TOPIC: Stages: Rape
CRIME: Rape and Act of Lasciviousness
FACTS:
The court sentenced Samuel Sanico for one count of rape under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353,5 and lascivious conduct under Article 3366 of the same code, in relation to R.A. No. 7610,7 otherwise known as "The Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
It was narrated by the Victim, whose name was not disclosed, who was 12 years old by the time that this crime happened, that on April 19, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Sanico, went to her room and begun touching her breasts, the victim thereof, struggled to free herself from the herein situation, but, she was cornered by the accused, as the house was built of wood, it then motioned to shook, which caused for the victim’s father to wake up and witness, the crime committed by Sanico, to his daughter, after being caught. Sanico then flew, and himself. But, was found in his hometown in Leyte on May 13, 2008.
Sanico was a pig-butcher and an ice cream vendor, and a tenant in the Victim’s house for 10 years.
The victim narrated that what happened on April 19, 2006 wasn’t the first time that Sanico sexually abused her, that by sometime in 2005, the abuse began, she claimed that she was raped by Sanico for Six or Seven times. After being caught on April, the victim was subjected for a medical examination. She was examined by Dr. Orais. Dr. Orais found the latter to have suffered from sexual abuse. Victim’s hymen was "coaptated" or slightly open and bore "old healed laceration at 3 and 9 o’clock positions". The hymenal laceration was possibly caused by "an injury secondary to intravaginal penetration by a blunt object". No human spermatozoa was found in Victim’s vagina. Dr. Orais, however, explained that even in the presence of seminal fluid, there are cases whenno sperm can be found. Dr. Orais likewise noted no physical or extra-genital injurieson , but found ample evidence of sexual intercourse having occurred more than one but less than four month/s ago.
The RTC rendered an Omnibus Judgment convicting the accused-appellant of one count of rape and of acts of lasciviousness.
Sanico, assailed the decision of the RTC, but admitted the crime of Act of Lasciviousness. He contends that since, the spermatozoa was absent in the victim’s vagina and the hymenal lacerations found were possibly inflicted more than a month ago, it cannot be said that he raped her. And because the victim failed to determine the exact date on when the rape happened on 2005, it then questions the credibility of her statement.
COURT’s DECISION:
The court affirmed the decision of RTC and CA convicting Sanico guilty of Rape invoking Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and Acts of Lasciviousness punishable under Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.
ISSUE/s:
(1) Whether or not the Sanico was guilty of the crime rape in relation to Section 5(b) of RA 7610.
(2) Whether or not absence of spermatozoa disproves rape.
HELD:
(1) YES. Sanico is guilty of the crime rape and acts of lasciviousness.
His non –contention of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness, and openly admitting that he actually fondled the breast of the Victim on April 19, 2006, convicted him of the penalty under Art 336 of RPC. He is also subject to the penalty of crime in relation to RA 7610 which defines sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty therefore under Article III, Section 5 thereof.
Article III, Section 5, of RA 7610 reads:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.- Children, whether male or female, who for money or profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of reclusion temporalin its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(a) x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution orsubject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3 for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rapeor lascivious conduct, as the case may be; Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but alsowith a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but also where one – through coercion, intimidation or influence – engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.
It is important to note however that a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.
(2) NO. The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape
Comments
Post a Comment