People of the Philippines vs. Decoroso Aca-ac y Cespon

Rape is either attempted or consummated; there is no frustrated rape, and any penetration of the female organ, including mere touching of the labia or pudendum, consummates the crime even if the hymen remains intact. In statutory rape, carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age constitutes rape under Art. 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accused-appellant Decoroso Aca-ac y Cespon, alias “Kokong,” was the cousin of complainant Fritzie Aca-ac’s paternal grandfather, Faustino Aca-ac, a relationship that placed him in a position of moral ascendancy over the minor complainant. The charges were filed under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 2632 and 411, which then governed rape and its penalties.

Based on the criminal complaints of minor Fritzie Aca-ac, four informations for rape were filed against Decoroso Aca-ac y Cespon, alias “Kokong,” in the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. The informations alleged separate incidents in Barangay Villalimpia, Loay, Bohol: September 8, 1990 (Criminal Case No. 7094), September 22, 1990 (Criminal Case No. 7091), October 17, 1990 (Criminal Case No. 7092), and January 12, 1991 (Criminal Case No. 7093). In each, accused-appellant allegedly lured Fritzie, a minor below twelve years of age, and had carnal knowledge with her through craft and vitiated consent; the informations described insertion of his penis into her labia minora, vagina near the clitoris, or vaginal opening near the clitoris.

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, and the cases were jointly tried. For Criminal Case No. 7094, Fritzie testified that on September 8, 1990, her mother Felipa Aca-ac sent her to buy cooked fish. On her way home, she met accused-appellant, who held her hand and forced her to go with him to the vacant house of Pinay Aguirre. Inside, he removed her shorts and panty, made her lie on a floor covered with coconut leaves, fondled her breasts, licked her private parts, mounted her, and made push-and-pull movements. He withdrew his penis and white fluid came out; she wiped herself, dressed, and did not tell anyone.

Algerico Lonio, a classmate of Fritzie, testified that at about 7:00 p.m. on September 8, 1990, he saw accused-appellant and Fritzie enter the house of Pinay Aguirre, which was known in the neighborhood to be haunted. He followed, peeped through a hogwire fence about three to four meters away, and saw accused-appellant undress Fritzie, go on top of her, and make push-and-pull movements for about three minutes. He did not report the incident for fear of his life, but on February 27, 1991, after a quarrel in school, he asked Fritzie about the rape; she admitted it and left crying, and he later told her mother. Dr. Stella Maris J. Amora examined Fritzie on February 28, 1991 and found no laceration in her hymen, which was intact, but testified that penetration up to the labia minora could occur without rupturing the hymen.

For the other incidents, Fritzie testified that on September 22, 1990, at about 4:00 p.m., after gathering guavas, she passed by accused-appellant’s house; he lured her inside with a promise of papayas, closed the door, brought her to his bedroom, and raped her, threatening harm if she told anyone. On October 17, 1990, at about 4:30 p.m., while gathering firewood, accused-appellant forced her to remove her shorts and panty, made her lie on the ground covered with nipa leaves, and raped her; she went home with the firewood. On January 12, 1991, at about 1:00 p.m., while on her way home from Betty’s house, accused-appellant seized her near Ned Reyes’s house, dragged her to a bush near a plantation, made her undress and lie down, and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.

Felipa Aca-ac testified that accused-appellant is the cousin of her father-in-law, Faustino Aca-ac; that on February 27, 1991, she learned from Lonio that Fritzie had been raped; and that when confronted, Fritzie admitted accused-appellant had raped her four times. Felipa took Fritzie to Dr. Amora the next day and said accused-appellant offered P12,000.00 as settlement. The defense presented accused-appellant, who denied the charges and claimed Felipa instigated them because he told her husband she was having an affair and because she wanted to extort P30,000.00 from him; he also claimed he had a quarrel with Felipa’s husband over a stolen chicken and that at 57 he could no longer have an erection. Faustino Aca-ac, Felix Adorable, Rosalio Pamayloan, and Petronia Aca-ac testified for the defense, while Esteban Dagandan and Alberto Cempron gave rebuttal and sur-rebuttal testimony on alleged settlement offers.

The trial court relied on Dr. Amora’s finding that complainant’s hymen was intact and that there was no evidence of penetration into the vagina. The Court of Appeals noted that entry of the male organ into the labia alone was sufficient for consummated rape. The Supreme Court found complainant’s testimony consistent despite lengthy interrogation and found Lonio’s testimony dovetailed with complainant’s on material points.

