RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS  Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.

When rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. (As amended by R.A. 2632, approved June 18, 1960, and R.A. 4111, approved June 20, 1964).

Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

KINDS AND ELEMENTS OF RAPE

Kinds of Rape

Rape may be classified into simple, qualified or statutory. When it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, it is qualified (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 2632, RA 4111 and BA 7659; People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259). If committed without the attendance of any of the said qualifying circumstances, it is simple (People vs. Dela Cruz, L-28810, March 27, 1974; People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 265). Statutory rape is sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent as defined by statute (65 AmJur 2d 769). In this jurisdiction, twelve is the statutory age of consent (Art. 335, supra).

The gravamen of statutory rape is merely carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Villegas, Jr., 127 SCRA 195; People vs. Villegas, Jr., 127 SCRA 195; People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84; People vs. Santos, 189 SCRA 25). Force and intimidation are not its essential ingredients. They may be present or absent without affecting the criminality of the carnal knowledge (Paige vs. State, 219 Ga 569, 154 SE ed 7095; People vs. Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329). Nonconsent of a female is not essential, nor consent a defense (69 Am Jur 2d 770).

In statutory rape, proof of intimidation or force used on the victim, or lack of it, is immaterial (People vs. Mangalino, supra).

Thus, if the offended party is less than twelve years old, rape is committed although there is consent to the sexual act. For being of tender age, she does not have the will of her own and the law does not consider any kind of consent given by her voluntarily (People vs. Villamor, 37 OG 947; People vs. Morales, 94 SCRA 191). "It is settled doctrine that carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age is always rape, even if no force or intiiiiidation is used and even if she is not deprived of reason or otherwise made unconscious, and even if she agrees or consents". (People vs. Villegas, Jr. sup ra, People vs. Pelias Jover, 137 SCRA 160).

The above philosophy manifests the deep concern of the State for the welfare of the child. Such an approach vitalizes further the concept of parens patriae (People vs. Baylon, 57 SCRA 114; People vs. Cawili, 65 SCRA 24).

Elements of Rape

The elements that constitute the crime of rape are carnal knowledge, force or intimidation and the commission of the act without the consent, or against the will, of the woman, oi. where the latter is under twelve years of age, or when she is deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation, when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

Carnal Knowledge

Carnal knowledge means sexual intercourse. It is the actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman. It denotes penetration (15 CJS 471). Penetration means that the sex organ of the male entered the sexual organ of the female (Calhoun v. State, 115 S.W. 265). The slightest penetration is enough for conviction in the crime of rape (People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235). For a consummated rape to exist, it is not necessary that there be a complete penetration or destruction of the hymen (People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980). Perfect penetration is not essential. Mere entry into the labia or lips of the female private parts without rupture of the hymen, or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction (People vs. Tirado, 47 OG 12 p 6337; People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Royeras, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Anonas, 58 SCRA 505; People vs. Rebancos, 172 SCRA 425).

It is settled rule that any penetration, however slight, and whether reaching the hymen or not, is sufficient to constitute the crime of rape (People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs. Villamor, 37 OG 974). It is undoubtedly the law that penetration even to the least extent will be sufficient, and this may be inferred from the circumstances of the crime (People vs. Itac, 98 SCRA 644). In the crime of rape, what is essential is evidence of penetration of the offender's. sex organ into the complainant's sex organ (People vs. Sato, 163 SCRA 602). Any penetration of the female's body by the male organ is sufficient (People vs. Alvarez, 163 SCRA 745). Slight penetration, even without emission, is sufficient for conviction (People vs. Bautista, 102SCRA 483).

"It is settled rule that for rape to be consummated, it is not essential that there be perfect, complete and full penetration of the vagina. Mere entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape."People vs. Hangdaan, 201 SCRA 568, citing People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527).

"It is enough that there be proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum, or lips of the female organ (People vs. Paton-og, 155 SCRA 675; People vs. Pastores, 40 SCRA 498; People vs. Conchada, 88 SCRA 683; People vs. Selfaison, 1 SCRA 235).

