People vs. Palma

Mere epidermal contact or “touching” of the male organ with the pudendum, absent any degree of penetration of the labia majora or labia minora, is not consummated rape by sexual intercourse; an insertion of a finger or instrument into the genital orifice after 22 October 1997 constitutes rape through sexual assault under R.A. No. 8353, not merely acts of lasciviousness. The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code must be both alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt by competent evidence, without which the death penalty cannot be imposed.

Remario Palma y Romera stood as the husband of Fe Palma, whom the victim Marife Palma knew as “nanay.” Marife was the daughter of Fe’s sister, Milagros Bitco, making Remario Palma an uncle by affinity to Marife. While Fe Palma worked abroad, the young girl lived with Remario Palma in Macasihi, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte. Over two weeks in October and November 1997, Remario Palma repeatedly subjected Marife to sexual abuse. Six separate Informations for qualified rape were filed, each alleging that the accused, by means of force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of his own daughter, a minor below ten years of age.

The Complainant’s Testimony. Marife Palma testified that she resided with Remario Palma while her “nanay” was abroad. In the morning of the second week of October 1997, appellant made her lie down with her legs apart on the bedroom floor, inserted his penis into her vagina, kissed her lips repeatedly, and licked her neck and upper chest. She described the penetration as only a part of the penis (about two-thirds) entering her organ, causing pain. That afternoon, appellant inserted his thumb into her vagina and licked it. In the evening of the same week, appellant, drunk, fondled her legs up to her vagina until he fell asleep. In the morning of the first week of November 1997, appellant removed her shorts and underwear, removed his own attire, carried her around the living room, and while doing so her vagina and his penis “were touching each other.” On an afternoon that same week, appellant again removed her clothes, inserted his middle finger into her vagina, withdrew it, and licked it. On yet another occasion, he was about to molest her when her brother arrived, causing him to hurriedly dress.

Marife identified Milagros Bitco as her biological mother and stated that appellant was not her biological father but the husband of her “nanay,” Fe Palma, the sister of her mother.

Medical and Defense Evidence. Dr. Zosima A. Padillo, the examining physician, found incomplete laceration on the child’s genital. Appellant denied all charges, claiming that the victim was coached by his estranged wife, who allegedly offered to drop the case for P30,000.00. He attributed the healed lacerations to the girl’s habit of riding bicycles, climbing trees, and a past injury at one year and seven months when she fell down stairs, supported by a 1989 hospital record. He also asserted that a certain Norman Marimon had fondled and attempted to rape Marife in March 1998.

Trial Court’s Findings. The trial court gave full credence to Marife’s straightforward account, convicted appellant of rape in Criminal Case No. 8173 (morning, second week October 1997) and Criminal Case No. 8176 (morning, first week November 1997, penis “touching” vagina), and of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Cases No. 8174 (thumb insertion), No. 8175 (evening fondling), and No. 8177 (finger insertion). It imposed the death penalty for each rape conviction.

• Credibility and Fabrication: Whether the prosecution failed to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the alleged incredibility of the victim’s testimony and supposed ill-motive.
• Consummated Rape by “Touching”: Whether the act of carrying the victim with the penis “touching” her vagina, without evidence of penetration, constituted consummated rape.
• Rape Through Sexual Assault: Whether the insertion of a finger into the victim’s vagina after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 8353 constituted rape through sexual assault or only acts of lasciviousness.
• Qualifying Circumstances and Death Penalty: Whether the minority of the victim and the qualifying relationship of the accused were sufficiently alleged and proved to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

• Credibility and Fabrication: The trial court’s assessment of the complainant’s testimony as credible, straightforward, and trustworthy was upheld. No strong ill-motive was established to support a claim of fabrication, nor was it shown that the child was so morally debased as to concoct extraordinary tales. The minor inconsistencies in testimony did not detract from the core narrative.
• Consummated Rape by “Touching”: The conviction for rape in Criminal Case No. 8176 was modified. The victim’s bare statement that appellant’s penis was “touching” her vagina as he carried her did not prove even a slight penetration of the labia majora or labia minora. Consistent with People v. Arce, Jr. and People v. Francisco, mere epidermal contact or brushing without penetrative entry does not consummate rape by sexual intercourse. The act constituted only acts of lasciviousness.
• Rape Through Sexual Assault: The conviction for acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 8177 was modified. Under Article 266-A, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as inserted by Republic Act No. 8353 (effective 22 October 1997), the insertion of an instrument or object, including a finger, into the genital orifice constitutes rape through sexual assault, not merely acts of lasciviousness. The incident occurred in the first week of November 1997, after the law took effect, thereby making the insertion of the middle finger rape.
• Qualifying Circumstances and Death Penalty: The death penalty was improperly imposed. Although the Information alleged the victim’s age, the records were bereft of any testimonial or documentary evidence—such as a birth certificate—that would substantiate her minority. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the qualifying relationship of parent or relative within the third civil degree. The evidence adduced showed appellant was only an uncle by affinity, not a biological parent, ascendant, stepparent, or guardian. Thus, the qualifying circumstances necessary for capital punishment under Article 266-B were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty for rape through sexual intercourse (Crim. Case No. 8173) was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and for rape through sexual assault (Crim. Case No. 8177) to prision mayor.

