PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANTE DE LA CRUZ Y DIZON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Acting in accordance with Rule 124 of the Rules of Court on
Procedure in the Court of Appeals more particularly Section 13 which, in part,
provides:

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“Whenever a Criminal Cases Division should be of the opinion
that the penalty of death or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the
said Division after discussion of the evidence and the law involved, shall
render judgment imposing the penalty of either death or reclusion perpetua
as the circumstances warrant, refrain from entering judgment and forthwith
certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for
review.”

and the ruling of this Court in People
v. Daniel (86 SCRA 511), the Court of Appeals elevated this case
to us for final determination.

The decision penned by
Associate Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices
Reynato S. Puno and Venancio D. Aldecoa, Jr., reads:

“This is an appeal from the deci­sion of the Honorable Oscar
C. Fernandez, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
XLIX, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of rape as follows:

“‘WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds the accused DANTE DE LA
CRUZ Y DIZON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, and hereby
metes upon him an indeterminate
sentence of Six Years and One day of prision mayor as minimum, to sixteen
years and one day of reclusion perpetua, as maximum, to
indemnify the complain­ing witness the sum of Twelve Thousand Pesos, plus
costs.  The period of preventive
imprisonment the accused may have undergone, if at all, is credited in his
favor.’ (Original Record, p. 152).

“On February 4, 1983,
the accused was charged with the crime
of rape com­mitted as follows:

“‘That on or about December 11, 1982, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously by means of force and intimidation, that is, by then and there
forcibly laying her on the floor, embracing her, kissing her and touching her
breasts at the same time sucking the same, having sexual inter­course with the
undersigned comp­lainant, a minor, 15 years of age, unmarried girl, against her
will and consent.

“‘Contrary to law.’ (Original Records, p. 1).

“It appears from the evidence that herein complainant Lourdes
Cawaling, unmarried, 15 years of age and a native of Ormoc, Leyte had been
living in Manila with her foster mother, Esmeralda Nunez, a vegetable vendor at
Paco.

“Sometime in December 1982, Lourdes’ two aunts, Nieves
Cawaling and Eufrosina Cawaling who were co-workers of Celia de la Cruz (the girl friend of accused Dante de la Cruz, who later
eloped with the latter and lived toge­ther), introduced Lourdes to the accused
to work as a household help.

“Lourdes Cawaling started working with the accused on December
7, 1982 as a baby-sitter of the latter’s six year old son by a former marriage
for a monthly salary of P100.00 with free board
and lodging and a day-off every Sunday.

“The house of the accused where Lourdes worked was a one-room
apartment measuring about 4 by 4 meters in area with a matrimonial bed
occupying most part of the room.  The arrangement was such that the accused and
his son would sleep on the bed, while Lourdes the baby-sitter, slept on the
floor directly beside the bed adjoining the door lead­ing outside of the room
(Exhs. “2”, “3”, “5” and “6”).

“One night in December 1982, at about 2:00 o’clock in the
morning, Lourdes woke up and noticed the accused already at her side (on the
floor).  The accused began to kiss her on
the neck, ears and on her private parts while
the accused held a knife at her throat threatening to kill her should
she make any noise.  The accused
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Lourdes Cawaling after which he
went back to bed to sleep.  The following
morning, Lourdes was again warned not to tell anyone or he would kill her and
her family.

“This incident was repeated for a second time and a third time
in January, 1983.  During all these
times, Lourdes resisted the advances of the accused by trying to stand up or by
turning from side to side but the accused would always overpower her, grab her
and pin her down on the floor and threaten her with a knife.  On the third time, the accused tore her dress which
Lourdes presented as evidence.

“On January 14, 1983, Lourdes Cawaling left her employer and
went to her aunt Eufrosina Cawaling to whom she reported the matter.  They then proceeded to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) where Lourdes was examined by a doctor and there­after went to the Police
Station and filed the instant complaint. 
She likewise told her parents about this.

“The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge against him
and presented evidence that he was working as a watch repair man at Peping’s
Watch Repair Shop near the Paco Cinema, where he met his wife, Celia de la
Cruz, who was working as a porter and usher at said theater.  On December 5, 1982, they decided to elope as
Celia was already one month pregnant with his
son.  They rented a one-room dwelling on
the groundfloor of a 2-storey wooden house located at 1162 Craig Street,
Sampaloc, Manila.  On December 8, 1982,
Celia brought with her to their residence Lourdes Cawaling, a jobless young
woman to be their household help.  He
worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. everyday except Sundays, same where he
worked overtime until 10:00 p.m.  As they
were newly married, he and Celia slept together in the bed, which occupied the
room and Celia testified that if her husband would lay on top of Lourdes, that would make him at level and abreast of her since she was
occupying the bed on the side of Lourdes. 
She would then be aware of any movement beside her.  Moreover, Celia alleged that as they were
still on their honeymoon, from December 5, 1982 until six months thereafter,
they would make love nightly from 10 o’clock to 12 o’clock in the evening
without fail leaving the accused exhausted and snoring until morning.

“As affirmative defense, the accused and his witnesses tried
to prove that Celia had been seeing a lesbian prior to her marriage to the
accused and this lesbian had been making trouble for them ever since as she
rejected the offer to go abroad and live together and leave the accused
behind.  Once, Celia testified she
chanced upon the lesbian and Lourdes in bed in their underwears and it is her
theory that said lesbian is behind all these accusations against Dante de la
Cruz.