It is not necessary to determine how far the penis penetrated the vagina for rape to exist. After all--"Scientific and anatomical distinctions as to where the vagina commences are worthless in a case of rape; it is enough if the woman's body is entered; and it is not necessary to show to what extent penetration of the parts has taken place, whether it has gone past the hymen, or even so far as to touch the hymen."(People vs. Basas, 130 SCRA 178, citing Stwart on Legal Medicine, p. 137; State v. Johnson, 91 Mo. 439, cited in Hernandez case). In People vs. Erinia, 50 Phil. 998, it was ruled:

"It has been suggested that the child was of such tender age that penetration was impossible; that the crime of rape consequently was impossible of consummation; and that, therefore, the offense committed should be treated only as abuso dishonestos. We do not think so. It is probably true that a complete penetration was impossible, but such penetration is not essential to the coinmission of the crime; it is sufficient if there is a penetration of the labia."

The important consideration in rape is the penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid (People vs. Bacalso, 195 SCRA 55; People vs. Eclarinal, 182 SCRA 106; People vs. Magaluma, 205 SCRA 266).

Delay in Filing Complaint Renders Rape Charge Doubtful

Delay in filing criminal proceedings for rape may result in adverse inference against the complainant (People vs. Cueto, 84 SCRA 774). Thus, when the alleged rape was reported only after the five-month pregnancy of the complainant had become noticeable, the charge of rape is rendered doubtful (People vs. Ramirez, 49 SCRA 146).

Penalty for Rape

The crime of rape, in general, shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, However, when it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, it shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. When the rape is attempted (or frustrated), and homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall also be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall likewise be death. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) 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 parent of the victim.

2. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities;

3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity;

4. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old;

5. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immuijo Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease;

6. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency;

7. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation. (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659).

Penalty for Attempted Rape

The penalty imposable for attempted rape is prison correctional, i.e., two degrees lower than that of reclusion temporal (Art. 51, RPC). The penalty does not carry with it any indemnity for the offended party (Art. 345, RPC). Hence, Art. 2219 of the New Civil Code which provides for recovery of moral damages in seduction, abduction,, rape or other lascivious acts, "and in cases analogous thereto, is not applicable (People vs. Pecson, CA, 58 OG 8825; People vs. Daligdig, CA-G.R. No. 05047-CR, Dec. 27, 1965).

Penalty on Accomplice In Attempted Rape

Under Article 56 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower in degree then that prescribed by law for the principal in an attempt to commit a felony-prision correccional-or from 1 month" and 1 day to 6 months shall be imposed (People vs. Sedanz, CA-G.R. No. 084 36-R, April 18, 1961).

Multiple Rape

In multiple rape, each offender is responsible not only for the rape committed by him personally, but also for the rape conmiitted by the others (People vs. Jose, et al., 17 SCRA 450; People vs. Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511; People vs. Villa,81 Phil. 197; People vs. Casas, 130 SCRA 178). This is understood that conspiracy has been established.

"Once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is attributable to all, i.e., each conspirator must be liable for each of the acts committed as a result of the conspiracy, regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed by law". (People vs. Peralta, et al., L-19060, Oct. 29, 1968; see also People vs. Bohoso, 98 SCRA 353).

"Where two of the accused were holding the victim while the third sexually abused her, each accused is guilty of the commission of three rapes by conspiracy and three separate penalties should be imposed"(People vs. Reglas, 118 SCRA 344; People vs. Bahasa, 97 SCRA672).

Where two persons are involved in the commission of a crime such as robbery, and in the course of which, one of them rape a woman and the other makes an attempt to prevent the rape, but stands guard while it is going on, the latter is liable for the rape to the same extent as the one who actually raped the woman (People vs. Galamitan, L6303, August 23, 1954; U.s. vs. Santos, 17 Phil. 681).

In a prosecution for rape, and also for robbery with rape,it was held that the offender who meanced the victim with a revolver, although he did not himself have intercourse with her, is guilty of rape (People vs. Alfaro, L-4231, May 28,1952).

