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.