People v. Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On June 29, 1905, in Pulilan, Bulacan, Escolastico de la Cruz entered the house of Maxima Hipolito while she was bathing. He indecently assaulted her, attempting to force her onto her back and raise her skirt. The victim's cries attracted neighbors Dominga Hipolito, Lucrecia Fajardo, and Estefania Garcia, whose intervention prevented the completion of the crime. Other neighbors, including Juan Ramos, Felix de la Cruz, Victoriano Ramos, and Gregorio San Pedro, witnessed the event from their homes but offered no assistance. 2. Procedural History: The accused, Escolastico de la Cruz, pleaded not guilty. Despite his defense and the testimony of four witnesses who allegedly supported him, the trial court found sufficient evidence to convict him of attempted rape. The defense presented witnesses who claimed not to have seen the incident, which the court interpreted as an attempt to conceal the truth and favor the accused. The lower court's judgment, which sentenced the accused to three years of prision correccional, was appealed. 3. The Petition: The appellant, Escolastico de la Cruz, through his counsel Herbert D. Gale, appealed the judgment of the lower court. The appeal contested the conviction for attempted rape. The Attorney-General, representing the appellee, argued for the affirmation of the judgment. The Supreme Court reviewed the case, considering the evidence presented and the legal arguments, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision with modifications regarding indemnity and accessory penalties.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the accused of attempted rape. Whether the lower court erred in its appreciation of the evidence and in its application of the law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, finding the accused guilty of attempted rape. The Court ordered that the judgment be affirmed, with the modification that the indemnity to the injured party shall be remitted, and that the accessory penalties of article 61 of the code shall be imposed, along with the costs of the instance.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The evidence presented, consisting of the testimony of the injured party, Maxima Hipolito, and the three witnesses who responded to her cries (Dominga Hipolito, Lucrecia Fajardo, and Estefania Garcia), was deemed sufficient to prove the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the accused commenced the commission of the crime by overt acts tending to consummate the ravishment of Maxima Hipolito. His failure to complete the act was not due to his voluntary desistance but to the sudden appearance of the witnesses who were attracted by the victim's cries. The Court also noted that the witnesses for the defense, who were neighbors and claimed to have seen the event, appeared to be interested in favoring the accused, as evidenced by their denial of witnessing the affair during their examination, and by Juan Ramos's prior inquiry about whether the victim was alone. On Issue 2: The lower court did not err in its appreciation of the evidence or in its application of the law. The Court found that the offense committed had all the characteristics of attempted rape as defined and punished by Articles 438 and 66 of the Penal Code. The accused's actions, including pursuing the victim, throwing himself upon her, kissing her, and attempting to raise her skirt, constituted overt acts demonstrating his intent to rape. The intervention of the witnesses prevented the consummation of the crime. The Court also clarified that Section 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which pertains to the statement of facts in decisions, is not applicable to criminal cases where the evidence is subject to review by the appellate court, unlike in civil cases where the court is generally bound by the facts stated in the appealed judgment if a new trial is not sought on grounds of insufficient evidence. The Court found no essential defects in the judgment appealed from and considered the evidence adduced by both parties.
Main Doctrine
The crime of attempted rape is established when an accused begins the commission of the offense through overt acts that tend to consummate the act of ravishment, but fails to achieve full consummation due to external factors, such as the timely intervention of witnesses or the victim's determined resistance. The penalty for attempted rape is prescribed by law and should be applied in its medium degree when no aggravating or extenuating circumstances are present. Furthermore, appellate courts in criminal cases have the authority to review the evidence presented, unlike in civil cases where such review is limited under certain conditions.