CRUZ VS PEOPLE GR NO.

16641, OCTOBER 08, 2014

 Norberto Bartolome Cruz and his wife were engaged in the business of selling plastic wares in
the Philippines, They intend to sell these products in Bangar, La Union for the upcoming
festivities in the said municipality. They hired AAA and BBB to be their aid in selling these goods
in La Union, hence on Dec 21, 1993, they went to La Union, thru the jeepney owned by
Norberto. They established a tent in front of Maroon enterprises, and decided that they will be
spending the night inside their tents

 According to AAA, at around 1 a.m she was awakened because she felt that someone was on
top of her, and upon opening her eyes, she saw, Norberto, on top of her, mashing her breasts,
and touching her genitals. During this instance, the victim took notice that she was no longer
wearing any clothes. Norberto ordered her not to scream or otherwise He will kill her. However,
Norberto was unable to successfully have carnal relations because AAA kicked him twice,
making it difficult for him to successfully commit it.

 AAA went out of the tent and sought the aid of Jess the helper, after 30 mins, she returned
inside the tent, upon her return, she took noticed that Norberto is now abusing BBB, by
touching the latter from sensitive parts, and due to the shock of BBB, she was just shaking and
was not able to resist the traumatizing event that was happening to her. The next day, after the
nightmare that happened, AAA and BBB went out to seek the municipal hall, and asked the
people around and a woman pointed them out to a police officer named as Sabas, and the latter
assisted AAA and BBB, in filing their sworn statement and eventually assisted them in filing the
case.

 In Norberto’s Defense, it was practically impossible to commit the offense, and merely a ploy, to
extort money from him. He argued that it was impossible to commit the crime inside the tent,
since the venue, is crowded with people, and it would be very difficult for him, if he would be
committing the crime of Rape. Also, he argued that AAA’s credibility is questionable and must
not be given weight by the Court, also the case filed against him must be dismissed due to the
fact that BBB’s sworn statements were not formally offered as evidence and thereby the case
has no sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims against him.

 ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant’s contention is correct

 Ruling: No, The Court held in the negative.

According to rule 45, The Court only dwells with pure question of law, and not trier of facts. Any
facts established, introduced and accepted in the regional Trial Courts, and the Court of Appeals,
will no longer be disturbed by the Court, and will give weight as to the credibility and the
veracity of the testimonies. The Court will not dwell on that matter, including the non-inclusion
in the formal evidence of BBB’s testimony.

 Other Issues: Whether or not he committed Attempted Rape

 No, the Court held that the circumstances and action committed by Norberto, was insufficient to
establish that he sought to commit rape. He was unable to expose his Penis and together with
the actions, failed to establish the Unison of action which prompts the court to see whether an
attempted rape was indeed committed. He committed only the consummated acts of
lasciviousness.