DOCTRINE1: Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age, whether she consented to it or not, is punishable as rape under our laws. As such, proof of force, threat, or intimidation is unnecessary in cases of statutory rape, they, not being elements of the crime. When the complainant is below 12 years old, the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act.
DOCTRINE2: It has not escaped this Court that rape and acts of lasciviousness are crimes of the same nature. However, the intent to lie with the woman is the fundamental difference between the two, as it is present in rape or attempt of it, and absent in acts of lasciviousness. “Attempted rape is committed when the ‘touching’ of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness.”
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Ferdinand Banzuela challenges the present appeal on the Decision of the CA wherein he was convicted of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness. Accused was charged in the RTC of Mandaluyong City when he allegedly consummated the rape of a 6 year old and an attempted rape of a 7 year old in a cemetery. Notwithstanding that the hymen of the 6 year old was still intact, he was convicted of Rape by the RTC, ratiocinating that mere touching of the labia consummates rape. Attempted rape was also proved since the RTC found that the same would have been consummated if not for the timely arrival of a bystander, which caused the accused to desist. Upon appeal, the Court affirmed and modified the decision regarding the rape of the 6 year old victim in terms of damages while the attempted rape was not appreciated by the CA in that it only constituted Acts of Lasciviousness.
ISSUE:
1. WON the crime of statutory rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. YES.
2. WON the crime of attempted rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt. NO.
HELD:
1. Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age, whether she consented to it or not, is punishable as rape under our laws. As such, proof of force, threat, or intimidation is unnecessary in cases of statutory rape, they, not being elements of the crime. When the complainant is below 12 years old, the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed as the law supposes that a woman below this age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. In order to successfully convict an accused of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove the following: the age of the complainant; the identity of the accused; and the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant. Significantly, as this Court has held before, the pain that AAA (6 year old victim) suffered is, in itself, an indicator of the commission of rape. Moreover, AAA’s ordeal was witnessed by BBB, who in fact was the one who told AAA’s mother about the incident. Thus, contrary to Banzuela’s assertions, this Court is convinced that the prosecution was able to establish that he had carnal knowledge of AAA, making him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
2. In the crime of rape, penetration, however slight, is an essential act of execution that produces such felony. Thus, for Banzuela to be convicted of the crime of attempted rape, he must have already commenced the act of inserting his sexual organ in the vagina of BBB (7 year old victim), but due to some cause or accident, excluding his own spontaneous desistance, he wasn’t able to even slightly penetrate BBB. It has not escaped this Court that rape and acts of lasciviousness are crimes of the same nature. However, the intent to lie with the woman is the fundamental difference between the two, as it is present in rape or attempt of it, and absent in acts of lasciviousness. “Attempted rape is committed when the ‘touching’ of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness.” In this case, Banzuela’s acts of laying BBB on the ground, undressing her, and kissing her, “do not constitute the crime of attempted rape, absent any showing that (Banzuela) actually commenced to force his penis into (BBB’s) sexual organ.”
Comments
Post a Comment