People of the Philippines vs. Christopher Pareja y Velasco

Consummated rape requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum; mere touching or grazing of the external genitalia or mons pubis is insufficient and, absent such penetration, the crime can only be attempted rape if the touching is coupled with intent to penetrate.

Christopher Pareja was the common-law spouse of AAA’s sister, and AAA was 13 years old at the time material to the charge. The offense was prosecuted under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which defines rape by carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or demented. The case therefore required proof of carnal knowledge, the central element of consummated rape, beyond reasonable doubt.

At around 3:30 a.m. on June 16, 2003, AAA, then 13 years old and the sister of appellant Christopher Pareja’s common-law spouse, was sleeping beside her two-year-old nephew BBB on the floor of her sister’s room. The appellant hugged her and kissed her nape and neck. AAA cried, but the appellant covered her and BBB with a blanket. He removed AAA’s clothes, short pants, and underwear; he then took off his short pants and briefs. The appellant went on top of AAA and held her hands. AAA resisted, but the appellant parted her legs using his own legs and then tried to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA testified that the appellant was not able to insert his penis and that it merely touched (“naidikit”) her sexual organ. The appellant stopped when AAA’s cry got louder; AAA kicked the appellant’s upper thigh as he was about to stand up. The appellant put his clothes back on and threatened to kill AAA if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Immediately after, the appellant left the room. AAA covered herself with a blanket and cried.

At around 6:00 a.m. of the same day, AAA’s brother CCC went to her room and asked her why she was lying on the floor and crying. AAA did not answer and instead hurled invectives at CCC. AAA went to the house of her other brother, but the latter was not in his house. AAA proceeded to the house of her older sister DDD at Block 19, Welfareville Compound, and narrated to her what had happened. Afterwards, AAA and her two siblings went to the Women and Children’s Desk of the Mandaluyong City Police Station and reported the incident.

For his defense, the appellant declared that he hauled “filling materials” at his house, located at Block 38, Fabella Compound, on the evening of June 15, 2003. At around 10:00 p.m., he went to his room and slept. On the next day, the appellant, accompanied by his mother and brother-in-law, went to the municipal hall to ask for financial assistance for his wife who was confined in the hospital. Upon arrival at the hospital, the doctor told him that his wife needed blood. Immediately after, the appellant and his companions went to Pasig City to find blood donors. On the evening of June 16, 2003, while the appellant was folding the clothes of his son, two policemen entered his house and informed him that a complaint for attempted rape had been filed against him. The police brought him to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, forced him to admit the crime, mauled him, and then placed him in a detention cell. The appellant added that he filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against the police officers who beat him up.

The RTC convicted the appellant of rape in its decision of February 22, 2007. On appeal, the CA affirmed in its decision dated June 15, 2009, concluding that a slight penetration occurred when the appellant’s penis touched AAA’s vagina as he was trying to insert it.

• Failure to Prove Penetration: Appellant argued that the lower courts erred in convicting him of rape because the prosecution failed to prove even the slightest penetration of his penis into the victim’s vagina.
• Incredible Testimony: Appellant added that the victim’s testimony was incredible and contrary to human experience.

• Carnal Knowledge/Penetration: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant’s penis penetrated, however slightly, AAA’s labia or pudendum, sufficient to constitute consummated rape.
• Attempted Rape: Whether the appellant’s acts constituted attempted rape.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the proper penalty and civil liabilities for attempted rape were imposed.

• Carnal Knowledge/Penetration: No. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant’s penis penetrated, even slightly, AAA’s labia or pudendum; mere touching or grazing of the external genitalia or mons pubis does not constitute carnal knowledge for consummated rape.
• Attempted Rape: Yes. The appellant commenced rape by overt acts but failed to perform all acts of execution because of AAA’s loud cries and resistance, not his own spontaneous desistance; the touching was coupled with intent to penetrate.
• Penalty and Damages: The penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua, i.e., prision mayor; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the indeterminate penalty is six years of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum, with civil indemnity of ₱30,000.00, moral damages of ₱25,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱10,000.00.

• Carnal Knowledge/Penetration: Under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or demented. Carnal knowledge is the central element of rape and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. AAA’s testimony established only that the appellant’s penis “naidikit” to her private part; she confirmed on cross-examination that the appellant did not succeed in inserting his penis into her vagina. The Sinumpaang Salaysay disclosed that the appellant was holding the victim’s hand while trying to insert his penis, and the victim was resisting, making penile penetration highly difficult, if not improbable. No medico-legal report or other evidence confirmed penetration. Under People vs. Campuhan, mere epidermal contact, stroking, grazing, a slight brush, or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina or mons pubis is not sufficient; there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ. The labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis is not sufficient. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. Thus, the conviction for consummated rape cannot stand.