• Credibility of Complainant: Accused-appellant contended that complainant’s narration of lurid details was not the way an innocent child below twelve years of age testifies but the way a worldly and sexually experienced woman would, likening her testimony to stories in pornographic magazines and movies.
• Delay in Reporting and Extortion: Accused-appellant argued that complainant did not immediately report the incidents to authorities or to her mother, and that the cases were filed merely to extort money from him.
• Credibility of Algerico Lonio: Accused-appellant doubted Lonio’s testimony because Lonio failed to report the incident despite no threat to his life, and because of alleged improbabilities: peeping through the back fence, lack of illumination at 7:00 to 8:00 p.m., and push-and-pull movements despite medical findings that complainant’s hymen was intact.
• Impotency and Denial: Accused-appellant claimed that at 57 years old he could no longer have an erection, making the crime impossible, and denied the charges, asserting that Felipa Aca-ac instigated them because he had told her husband about her affair and because she wanted to extort P30,000.00 from him.
• Affidavit of Desistance: Accused-appellant relied on an alleged affidavit of desistance of complainant and her mother, which the Court noted was unsigned.

• Nature of Rape: Whether the crime committed was frustrated rape or consummated/statutory rape, and whether an intact hymen or absence of vaginal laceration negates consummation.
• Credibility of Complainant: Whether complainant’s testimony was credible despite accused-appellant’s claim that her narration was like that of a worldly woman or pornographic material.
• Delay in Reporting and Motive: Whether complainant’s delay in reporting and the alleged extortion motive rendered her testimony unworthy of belief.
• Credibility of Lonio: Whether Algerico Lonio’s testimony was credible despite his delay in reporting and alleged improbabilities.
• Impotency Defense: Whether accused-appellant’s claim of impotency at 57 years old negated the commission of rape.
• Damages: Whether the awards of moral damages, civil indemnity, and exemplary damages were proper.

• Nature of Rape: No frustrated rape exists; rape is either attempted or consummated. Any penetration of the female organ, including mere touching of the labia or pudendum, consummates rape, and an intact hymen does not preclude conviction. Because complainant was about 11 years old on September 8, 1990, the crime is statutory rape under Art. 335, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code.
• Credibility of Complainant: Yes. Complainant’s testimony met the test of credibility; denial cannot prevail over positive identification, and the unsigned affidavit of desistance had no probative value.
• Delay in Reporting and Motive: No. The delay was explained by complainant’s youth, accused-appellant’s moral ascendancy, and his threats; no probable reason appeared for her to be used as a pawn to extort money.
• Credibility of Lonio: Yes. The alleged inconsistencies were inconsequential, and Lonio’s testimony dovetailed with complainant’s on material points.
• Impotency Defense: No. The claim was self-serving; age is not the criterion for sexual interest and potency.
• Damages: Modified. Moral damages were increased to P50,000.00, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 was awarded, and exemplary damages of P20,000.00 were deleted for lack of basis.

• Nature of Rape: The trial court convicted accused-appellant of frustrated rape based on Dr. Amora’s finding that complainant’s hymen was intact and there was no evidence of penetration into the vagina. This was error. Under People vs. Orita, rape is either attempted or consummated; there is no frustrated rape. In rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, all essential elements are accomplished and the felony is consummated. Perfect penetration is not essential; any penetration of the female organ is sufficient, and entry of the labia or lips without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina warrants conviction. Mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the male organ is enough. Thus, the absence of laceration or an intact hymen does not preclude rape. The Court of Appeals correctly found consummated rape. Since complainant’s birth certificate showed she was born on April 9, 1979, she was about 11 years old on September 8, 1990, making the crime statutory rape under Art. 335, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellant’s claim of impotency was self-serving; age is not the criterion for sexual interest and potency.
• Credibility of Complainant: The contention that complainant’s narration was like pornographic material had no merit. Where an alleged rape victim says she was sexually abused, she says almost all that is necessary, provided her testimony meets the test of credibility. No woman would allow examination of her private parts or undergo trial unless she had been brutalized and desired justice. Accused-appellant showed no reason to discredit complainant. She was an 11-year-old Grade 5 student when raped, was silenced by threats, and executed a sworn statement on March 1, 1991. Her consistent testimony despite intense and lengthy interrogation belied the claim. Denial cannot prevail over positive identification and categorical testimony. The alleged affidavit of desistance was unsigned and could not bind complainant or her mother.
• Delay in Reporting and Motive: The claims had no basis. The delay was explained: complainant was only 11 years old when the incidents occurred, and young girls usually conceal their defilement for some time. Accused-appellant, being the cousin of her paternal grandfather, exercised moral ascendancy and threatened her with death if she told anyone. There was no probable reason for complainant to allow herself to be used by her mother to extort money; absent proof of ill will to falsely implicate accused-appellant, her testimony was worthy of full faith and credit.
• Credibility of Lonio: The arguments had no merit. On cross-examination, Lonio said he knew what would happen because his own younger sister and complainant’s sister had been abused by accused-appellant before. He saw accused-appellant violate complainant against her will. He testified he peeped through a hole in a hogwire fence about three to four meters away, that the place was well lighted by an opposite house, and that he saw accused-appellant make push-and-pull movements. The alleged inconsistencies were inconsequential. Lonio cried after narrating how he told his mother, saying he was hurt because the same thing happened to his younger sister. He kept silent initially because he feared for his life. His testimony dovetailed with complainant’s on material points.
• Impotency Defense: The claim was self-serving. Age is not the criterion in determining sexual interest and potency. Complainant rebutted it by saying she saw accused-appellant insert his erect penis into her vulva.
• Damages: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of P30,000.00 moral damages and P20,000.00 exemplary damages. This was modified. Current rulings require moral damages of P50,000.00 and civil indemnity of P50,000.00. Exemplary damages of P20,000.00 were deleted for lack of basis.

