G.R. No. L-78470 March 11, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLOS DE LA CRUZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Carlos de la Cruz, was convicted of rape and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City. The prosecution established that on the evening of December 28, 1979, in a vacant stall at the Subic public market, the appellant raped 11-year-old Necitas Sagadal. The victim testified that after being given liquor by the appellant and his companions, she felt dizzy and lay down. The appellant then embraced her, and despite her resistance and verbal protest, he forcibly removed her shorts and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. Her maidenhead was ruptured, and her shorts were bloodied. The medical examination on January 1, 1980, confirmed a fresh vaginal laceration. The victim’s mother testified to her daughter’s age, supported by a school record indicating her birthdate as March 20, 1968, making her 11 years old at the time of the incident.
In his defense, the appellant interposed an alibi, claiming he was at his house during the incident. His father, a policeman, testified he fetched the appellant from the market at 6:00 PM and they had supper, after which the appellant retired to his adjacent house. However, the father admitted he did not see his son again until the next morning. The defense also suggested the complaint was motivated by an attempt to extort money, an allegation the appellant did not substantiate with clear evidence.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of rape. A subsidiary issue concerns the correctness of the penalty imposed by the trial court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but corrected the penalty. The trial court’s factual findings, based primarily on the credible and categorical testimony of the victim, which was corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses, were upheld. The Court found the appellant’s alibi inherently weak and unpersuasive. It was not physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene, given the proximity of his house to the market. His father’s testimony failed to account for his whereabouts for the entire night and even suggested the appellant could have returned to the market. The appellant’s implied admission of a potential settlement to “buy peace” undermined his claim of innocence.
On the issue of the victim’s consent, the Court ruled it was immaterial due to her age. Being under twelve years old, the law presumes lack of discernment to give consent. Furthermore, the evidence amply demonstrated the use of force by the 26-year-old appellant against the child. Regarding the penalty, the trial court erred in imposing death. For the crime of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the prescribed penalty is reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty. The trial judge unlawfully increased it to death by considering aggravating circumstances, a process unsanctioned by the rules on penalty application. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and increased the civil indemnity to P30,000.00.