G.R. No. 166723 ; August 2, 2007
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Elmerato Dela Cruz y Flores, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Elmerato dela Cruz, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for two counts of rape against his 16-year-old sister-in-law, AAA. The incidents occurred on April 10 and 19, 1999, within their shared residence. The prosecution established that dela Cruz, by means of force and intimidation, threatened to kill AAA and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her on both occasions. AAA reported the incidents after a third attempted rape on May 17, 1999. A medical examination revealed multiple healed lacerations, corroborating her non-virgin state.
The defense presented a different narrative. Dela Cruz admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual, alleging AAA initiated the encounter on June 10, 1999. His nephew, Ronald, also testified that AAA was his girlfriend and that he had prior sexual relations with her. The RTC found the accused guilty and imposed reclusion perpetua for each count. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the penalty to death for each count, citing qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the essential element of force or intimidation, and consequently, the absence of consent, to sustain a conviction for rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count, in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 . The Court upheld the credibility of AAA’s testimony, which was straightforward, consistent, and corroborated by the medical findings. The defense of consensuality was rejected. The Court emphasized that a rape victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The absence of an outcry or physical resistance does not negate rape, especially when the victim is intimidated by threats of death, as AAA was.
The claim of a prior relationship with the nephew was deemed a fabrication, as it was not raised during the pre-trial stipulation of facts and was inherently improbable. The qualifying circumstances of the victim’s minority (16 years old) and her relationship to the accused as a sister-in-law were duly proven, warranting the qualified nature of the crime. However, with the prohibition of the death penalty, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court also awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for each count of rape.