• Carnal Knowledge Requires Penetration — The essence of rape by sexual intercourse lies in carnal knowledge, which requires the slightest penetration of the female organ by the male organ. Mere touching, brushing, or epidermal contact of the penis with the mons pubis or labia, without entry, is insufficient to consummate rape; it constitutes acts of lasciviousness. The Court relied on People v. Arce, Jr. and People v. Francisco for the rule that the testimony must show the penis at least touched the labia and slid into the female organ.
• Rape Through Sexual Assault Under R.A. No. 8353 — Article 266-A, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, redefined rape to include the act of inserting any instrument or object, or any part of the body other than the male organ, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Following People v. Soriano, the insertion of a finger into the victim’s vagina constitutes rape through sexual assault, not acts of lasciviousness, if committed after the effectivity of the law on 22 October 1997.
• Proof of Qualifying Circumstances for Death Penalty — Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, when the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the victim’s parent, the death penalty may be imposed. The qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be both alleged in the information and established by competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Independent proof of age, such as a birth certificate, is required; the bare allegation in the information and uncorroborated testimony are insufficient.
• Applicability of R.A. No. 7610 and Penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness — Republic Act No. 7610 imposes reclusion temporal in its medium period for acts of lasciviousness when the victim is below twelve years old. Where the victim’s minority is not duly proved, the penalty under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (prision correccional) applies, subject to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• “Marife, in the case at bar, merely stated that she was carried around the sala with appellant’s penis ‘touching’ her vagina. With this bare statement, it would not be right to conclude that the act of the penis ‘touching’ the vagina was an entry or penetration, even slightly, of the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum.”
• “[T]he insertion of any instrument, object, or any part of the human body other than the sexual organ into the genital or anus of another person as rape and not merely acts of lasciviousness.” (Citing People v. Soriano and the legislative deliberations on Senate Bill No. 950)
• “Being qualifying circumstances; it is essential that the age of the victim and her affiliation or kinship with the accused are properly alleged and duly proven. … the records are bereft, however, of testimonial or documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate, or even documents of less import, that would substantiate the age of the complainant.”

• People v. Arce, Jr., G.R. No. 139064-66, 06 September 2001, 364 SCRA 550 — Followed. Where the victim asserted only that the accused “touched” or “idinidikit yung ari niya,” the Court refused to hold that rape was committed without convincing proof that the penis slid into the female organ.
• People v. Francisco, G.R. No. 135201-02, 15 March 2001, 354 SCRA 475 — Followed. Consummated rape was not established where the complainant’s testimony failed to show that some degree of penile penetration was achieved even when the accused made pumping motions.
• People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142779-95, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA 140 — Followed. Under R.A. No. 8353, inserting a finger into the victim’s vagina constitutes rape through sexual assault, not merely acts of lasciviousness.

• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 8353) — Defined rape through sexual intercourse (paragraph 1) and rape through sexual assault by inserting an instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice (paragraph 2). Applied to reclassify the November 1997 finger insertion as rape through sexual assault.
• Article 266-B, Revised Penal Code — Prescribed the death penalty for rape when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative within the third degree, or common-law spouse of the victim’s parent. Not applied in the imposition of capital punishment because the qualifying circumstances were not proved; applied to impose reclusion perpetua for the simple rape.
• Republic Act No. 7659 — Imposed the death penalty for heinous crimes, including qualified rape. Invoked by the trial court but found inapplicable due to lack of proof of qualifying circumstances.
• Republic Act No. 7610, Section 5 — Special law imposing reclusion temporal medium period for acts of lasciviousness against a child below twelve. Not applied because age was not proved; instead, penalty under Article 336 (prision correccional) was used.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Penalty for acts of lasciviousness, prision correccional. Applied to the three acts of lasciviousness.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied in determining the minimum and maximum terms for each modified sentence.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ.