G.R. No. L-3702 - NOVEMBER 1907 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3702November 29, 1907 United States vs. Escolastico de la Cruz G.R. No. L-3741November 27, 1907 United States vs. Afroniano Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-3973November 26, 1907 United States vs. Martin Sol, et al. G.R. No. L-3964November 26, 1907 United States vs. Esteban Malabanan G.R. No. L-3750November 26, 1907 United States vs. Justo Gamis G.R. No. L-4357November 23, 1907 Miguel Pavon vs. Philippine Telephone and Telegraph Co. G.R. No. L-3823November 23, 1907 Pedro P. Roxas, et al. vs. Maria de la Paz Mijares G.R. No. L-3755November 23, 1907 C. C. Pyle vs. Roy W. Johnson, et al. G.R. No. L-3747November 22, 1907 Yu Chengco vs. Alfonso Tiaoqui, et al. G.R. No. L-3900November 21, 1907 United States vs. Canuto Butardo, et al. G.R. No. L-2786November 21, 1907 United States vs. Victoriano Asebuque G.R. No. L-4069November 20, 1907 Juan Jaucian vs. Roberto Floranza, et al. G.R. No. L-3774November 20, 1907 United States vs. Vicente Sotto, et al. G.R. No. L-3610November 20, 1907 Jose Camps vs. Pedro A. Paterno, et al. G.R. No. L-3662November 19, 1907 Vicenta Acuña, et al. vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-3638November 19, 1907 Faustino Guerra vs. Blanco Sendagorta, et al. G.R. No. L-3144November 19, 1907 Carmen Ayala de Roxas, et al. vs. City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-4018November 18, 1907 United States vs. Demetrio Saludo G.R. No. L-4123November 16, 1907 La Yebana Company vs. Timoteo Sevilla, et al. G.R. No. L-3878November 16, 1907 United States vs. Atanacio Macaspac G.R. No. L-3840November 16, 1907 United States vs. Ignacio Borsed G.R. No. L-3838November 16, 1907 United States vs. Agustin Fernandez G.R. No. L-3516November 16, 1907 Felisa Nepomuceno vs. Cirilo A. Carlos G.R. No. L-3754November 15, 1907 Angela Ojinaga vs. Estate of Tomas R. Perez G.R. No. L-3787November 14, 1907 Teodorica Endencia vs. Eduardo Loalhati, et al. G.R. No. L-3779November 13, 1907 United States vs. Otis G. Freeman G.R. No. L-3852November 11, 1907 United States vs. Eduardo Montiel G.R. No. L-3996November 6, 1907 United States vs. Juan Bailon G.R. No. L-3986November 6, 1907 United States vs. Ambrosio Gesmundo G.R. No. L-3985November 6, 1907 United States vs. Ananias Cervo, et al. G.R. No. L-3661November 6, 1907 United States vs. Laureano Rodriguez G.R. No. L-3623November 6, 1907 Ruperto Relova vs. Elena Lavarez, et al. G.R. No. L-3427November 6, 1907 Capellania del Convento de Tambobong vs. Hipolito Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-3732November 2, 1907 Clemencia Felix vs. Mateo A. Felix G.R. No. L-3908November 1, 1907 Enrique Serrano, et al. vs. Leandro Serrano The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. United States vs. Escolastico de la Cruz United States vs. Afroniano Fernandez, et al. United States vs. Martin Sol, et al. United States vs. Esteban Malabanan United States vs. Justo Gamis Miguel Pavon vs. Philippine Telephone and Telegraph Co. Pedro P. Roxas, et al. vs. Maria de la Paz Mijares C. C. Pyle vs. Roy W. Johnson, et al. Yu Chengco vs. Alfonso Tiaoqui, et al. United States vs. Canuto Butardo, et al. United States vs. Victoriano Asebuque Juan Jaucian vs. Roberto Floranza, et al. United States vs. Vicente Sotto, et al. Jose Camps vs. Pedro A. Paterno, et al. Vicenta Acuña, et al. vs. City of Manila Faustino Guerra vs. Blanco Sendagorta, et al. Carmen Ayala de Roxas, et al. vs. City of Manila, et al. United States vs. Demetrio Saludo La Yebana Company vs. Timoteo Sevilla, et al. United States vs. Atanacio Macaspac United States vs. Ignacio Borsed United States vs. Agustin Fernandez Felisa Nepomuceno vs. Cirilo A. Carlos Angela Ojinaga vs. Estate of Tomas R. Perez Teodorica Endencia vs. Eduardo Loalhati, et al. United States vs. Otis G. Freeman United States vs. Eduardo Montiel United States vs. Juan Bailon United States vs. Ambrosio Gesmundo United States vs. Ananias Cervo, et al. United States vs. Laureano Rodriguez Ruperto Relova vs. Elena Lavarez, et al. Capellania del Convento de Tambobong vs. Hipolito Cruz, et al. Clemencia Felix vs. Mateo A. Felix Enrique Serrano, et al. vs. Leandro Serrano The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-3702               November 29, 1907

THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ESCOLASTICO DE LA CRUZ,defendant-appellant.

