People Vs Cruz
People Vs Cruz
People Vs Cruz
(CA) dated May 30, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01760, which
affirmed the August 12, 2002 Decision in Criminal Case No. 99-329
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 259 in Parañaque City. ASEcHI
The Issue
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
Cruz reiterates his previous assertions, i.e., that (1) the
victim's hymenal lacerations could have been caused by a non-
sexual act; (2) Cruz's erectile dysfunction made it impossible for
him to commit rape; and (3) his alibi that he was elsewhere at the
time of the rape deserves more weight as it was corroborated by
two other witnesses.
Non-Sexual Cause of Hymenal Lacerations
Courts use the following principles in deciding rape cases: (1)
an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to
disprove; (2) due to the nature of the crime of rape in which only
two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. Due to the nature of this crime, conviction for rape
may be solely based on the complainant's testimony
provided it is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things. 10
Bearing the aforementioned principles in mind, we find the
prosecution's evidence sufficient for a conviction. The claim that
AAA's hymenal lacerations could have been caused by something
other than sexual congress is distinctly speculative and does not
throw any doubt as to the fact of rape. What is more, proof of
hymenal laceration is not even an element of rape so long as there
is enough proof of entry of the male organ into the labia of
the pudendum of the female organ. 11
We have gleaned from the records a credible and
straightforward account of the rape from the victim herself. She was
unflinching both during her direct and cross-examinations and was
categorical in identifying Cruz as the rapist. We, thus, concur with
both the trial and appellate courts in holding that AAA's testimony is
enough to hold Cruz liable. Most important in a prosecution for
statutory rape is to prove the following elements: (1) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman
was below 12 years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under 12
years old is always rape. 12 These elements were sufficiently
established during trial and were not rebutted by the defense with
any solid evidence to the contrary. As the trial court was in a better
position to observe the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, we
respect its findings of fact especially as these were sustained by the
CA. 13
Impotence as a Defense
As a defense, impotence is both a physical and medical
question that should be satisfactorily established with the aid of an
expert and competent testimony. 14 Impotency as a defense in rape
cases must likewise be proved with certainty to overcome the
presumption in favor of potency. 15 While Cruz was indeed
diagnosed as suffering from erectile dysfunction, this does not
preclude the possibility of his having sexual intercourse with AAA.
As the CA observed accurately, AAA was raped in 1998 while the
medical examination of Cruz was conducted in 2001. A good three
years had already lapsed since AAA had been sexually abused. The
diagnosis on Cruz in 2001 is, therefore, useless to disprove his
sexual potency at the time of the rape incident. It merely
corroborates his assertion that he is currently sexually impotent,
and not that he has been so since 1995. Cruz was not able to
adduce hard evidence to demonstrate his impotency prior to or on
June 6, 1998 when the crime of rape was committed. Moreover,
assuming arguendo that he was indeed impotent since 1995, it
does not discount the possibility that his erection was cured by
drugs like Viagra or Ciales. There was simply no proof of his alleged
impotency on June 6, 1998 when the beastly act of rape was
committed against AAA. acIASE
SO ORDERED.