5. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO, OBRA O ACTIVIDAD
5.5. INFRAESTRUCTURA A DESARROLLAR Y EQUIPO A UTILIZAR
BELLOSILLO, J: HISTORICAL FACTS:
03 April 1990 – People v Orita. This case did away with frustrated rape, allowing only for attempted rape and consummated rape in the statute books.
Consummated Rape – committed from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim. Perfect penetration is not essential; that any penetration of the female organ by a male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina also warrants conviction.
Attempted Rape – no penetration but overt acts prior to penetration has been committed. Penetration – entry into the labia or lips of the female organ. The “touching” of the penis to the labia (or any external genitalia) must be viewed in light of, in relation to, or as an essential part of, the process of penile penetration. It is not just mere touching in the ordinary sense. The touching must be tacked to the penetration itself.
1 See People v. Atutubo, People v. Palma, People v. Sunga, People v. Asturia.
INSTANT FACTS:
25 April 1996. At 4pm, Ma. Corazon Pamintuan, mother of 4-yr old victim Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from the 2
nd
flr of their house to prepare Milo drinks for her 2 children. Primo was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. As Corazon was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon, she saw Primo Campuhan inside her children’s room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.
Corazon’s testimony is that Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel’s vagina. She then cursed Primo and tried to box him to which the latter evaded, pulled his pants up, and tried to escape. Upon her shouts for help, Primo was apprehended and was detained by the barangay officials. However, upon examination of Crysthel, no evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the medico-legal officer as her hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in diameter.
There were no other witnesses so Primo testified for his own defense, assailing that the charge was Corazon’s mere scheme against him for his refusal to run an errand for her. He asserted that in truth Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back when she suddenly pulled him down causing both of them to fall down on the floor. It was in this fallen position that Corazon chanced upon them and became hysterical.
RTC found him guilty of statutory rape.
Primo’s contention is that the narration of Corazon was punctured with implausible statements and improbabilities so inconsistent with human nature and experience. He claims that it was truly inconceivable for him to commit the rape considering that Crysthel’s younger sister was also in the room playing while Corazon was just downstairs preparing Milo drinks for her daughters; that it was in the family compound where assistance is almost readily available; that the door of the room was wide open for anyone outside to see inside; and that it was almost inconceivable that Corazon could give such a vivid description of the alleged sexual contact when from where she stood she could not have possibly seen the alleged touching of the sexual organs of the accused and his victim. In People v De la Peña - touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.2 Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
ISSUE: WoN based on the testimony given by Corazon, consummated rape can be deduced. HELD/RATIO:
No. The prosecution failed to prove that Primo’s penis did indeed and was able to penetrate Crysthel’s vagina however slight. Corazon said that she saw Primo poking his penis on her child’s vagina without actually explaining her relative position to them so as to enable her to see clearly and sufficiently the “contact point”.
But upon demonstration, she showed that the Primo’s chest is pinning the child down, while his right hand is holding his penis and his left hand is spreading the legs of the victim. It can hence be inferred that unbridled observation is impossible for the legs and arms of Primo would have hidden his movements from Corazon’s sight, not to discount the fact that Primo’s right hand was allegedly holding his penis thereby blocking it from Corazon’s view. It is required that her claim be properly demonstrated to inspire belief. The prosecution failed in this respect, thus we cannot conclude without any taint of serious doubt that inter-genital contact was at all achieved.
Crysthel herself clearly answered the questions asked to her: Q: Did the penis of Primo touch your organ?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But did his penis penetrate your organ? A: No, sir.
Corazon also did not hint in any way that Primo’s penis was erect at the time but even narrated that he had to hold his penis, thus showing that he had yet to attain an erection. Furthermore, Crysthel herself asserted that she resisted Primo’s advances by putting her legs close together; consequently, she did not feel any intense pain but just felt "not happy" about what Primo did to her. Thus, she only shouted "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko, aray ko!"
2 The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs that are visible in the perineal area,
e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after puberty, and is instantly visible within the surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and the inner surface. The skin of the outer convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while the inner surface is a thin skin which does not have any hair but has many sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia
majora is the labia minora.
Although she may be young, her story appears to be true. Based on the child’s testimony, plus the fact that the prosecution failed to proved their charge beyond reasonable doubt, Primo cannot thus be held liable for consummated rape nor be sentenced to death. Lastly, the finding of the medico legal showed that there were no signs of physical injuries nor were there any contact between the genitals that have happened. Hence, penetration could not have been made. This finding should be given due regard especially in rape cases. To rely on the testimonial evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate, would be productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results.
DECISION: Modified to ATTEMPTED RAPE.
– Kaye Tamayao
PEOPLE V. GALLO
FACTS:
The penalty of death imposed upon accused-appellant Romeo Gallo y Igloso by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, of Binangonan, Rizal, after finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape, was affirmed by this Court in its decision promulgated on 22 January 1998.
On 24 August 1999, Romeo Gallo filed a "Motion to Re-open Case (with Leave of Court)" seeking a modification of the death sentence to reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant proffers that the reduction sought by him would be in line with the new Court rulings which annunciate that the seven attendant circumstances introduced in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances that must be pleaded in the indictment in order to warrant the imposition of the penalty.
ISSUE:
1) Whether Gallo’s relationship to the victim can be considered as a qualifying circumstance
2) Whether the Court must now apply retroactively the Garcia doctrine to the conviction of accused-appellant.
HELD:
(1) information filed against accused-appellant reads:
That on or sometime the period of May, 1994 in the Municipality of Cardona, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, with lewd designs and by means of force or intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with a 13 year old girl, Marites Gallo y Segovia.
The above indictment has not specifically alleged that accused-appellant is the victim's father; accordingly, accused-appellant's relationship to the victim, although proven during the trial, cannot be considered to be a qualifying circumstance.
(2) decisions applying or interpreting the law or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the land (Article 8, Civil Code of the Philippines). Medina, which has the force and effect of law, forms part of our penal statutes and assumes retroactive effect, being as it is, favorable to an accused who is not a habitual criminal, and notwithstanding that final sentence has already been pronounced against him (Article 22, Revised Penal Code).
Indeed, by operation of law, appellant is rightfully entitled to the beneficial application of Medina. Accordingly, the Office of the Solicitor General hereby joins appellant's prayer for reduction of his sentence from death to reclusion perpetua. The motion to re-open the case is GRANTED and the decision sought to be reconsidered is MODIFIED by imposing on accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetuain lieu of the death penalty and ordering him to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00.
– Yan Yu