• No frustrated rape — Rape admits only of attempted and consummated stages. From the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, all essential elements are accomplished; nothing more is left to do. Perfect penetration is not required; any penetration of the female organ, including entry of the labia or lips without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, consummates rape. Mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the male organ is sufficient. If there is no penetration, rape is only attempted. Applied: accused-appellant’s insertion into the labia minora near the clitoris consummated rape; intact hymen did not negate it.
• Statutory rape — Carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age constitutes statutory rape under Art. 335, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code, regardless of force, threat, or consent. Applied: complainant’s birth certificate showed she was born on April 9, 1979; she was about 11 years old on September 8, 1990.
• Credibility of child rape victim; delay in reporting — A rape victim’s testimony, if credible, is sufficient. Young girls usually conceal their defilement for some time. Delay is explained by youth, moral ascendancy, and threats. Applied: complainant’s delay was excused; no ill motive was shown.
• Denial cannot prevail over positive identification — The accused’s denial and self-serving claims cannot overcome the complainant’s positive, categorical testimony. Applied: accused-appellant’s denial and impotency claim failed against complainant’s testimony.
• Damages in rape — Moral damages of P50,000.00 and civil indemnity of P50,000.00 are proper; exemplary damages require a basis and were deleted. Applied: awards were modified accordingly.

• “Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated.” — This passage states the ratio for the rule that rape has no frustrated stage; it is the core reasoning quoted from People vs. Orita.
• “For that matter, the mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the male organ is enough to consummate the crime of rape.” — This defines the threshold for consummation and explains why the absence of full vaginal penetration did not reduce the crime to frustrated rape.
• “It bears emphasis that a broken hymen or laceration of any part of the female genital is not a pre-requisite for a conviction for rape.” — This directly rejects the trial court’s reliance on the intact hymen as a ground for finding only frustrated rape.
• “The birth certificate (Exh. C) of complainant shows that she was born on April 9, 1979. Since complainant was then about 11 years old when she was raped by accused-appellant on September 8, 1990, the crime is statutory rape under Art. 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.” — This establishes the statutory rape characterization based on complainant’s age.

• People vs. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that rape is either attempted or consummated and that there is no frustrated rape; the Court quoted its reasoning.
• People vs. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000 — Cited for the rule that penetration of the external genitalia, however slight, is sufficient for consummated rape.
• People vs. Ferrer, 295 SCRA 190 (1998); People vs. Buton, 272 SCRA 352 (1997) — Cited for the rule that mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the male organ consummates rape.
• People vs. Sampior, G.R. No. 117691, March 1, 2000; People vs. Garcia, 288 SCRA 382 (1998) — Cited for the rule that a broken hymen or laceration is not a prerequisite for rape conviction.
• People vs. Fraga, G.R. Nos. 134130-33, April 12, 2000 — Cited on credibility of a rape victim and that denial cannot prevail over positive identification.
• People vs. Henson, 270 SCRA 634 (1997) — Cited for the rule that absent proof of ill motive, complainant’s testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
• People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 136398, November 23, 2000 — Cited for increasing moral damages to P50,000.00.
• People vs. Melendes, G.R. No. 133999-4001, August 31, 2000 — Cited for awarding civil indemnity of P50,000.00.

• Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Nos. 2632 and 411 — Defines rape and prescribes penalties. The penultimate paragraph prescribes death for attempted or frustrated rape and homicide committed by reason or on occasion thereof, but the Court held the provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision. Paragraph 3 makes carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years old statutory rape; applied because complainant was about 11 years old.
• Rule 124, §13, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Governs certification of an appeal to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua or higher; the appeal was certified to the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals ruled accused-appellant guilty of consummated rape and imposed reclusion perpetua.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.