G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICKY DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On July 26, 1993, at about 5:30 a.m., fifteen-year-old Edelyn Giducos was alone in her house in Sitio Eviota, San Jose, Surigao del Norte. While fixing beddings in the bedroom, she was confronted by accused-appellant Ricky dela Cruz, a 20-year-old fisherman, who was holding a knife. Appellant pulled her arm, poked the knife at her stomach, ordered her to lie down, and threatened to kill her when she refused to remove her underwear. Appellant removed her skirt and underwear, knelt on her thighs, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her despite her resistance and weeping. Appellant threatened to kill her and her family if she revealed the incident. Edelyn did not immediately report the rape due to fear and shame, only confiding in her parents on August 12, 1993, after appellant attempted to molest her again on August 11. A medical examination confirmed a hymenal rupture due to sexual intercourse. The defense presented an alibi, claiming appellant was on a fishing trip in Layagon from July 24 to August 11, 1993, and advanced a “sweetheart theory,” alleging he and Edelyn were lovers and that the charge was fabricated because her family disapproved of him and because he ruined a borrowed fishing net. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify the victim.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Ricky dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision. The Court found no reason to overturn the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the victim, Edelyn Giducos, whose testimony was categorical, candid, and consistent even under cross-examination. The delay of 17 days in reporting the rape was sufficiently explained by the victim’s fear due to appellant’s threats and his subsequent intimidating behavior, including brandishing a knife near her house and attempting to molest her again. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for appellant to have traveled from Layagon to the crime scene, and the evidence supporting it (a barangay clearance and a notebook of fishing activities) was deemed unreliable. The “sweetheart theory” and alleged ill motives for the charge (family disapproval and a damaged fishing net) were found to be unsupported by evidence and insufficient to justify a false accusation of a serious crime. The Court also noted the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, but as the penalty was reclusion perpetua, it could not be increased further. Appellant’s conviction was upheld.