PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONNIE DELA CRUZ A.K.A. “BAROK,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dela Cruz

The Case

This is People versus Dela Cruz, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ronnie dela Cruz, known as Barok, for the rape of a fourteen-year-old girl. The victim is referred to in the decision only as AAA, in keeping with the confidentiality rules protecting child victims. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching case on the element of force in rape, and on how the courts treat a victim's failure to resist strongly or to shout for help. Second, it is a damages case: the Supreme Court corrected the amounts awarded below to conform to the standard it had set for simple rape.

Procedural History

Dela Cruz was charged by information with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Republic Act Number 7610. At his arraignment, with the assistance of counsel, he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of a city in the National Capital Judicial Region found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity, fifty thousand pesos as moral damages, and thirty thousand pesos as exemplary damages, with interest. Dela Cruz appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the damages, but modified the judgment to state that he is not eligible for parole. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Court affirmed with modification as to the amount of damages.

Facts

Late in the evening of the third of April, two thousand eight, AAA and her seventeen-year-old aunt, BBB, were drinking at the house of BBB's boyfriend. Dela Cruz and his friends joined them. The drinking ended at midnight, but they stayed until two in the morning. BBB noticed that AAA was sleepy, and asked Dela Cruz whether AAA could sleep at his house, because AAA did not want to go home after a fight with her parents, and the house they were in was too small. AAA and Dela Cruz then went to his house to check the room, while BBB stayed behind.

At his house, Dela Cruz pointed to an unlit room and told AAA that was where she would stay. Nobody else was in the house. When AAA went inside, Dela Cruz followed her and began to kiss her. She pushed him away and told him to stop, but he continued to remove her clothes. He then mounted her and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA cried and pushed him away, but the intercourse lasted about ten minutes. Afterwards she dressed and wanted to leave, but feared he might pull her back and violate her again. She finally left at around six in the morning and looked for BBB, but did not yet tell her what happened, for fear that others would know.

Once home, AAA told her aunt, who informed her parents. Her mother accompanied her to the authorities. A medical examination revealed fresh lacerations in her hymen, suggesting that a blunt object had been inserted into her genitalia. Dela Cruz, testifying alone for the defense, claimed he had been drinking with AAA and BBB, that he brought AAA home at BBB's request, that they were both drunk and he could not remember well what happened, but that if anything happened between them, it was consensual.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
• Whether or not the force required in rape must be overpowering or irresistible, and whether the victim's failure to resist hard enough or to shout for help destroys her credibility.
• Whether or not the damages awarded should be modified to conform to prevailing jurisprudence.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Rape is committed when a man has 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; or (d) when the offended party is under 12 years old or demented, even if none of the above circumstances are present.

This provision supplies the elements of rape and frames the central question of whether carnal knowledge was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal has no merit. Carnal knowledge was not disputed: AAA vividly recalled the act, her testimony was corroborated by the medical finding of fresh lacerations, and Dela Cruz never categorically denied having intercourse with her. What was contested was whether force attended the act, and the Court held that it did.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the degree of force in rape is relative. Rape is essentially sexual intercourse without consent. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus Joson:

The Supreme Court has, time and again, ruled that force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough. The parties' relative age, size and strength should be taken into account in evaluating the existence of the element of force in the crime of rape. The degree of force which may not suffice when the victim is an adult may be more than enough if employed against a person of tender age.

Sexual congress with a person who expresses resistance through words or deeds constitutes force. AAA told Dela Cruz to stop and twice pushed him away, and she cried, yet he persisted. Her admission that she did not resist hard enough cannot be taken against her, because resistance is not an element of rape. Her minority and her intoxication, which impaired her physical strength, made the degree of force immaterial.

On credibility, the Court reiterated that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses are not to be disturbed, since it has the unique opportunity to observe demeanor, conduct, and attitude on the stand. AAA's testimony was straightforward and categorical. Her failure to shout for help or to offer spirited resistance could not damage her credibility, because there is no uniform expected reaction from a rape victim, and she had already tried to resist and failed. Her conduct after the incident was consistent with human experience: she stayed because she feared another assault, and she waited for daylight because the place was unfamiliar and the streets were unlit. Her prompt report strengthened her credibility.

On the third issue, the Court held that the damages must be modified to conform to People versus Jugueta, which fixed the damages for simple rape at seventy-five thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Doctrine

Force in rape is relative; it need not be overpowering or irresistible, so long as it enables the offender to consummate his purpose. The relative age, size, and strength of the parties are considered, and force that may not suffice against an adult may be more than enough against a person of tender age. Resistance is not an element of rape, and the lack of it does not render the victim's act voluntary. Sexual congress with a person who expresses resistance through words or deeds constitutes force. There is no uniform reaction expected of a rape victim, so failure to shout for help does not destroy credibility. Trial courts' credibility findings are generally upheld on appeal. For simple rape, the damages are seventy-five thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of Ronnie dela Cruz with modification, ordering him to pay seventy-five thousand pesos each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, with interest at six percent per annum from finality of judgment until fully paid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: force in rape is relative and need not be irresistible, and resistance is not an element of the crime. Examiners use this case to test the force element in rape, the credibility of a victim who did not resist strongly, and the correct damages for simple rape.