Facts:

The case involves Rodelio Cruz, who was accused of raping his twelve-year-old niece, Mary Jane Alonzo. The incident allegedly occurred on April 25, 1991, in Taytay, Rizal, Philippines. Mary Jane filed a complaint on October 30, 1991, stating that Rodelio, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with her without her consent.

The prosecution's evidence indicated that Rodelio was the brother of Mary Jane's mother and lived next door to the Alonzo family. On the day of the incident, Mary Jane was preparing to take a bath when Rodelio entered the bathroom, which was only partially covered. He forcibly undressed her and attempted to have sexual intercourse. The situation was interrupted when Mary Jane's brother, Roberto, passed by and saw Rodelio on top of Mary Jane. Roberto confronted Rodelio, who fled the scene.

Later that evening, Roberto informed their father, Juanito Alonzo, about the incident. The following day, Juanito took Mary Jane to the police station, where she executed a sworn statement. In her statement, Mary Jane revealed that Rodelio had previously raped her when she was nine years old and that the last assault occurred on April 25, 1991. A medical examination confirmed the presence of healed lacerations in Mary Jane's genitalia, indicating prior sexual experience.

In his defense, Rodelio denied the allegations, claiming he was at work during the time of the incident. He stated that he returned home around 4 PM and went to the bathroom, where he saw Mary Jane bathing through a hole in the wall. He asserted that he did not engage in any sexual act with her.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Rodelio Cruz committed the crime of rape as charged.
  2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support a conviction for rape.
  3. If not, what lesser offense, if any, could be established based on the evidence.

Arguments:

  • Prosecution's Argument: The prosecution argued that Rodelio forcibly attempted to rape Mary Jane, as evidenced by her testimony and the medical examination. They contended that the interruption by Roberto did not negate the fact that Rodelio had the intent to commit rape and had commenced the act.

  • Defense's Argument: Rodelio's defense claimed that he did not succeed in raping Mary Jane on April 25, 1991, as the act was interrupted. They pointed out inconsistencies in Mary Jane's testimony, particularly regarding the timing and nature of the alleged assault. Rodelio maintained that he was innocent and that the allegations were fabricated.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The trial court found Rodelio guilty of consummated rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, along with moral damages to Mary Jane. However, upon appeal, the higher court reviewed the evidence and found that while Rodelio had attempted to commit rape, he did not succeed in consummating the act on April 25, 1991.

The court noted that Mary Jane's testimony indicated that Rodelio had not completed the act of sexual intercourse, as she explicitly stated that he did not succeed in raping her on that date. The court emphasized the importance of due process, stating that a conviction for an offense not specifically charged in the complaint would violate the accused's rights.

Consequently, the court modified the judgment to reflect a conviction for attempted rape rather than consummated rape. Rodelio was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional to ten years of prision mayor and ordered to pay civil indemnity to Mary Jane.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Attempted Rape: The court clarified that attempted rape occurs when the accused has commenced the commission of the offense but has not completed it, as evidenced by the intent and overt acts.
  2. Due Process: The ruling reinforced the principle that an accused must be informed of the specific charges against them, and a conviction cannot be based on acts not alleged in the complaint.
  3. Credibility of Witnesses: The court highlighted the importance of consistent and credible testimony in sexual assault cases, particularly when the victim is a minor.