GR 116728; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116728 July 17, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODELIO CRUZ y SAN JOSE, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Rodelio Cruz was charged with the rape of his twelve-year-old niece, Mary Jane Alonzo, alleged to have occurred on April 25, 1991, in Taytay, Rizal. The prosecution evidence established that on that afternoon, while Mary Jane was about to bathe, Cruz entered the bathroom, forcibly undressed her, and attempted to have sexual intercourse. The attempt was interrupted when Mary Jane’s brother, Roberto, chanced upon the scene, causing Cruz to flee. A complaint was filed the next day. During trial, Mary Jane testified that Cruz had successfully raped her on multiple occasions prior to April 25, 1991, but clarified that on the specific date in question, the act was not consummated due to her brother’s intervention.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Cruz was at work at the time and that the incident stemmed from a misunderstanding after he accidentally saw Mary Jane bathing. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cruz of consummated rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. Cruz appealed, challenging the credibility of the testimony and the finding of consummation.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of consummated rape for the incident on April 25, 1991.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from consummated rape to attempted rape. The legal logic hinges on the principle of due process, which requires that an accused be informed of the specific offense charged. The information solely alleged rape committed on April 25, 1991. Mary Jane’s testimony, while detailing prior successful rapes, explicitly stated that on April 25, 1991, sexual intercourse was not completed because her brother intervened. Carnal knowledge, an essential element of consummated rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, was therefore absent for that specific instance.
However, the evidence unequivocally established that Cruz commenced the commission of the crime through overt acts: he surreptitiously entered the bathroom, undressed himself and the victim, and attempted to mount her with clear carnal intent. These acts, directly tending toward the commission of rape but frustrated by an external cause (the brother’s arrival), constitute attempted rape. Consequently, the Court found Cruz guilty of the lesser offense of attempted rape and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional as minimum to ten years of prision mayor as maximum, along with civil indemnity.