the P25,000.00 exemplary damages is INCREASED to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED." DHECac
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 14.
2. The real name of the victim is withheld pursuant to Republic Act 7610 and Republic Act 9262.
3. TSN, March 15, 2002, pp. 7-9.
4. Id. at 9-11.
5. Id. at 6; records, p. 43.
6. Id. at 12; TSN, August 30, 2002, pp. 3, 8.
7. TSN, August 30, 2002, p. 8; TSN, December 5, 2002, pp. 3, 5-6.
8. Records, p. 9.
9. TSN, February 19, 2001, pp. 3-6, 8, 13-14.
10. CA rollo, pp. 17-23.
11. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario, id. at 2-21.
12. TSN, March 15, 2002, pp. 10-11.
13. TSN, August 30, 2002, pp. 6-7.
14. CA rollo, pp. 37-44.
15. Records, p. 47.
16. Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. — In all criminal cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a lawful defense; and
(f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and civil aspects of the case.
17. Section 2. Pre-trial agreement. — All agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court.
18. People v. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011, 645 SCRA 573, 589.