People v. Galuga y Wad-as

 

People v. Galuga y Wad-as

G.R. No. 221428

February 13, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Renato Galuga y Wad-as for the crime of rape. AAA, a 12 years old girl had an altercation with her father, CCC so she went away to the barangay hall and to the park. Meanwhile, while AAA was still crying, the accused invited her to go with him to the plaza but she refused. He again invited her but this time to the market place but still refused. The accused then, forced her to come with him and threatened to kill her so even though they passed through 12 people, she did not cry. When they arrived at a parlor which was already closed and dark, he removed her skirt and short and his clothes as well. He lied on top of her and inserted his penis inside her private part. The witnesses Borja and Garlitos said they say the accused dragging AAA and reported this to his father, CCC. They saw the accused and the victim sitting on a bench and arrested the accused. The victim disclosed to the police that she was raped. According to the defense, his two witnesses said that he saw the victim crying so he invited her to go N’s restaurant and she asked him to buy bread because she was hungry. Upon coming back to her, he was already arrested by the police together with her father.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the affirmation of the CA was correct.

HELD:

                Yes. In People v. Magtibay, it held that “Needless to say, it is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.” Accused-appellant, as he is sentenced herein to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, cannot apply for parole because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 19 explicitly states that "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." Accused-appellant is likewise disqualified from applying for probation as Section 9(a) of the Probation Law20 is clear that the benefits of probation shall not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years. Irrefragably, the sentence of reclusion perpetua imposed on accused-appellant in this case exceeds six ( 6) years of imprisonment.