• Attempted Rape: Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In People vs. Publico, the Court ruled that when the “touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed; otherwise, the crime committed is merely acts of lasciviousness. The appellant commenced the commission of rape by the following overt acts: kissing AAA’s nape and neck; undressing her; removing his clothes and briefs; lying on top of her; holding her hands and parting her legs; and trying to insert his penis into her vagina. The appellant, however, failed to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, i.e., the victim’s loud cries and resistance. The totality of the appellant’s acts demonstrated the unmistakable objective to insert his penis into the victim’s private parts. Accordingly, he is guilty of attempted rape.

• Penalty and Damages: Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua for consummated rape. Two degrees lower from reclusion perpetua is prision mayor, whose range is six years and one day to 12 years. Without any attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum of the penalty to be imposed is prision mayor in its medium period, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional, whose range is six months and one day to six years, in any of its periods. Accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum. In addition, he was ordered to pay the victim ₱30,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱25,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱10,000.00 as exemplary damages, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence on attempted rape cases.

• Consummated Rape Requires Slightest Penile Penetration of the Labia — Consummated rape is established only by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ. Mere epidermal contact, stroking, grazing, a slight brush, or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina or mons pubis is insufficient. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove such penetration; AAA’s testimony showed only that the appellant’s penis touched her private part and that insertion did not succeed, and no medico-legal evidence corroborated penetration.

• Attempted Rape Versus Acts of Lasciviousness — When the “touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed; otherwise, the crime committed is merely acts of lasciviousness. Attempted rape exists when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of a cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The appellant’s overt acts—kissing AAA’s nape and neck, undressing her, removing his clothes and briefs, lying on top of her, holding her hands and parting her legs, and trying to insert his penis—demonstrated intent to penetrate, and he failed only because of AAA’s loud cries and resistance.

• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Rape — Carnal knowledge is the central element of rape and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction cannot be made to rest on possibilities; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The prosecution bears the primary duty to present its case with clarity and persuasion, to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. The prosecution failed to discharge this burden as to consummated rape.

• Penalty for Attempted Rape Under Article 51 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law — The penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua for consummated rape. Two degrees lower is prision mayor. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum is taken from prision mayor in its medium period, while the minimum is taken from prision correccional in any of its periods. The appellant was sentenced to six years of prision correccional as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum.

• "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." — This passage from People vs. Campuhan states the controlling evidentiary threshold for consummated rape and is the basis for requiring proof of labial penetration, not mere external touching.
• "Simply put, "rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ."" — This is the canonical formulation of the penetration requirement; the Court used it to conclude that the appellant’s mere touching of AAA’s private part did not consummate rape.
• "In the present case, the appellant commenced the commission of rape by the following overt acts: kissing AAA’s nape and neck; undressing her; removing his clothes and briefs; lying on top of her; holding her hands and parting her legs; and trying to insert his penis into her vagina. The appellant, however, failed to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, i.e., the victim's loud cries and resistance." — This passage is the ratio for convicting the appellant of attempted rape rather than consummated rape.
• "In rape cases, the prosecution bears the primary duty to present its case with clarity and persuasion, to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion." — This passage underscores the prosecution’s burden of proof and supports the ruling that the evidence did not establish consummated rape beyond reasonable doubt.

• People vs. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912 (2000) — Controlling precedent. It laid down the parameters of genital contact in rape cases, requiring sufficient and convincing proof that the penis touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface.
• People vs. Publico, G.R. No. 183569, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 734 — Followed. It held that when the touching of the vagina by the penis is coupled with intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed; otherwise, the crime is merely acts of lasciviousness.
• People vs. Bon, 536 Phil. 897 (2006) — Cited. The Court found the appellant guilty of attempted rape only where there was no indication that the penis touched the labia of the pudendum, and held that carnal knowledge cannot be presumed from pain.
• People vs. Alibuyog, 469 Phil. 385 (2004) — Cited. The victim’s testimony was too ambiguous to prove penile penetration and was replete with repeated denial of penile insertion, so the accused was convicted only of attempted rape.
• People vs. Brioso, G.R. No. 182517, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 485 — Cited. It held that carnal knowledge must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and that absent the slightest penetration, there can be no consummated rape.
• People vs. Pancho, 462 Phil. 193 (2003) — Cited for the rule that rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ.
• People vs. Poras, G.R. No. 177747, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 624 — Cited. It states that in rape cases, the prosecution bears the primary duty to present its case with clarity and persuasion, to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.

• Article 266-A(1), Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines rape by carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is under 12 years of age or demented. The prosecution failed to prove carnal knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
• Article 6, Revised Penal Code, as amended — Defines attempt as the commencement of the commission of a crime directly by overt acts but without performing all acts of execution by reason of a cause or accident other than the offender’s own spontaneous desistance. It was applied to convict the appellant of attempted rape.
• Article 51, Revised Penal Code — Provides that the penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for consummated rape. It was applied to impose prision mayor as the maximum penalty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum of six years of prision correccional and the maximum of 10 years of prision mayor.

Justice Arturo D. Brion penned the decision. Justices Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe concurred.