Herbert D. Gale, for appellant.
Attorney-General Araneta, for appellee.

TORRES,J.:

At about 8 o'clock on the morning of June 29, 1905, Maxima Hipolito being alone at her house, situated in the pueblo of Pulilan, Bulacan, her mother having gone to attend mass, Juan Ramos called and inquired if there was anyone with her in the house; she replied that she was alone and Ramos left. Shortly thereafter at the time when said Maxima Hipolito was taking her bath, Escolastico de la Cruz suddenly appeared, but as the girl saw him approaching and indecently dressed, she leaped from thebatalanor terrace where she was to the yard; the accused followed her and upon reaching her, as Maxima had not yet been able to arise from the ground after the fall, he threw himself upon her, kissed her, and tried to make her lay on her back and raise her skirt; the assaulted girl firmly resisted the efforts made by Escolastico de la Cruz, and to her loud cries Dominga Hipolito, Lucrecia Fajardo, and Estefania Garcia responded, and owing to their presence the intent of the aggressor was not carried out; other neighbors including the aforesaid Ramos, Felix de la Cruz, Victoriano Ramos, and Gregorio San Pedro, although witnessing from their respective houses what had taken place, did not render any assistance, and the accused, when seeing that the three women responded to the cries of the injured party, desisted and started to run; the three aforesaid women then helped Maxima back to her house and aided her in cleaning herself of the mud with which she was covered in consequence of the struggle with the man who assaulted her.

The facts stated above are duly proven by the testimony of the injured party and that of the three witnesses who, upon hearing their cries, went to her assistance and caught the accused as he was still struggling in the attempt to ravish her, from which he desisted only when he saw them nearing the place where he intended to commit the crime. From the particulars above set forth the offense has all the characteristics of the crime of attempted rape, defined and punished by article 438 in connection with article 66 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the accused, though he did actually begin to carry out the crime as intended, by exterior acts tending to consummate the ravishment of Maxima Hipolito, yet his failure to commit all the acts whereby such crime might have resulted was not due to his own voluntary resistance but was on account of the sudden appearance of the three aforesaid witnesses who, attracted by the cries of the injured girl, went to her assistance.

The accused pleaded not guilty, yet notwithstanding the allegations set forth in his defense supported by the testimony of the four witnesses named Felix de la Cruz, Juan Ramos, Victoriano Ramos, and Gregorio San Pedro, the case contains sufficient evidence of his culpability as the proven author duly convicted of the crime of attempted rape, since it appears that these witnesses, who were neighbors of the injured party and who from their houses saw what was taking place, without attempting to prevent the brutal attempt by Escolastico de la Cruz, were interested in favor of the latter; when they were examined by the court they denied having witnessed the affair, showing by such conduct that they were resolved to conceal the truth and favor the accused, one of them, Juan Ramos, having inquired a short time prior to the attempt, if the girl was alone in her house. From all of the foregoing these facts clearly appear and the crime and the responsibility of its author are proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the commission of the crime herein neither an extenuating nor an aggravating circumstance is present; therefore the penalty which the law imposes on the author of an attempted rape should be applied in its medium degree, as was done by the court below in the judgment appealed from, which judgment moreover contains no essential defect whatever; although no statement of facts is made therein, it does show the guilt of the accused as sustained by the evidence taken at the trial. As it appears in the judgment appealed from that the crime was qualified and that the evidence adduced by both parties was considered by the lower court, this court upon review finds that the same was in accordance with the law and the merits of the case. The provisions of section 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to decisions in criminal cases which are subject to review by the appellate court, while in civil cases when motion for a new trial is not made on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, this court can not examine nor review the evidence adduced in the court below, but is obliged to accept those facts which the lower court has set forth as proven in the judgment appealed from, a fact which does not occur in criminal proceedings; therefore, the said section of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a statement of such facts as were considered proven shall appear in the decision.lawphil.net

As to the intervention of the fiscal in these proceedings, the necessity for his action in the prosecution and punishment of the crime of rape, in view of the nature thereof, is unquestionable, without prejudice to the rights of the injured party, in accordance with the provisions of article 448, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code.

In view of the considerations above set forth, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from, whereby the accused is sentenced to the penalty of three years ofprision correccional, and to pay the costs, should be affirmed, provided, however, that the indemnity to the injured party shall be remitted, and that the accessory penalties of article 61 of the code shall be imposed with the costs of this instance, and it is so ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., concur.