“Moreover, the accused and Celia testified that the reason why
Lourdes left their employ was because she stole several pieces of jewelry
valued at P6,000.00 and when Celia
reported the matter to Lourdes’ aunt, Eufrosina Cawaling, the latter promised
to pay the same in installments. 
However, they did not file a case for theft against Lourdes as the
jewelries were gifts of the lesbian to Celia and the latter wanted to forget
everything about the lesbian anyway. 
Later, when Lourdes filed this case, they reported the matter to their
Barangay Captain and their lawyer and to the policeman investigating this case,
but they were told to file a separate complaint as the theft case cannot be
consolidated with the rape case filed against the accused herein.

“After hearing the testimonies of all the witnesses presented
by both parties and receiving all documentary evidence, the Court a quo
found the accused guilty of the crime of rape as charged and sentenced the
accused accordingly.

“The accused appealed to this Court and raised the following
errors:

I   THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING ATTORNEY
LAPUZ’ URGENT MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT AND IN PROCEEDING WITH THE TRIAL BY
APPOINTING A COUNSEL DE OFICIO OVER THE ACCUSED’ OBJECTION;

II  THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENSE
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO RECALL THE PROSECU­TION WITNESSES:  PRIVATE COMPLAINANT LOURDES CAWALING AND THE
NBI DOCTOR, DR. ROBERTO GARCIA, FOR ADDITIONAL CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONS;

III THE HONORABLE COURT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE
UNREBUTTED EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE; AND

IV THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE
ACCUSED AT LEAST ON A REASONABLE DOUBT.

“After a careful examination of the evidence on record, We
find no merit in this appeal.

“FIRST:  Accused-appellant
alleges among others that the trial court failed to give him a fair opportunity
to secure counsel of his own choice
which is a denial of right to counsel.

“We do not agree.

“Applications for continuances or postponement are, in
accordance with Section 2, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, addressed to the
sound discre­tion of the Court and its action thereon will not be disturbed by
the Appellate Court in the absence of a patent and manifest abuse of
discretion.

“The accused’ counsel at a scheduled hearing filed a Motion
for Postponement on the ground that his (new counsel’s) services had only been
retained and that he would need more time to go over the records of the
case.  The trial court denied said motion
and instead appointed a counsel de
oficio for the accused in the absence of his own lawyer.

“It should be recalled that the trial and hearings of this
case had long been scheduled and if the accused chose to retain a new counsel
and to hand over the records of the
case only shortly before the trial for that day, then there can be no other
conclusion but that accused was merely trying to delay the administration of
justice as found by the trial court. 
More so, as the prosecution had finished presenting its case and it was
the turn of the accused to present his witnesses and his evidence.

“In any case,
accused was given a counsel de oficio
who acted as his lawyer during the presentation of the accused as witness.  The trancripts would show that the accused
was given — an opportunity to be heard and afforded a fair trial.

“There was no grave abuse of dis­cretion on the part of the
trial judge in not granting the motion for post­ponement prayed for.

“SECOND:  Likewise,
there was no manifest abuse of
discretion in refus­ing to allow or recall complainant to the witness stand for additional
cross-examination on account of a newly retained
counsel.  The complainant had already
experienced great embarrassment in narrating appellant’s sexual abuses on
her.  To allow her to be recalled to the
witness stand in spite of a previous extensive cross-examination would be
tantamount to harassment.

“THIRD:  The
evidence on record shows that the accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge
of Lourdes Cawaling by using force and intimida­tion and with the use of a
knife (deadly weapon under paragraph 5 of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code).

“The testimony coming from the offended party is firm,
categorical and straightforward considering that she was only a minor of 15
years of age and if the trial court chose to give her testimony more credence,
We find no cause to disturb its findings on appeal.

“The testimony of the offended party most often is the only
one availed to prove directly the commis­sion of rape and even if the defense
tried to prove that the character of the offended party is questionable, this fact constitutes no defense in a charge
of rape, provided that the illicit relations were committed with force and
intimidation.

“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and judgment is
hereby rendered finding the accused DANTE DE LA CRUZ Y DIZON guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with the use of a deadly weapon and
hereby sentencing the accused to reclusion perpetua; to indemnify
the offended party Lourdes Cawaling in the
sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) plus costs.  The period of preventive imprisonment the
accused may have undergone may be credited against his period of
incarceration.” (pp. 106-111,
Rollo).

A careful review of the original records of this case and of the
briefs and various pleadings submitted on appeal shows that the findings of
facts and conclusions of the Court of Appeals are correct.  We adopt its decision as part of our own decision.

The first and second
assigned errors alleging a denial of due process are without merit.

The appellant questions the
denial of his motion for the postponement of the January 9, 1984 hearing.  He has, however, failed to show that the
trial court commit­ted any abuse of discretion in not acceding to the
postponement.  A review of the records
shows that nothing prejudicial to his interests or which may have affected the
results in the decision took place on that date.  The same is true in the denial of the motion
to recall the private complainant for still another cross-examination.  Lourdes Cawaling was cross-examined at length
on September 5 and September 12, 1983. 
We agree with the Solicitor General that to have her narrate once more
the sexual abuses committed by the appellant would be tantamount to
harassment.  The other assigned errors
refer to factual matters which, from our review of the records, appear to have
been correctly resolved by the trial court.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that reclusion perpetua is the penalty for rape with the use of a
deadly weapon and not an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision
mayor as minimum to sixteen years and one day of reclusion perpetua
(sic) as maximum.

Absent any unusual circumstances warranting a bigger amount, the
usual indemnity in rape cases is P20,000.00.

Considering the foregoing, the Court finds accused Dante de la
Cruz y Dizon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with the use
of a deadly weapon and accordingly sentences him to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the offended party Lourdes Cawaling in the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P20,000.00) plus costs.  The
period of preventive imprisonment the accused may have undergone may be
credited against his period of incarceration.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.