People of the Philippine Islands vs. Domingo Hernandez

Rape is consummated by any penetration of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina; proof of some degree of entrance of the male organ within the labia pudendum suffices.

Domingo Hernandez, a 70-year-old man, was married to the grandmother of Conrada Jocson, a nine-year-old child; the two lived in the same house. The offense charged was rape of a girl under twelve years of age, with relationship and grave abuse of confidence alleged as aggravating circumstances.

Domingo Hernandez, then 70 years old, and Conrada Jocson, a nine-year-old child who was the granddaughter of Hernandez's wife, lived in the same house. On or about February 26, 1925, in the City of Manila, Hernandez took advantage of the absence of the other inhabitants of the house and had intercourse with the child by force and violence. The information alleged that he intimidated Conrada with a knife, threatening to kill her if she did not accede to his wish. Hernandez admitted the intercourse but maintained that he was intoxicated at the time and did not know what he was doing. Witnesses for the prosecution testified that he showed no signs of intoxication at the time of the crime or immediately afterwards.

A physician who examined Conrada immediately after the commission of the crime found the labia and the opening of the vagina inflamed, together with an abundance of semen, although the hymen was intact. The evidence also showed that Hernandez lay on top of the child for over fifteen minutes and continued his efforts at penetration during that period. Conrada testified that Hernandez succeeded in a partial penetration and that she felt intense pain.

• Intoxication: Defendant-appellant maintained that he was intoxicated at the time of the intercourse and did not know what he was doing.

• Consummated Rape: Whether rape is consummated where the hymen remains intact but there is proof of partial penetration, inflamed labia and vaginal opening, and semen.
• Intoxication: Whether the accused's claim of intoxication negates criminal liability for the act.
• Penalty: Whether the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information warrant the increased penalty for consummated rape.

• Consummated Rape: Yes. Rape is consummated by any penetration of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina; proof of some degree of entrance of the male organ within the labia pudendum suffices.
• Intoxication: No. The claim did not negate liability because prosecution witnesses testified that he showed no signs of intoxication at the time or immediately afterwards.
• Penalty: Yes. In view of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, the penalty was increased to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessory penalties.

• Consummated Rape: The trial court's view that no consummated rape can occur without complete penetration of the hymen is contrary to the weight of authority and practically all modern authorities. State vs. Johnson held that an intact hymen is not always proof that no rape occurred, nor of virginity, because the hymen may need removal after impregnation and to permit delivery. The same case stated that any penetration, whether reaching the hymen or not, is sufficient; it is enough that the woman's body is entered, and the extent of penetration need not be shown. People vs. Rivers held that rupturing the hymen is not indispensable, but there must be proof of some degree of entrance of the male organ within the labia pudendum. Other cited cases held that entry of the labia or lips alone, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, warrants conviction for consummated rape. Here, the physician found the labia and vaginal opening inflamed with abundant semen though the hymen was intact; Hernandez lay on top of the child for over fifteen minutes and continued efforts at penetration; and the child testified to partial penetration and intense pain. These circumstances established consummation.
• Intoxication: Hernandez admitted the intercourse but claimed intoxication and lack of awareness. The prosecution witnesses testified that he showed no signs of intoxication at the time of the crime or immediately afterwards. His claim therefore did not overcome the evidence of guilt.
• Penalty: The information alleged that Hernandez was the husband of the grandmother of Conrada Jocson and that the crime was committed with grave abuse of confidence because they lived in the same house. In view of these aggravating circumstances, the penalty for consummated rape was increased to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with accessory penalties prescribed by law.

• Consummated Rape by Penetration of the Labia — Rape is consummated by any penetration of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina. An intact hymen does not negate rape. The required proof is some degree of entrance of the male organ within the labia pudendum. Applied: the physician found inflamed labia and vaginal opening and abundant semen despite an intact hymen; the child testified to partial penetration and intense pain; Hernandez lay on top of her for over fifteen minutes and continued efforts at penetration. The crime was therefore consummated, not merely frustrated.
• Intact Hymen Not Conclusive of Virginity or Absence of Rape — The finding of an intact hymen is not always proof that no rape was committed, nor is it proof of virginity. The Court cited State vs. Johnson for the observation that the hymen may have to be removed after impregnation and to permit delivery. Applied: despite the intact hymen, other physical and testimonial evidence established penetration.
• Intoxication as a Defense — A claim of intoxication does not negate criminal liability where the evidence shows no signs of intoxication at the time of the crime or immediately afterwards. Applied: Hernandez's claim was contradicted by prosecution witnesses.
• Aggravating Circumstances of Relationship and Abuse of Confidence — The aggravating circumstances alleged in the information—that the accused was the husband of the victim's grandmother and that the crime was committed with grave abuse of confidence because they lived in the same house—supported the increased penalty. Applied: the Court increased the penalty to seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal.

• "finding the hymen intact is not always proof that no rape has been committed, nor virginity; for the case are not rare where the hymen had to be removed after impregnation and in order to permit delivery." — From State vs. Johnson, quoted by the Court to reject the trial court's premise that an intact hymen precludes consummated rape.
• "The law may now indeed be considered as settled that while the rupturing of the hymen is not indispensable to a conviction, there must be proof of some degree of entrance of the male organ "within the labia of Pudendum."" — From People vs. Rivers, stating the controlling standard for consummated rape.
• "In the following cases it has been held that entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, merely, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction of the consummated crime of rape." — The Court's synthesis of the authorities supporting consummation without hymenal rupture.
• "In these circumstances, the crime must be regarded as consummated." — The Court's conclusion applying the penetration rule to the medical and testimonial evidence.

• State vs. Johnson, 91 Mo. 439 — Cited for the rule that an intact hymen is not always proof that no rape was committed or of virginity, and that any penetration, whether reaching the hymen or not, is sufficient to constitute rape.
• People vs. Rivers, 147 Mich. 643 — Cited for the settled rule that rupturing the hymen is not indispensable to conviction, but there must be proof of some degree of entrance of the male organ "within the labia of Pudendum."
• Kenny vs. State, 65 L.R.A. 316; 79 S.W. 817 (1903) — Cited as holding that entry of the labia or lips merely, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient for conviction of consummated rape.
• Reg. vs. Lines, 1 Car. & K. 393 (1844) — Cited among authorities supporting conviction for consummated rape upon entry of the labia without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina.
• Rodgers vs. State, 30 Tex. App. 510; 17 S.W. 1077 (1891) — Cited for the same proposition that entry of the labia or lips is sufficient for consummated rape.
• Brauer vs. State, 25 Wis. 413 (1870) — Cited for the same proposition that entry of the labia or lips is sufficient for consummated rape.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.