A father who accompanied his son in dragging the victim and holding the latter's, hand so the son can rape her, is guilty of rape as co-principal (People vs. Andal, 70 SCRA 30).Where a girl was forcibly taken by a group of several men, two of whom raped her, the offense

was abduction with rape. The defendant who did not have intercourse with the girl was nonetheless found guilty of abduction with two rapes.

In rape by an organized band, all those who coordinate in the commission of the offense are individually guilty for each and all violations (People vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777).

A companion of the accused whose participation was merely removing the panty of the victim and holding her feet, was convicted only as an accomplice (People vs. Tigulo, 94 SCRA 183).

Presumption of Innocence

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. 14(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 1(a), Rules of Court). Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal (Sec. 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court; United States vs. sicor, 1 Phil. 304; People vs. Corachea, 91 SCRA 422).

"It is better to acquit a man on reasonable doubt, even though he may in reality be guilty, than to confine in the penitentiary for the rest of his natural life a person who may be innocent."(People vs. Manoji, 68 Phil. 471)

Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To meet this standard, there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State; both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused, Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction (People vs. Dramaya, 42 SCRA 60).

The constitutional presumption of innocence must yield where there is a showing of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Sarmiento, 94 SCRA 944). Only by proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty may the presumption of innocence be overcome (People vs. Jugion, L2568, May 2, 1968; People vs. Delimos, 105 Phil. 845).

"Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the persons on trial under such an exacting test should be sentence be one of coniction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence can be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be held the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he peretrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral certainty (People vs. Draniayo, supra, People vs. Quiazon, 78 SCRA 521; People vs. Palacpac, 49 SCRA 440; People vs. Zamora.

54 SCRA 521; People vs. Beltran, 61 SCRL 246; People vs. Ramirez, 59 SCRA 144; People vs. Alvarez, 55 SCRA 81; People vs. Ordonio, 62 SCRA 51).

It is a cardinal and important rule of the law of evidence that the defendant in a criminal trial, however degraded or debased he may be, and no matter what may be the enormity of the crime charged against him, must always be presumed innocent of the crime for which he is indicted until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing need be proved nor is any evidence necessary as basis for this presumption (Underhills Criminal Evidence, 4th Edition, 49-5

1). Presumption of innocence is founded on the principle of justice and is intended not to protect the guilty, but to prevent the conviction of an innocent person (Malcolm, Phil. Constitutional Law, 477). It applies to both civil and criminal cases (Soledad Dalisan vs. De los Reyes, 55 Phil. 452). It attaches to the accused person until he is proven guilty. It disappears after his conviction (People vs. Fink, 5 Pac (21) 641, cited in Presumption of Innocence by Judge Domingo Lucenario, 54 SCRA 56).

Presumption of innocence is sacred. It is not a mere excresence (Bermudez vs. Castillo, 64 Phil. 483). It is not a mere phrase without meaning. It hovers over the prisoner as a guardian angel throughout the trial. It goes with every part and parcel of the evidence (Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 9, 3rd ed., p. 408).

"The humanity of our laws always presumes an accused person innocent until he is provea to be guilty. This is a presumption which attends all the proceedizgs against him; from their initiation until they result in a verdict which either finds the party guilty or converts the presumption of innocence into an adjudged fact." (Herras Teehankee vs. Rovira, 75 Phil. 634).

The accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence. That is a mandate of the fundamental law. It may be noted that even when the previous Organic Act did not so provide, a defendant according to the early case of United States vs. Asiao (1 PhiL 304), must be presumed to be innocent and even in case there is a reasonable doubt as to his innocence he is entitled a acquittal." (Thid).

Quantum of Evidence in Rape

The crime of rape must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Mendiguarin, 92 SCRA 679). The burden of proof is on the prosecution to demosntrate guilt.- Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed (People vs. Joven, 64 SCRA 126). Every circumstances favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason (Duran vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 68; People vs. Poblador, 76 SCRA 634; People vs. Dramayo, supra).

Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law as basis for conviction of any criminal charge, but moral certainty is required as to the proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense.

"The moral conviction that may serve as basis of a finding of guilt in criminal cases is only that which is the logical and inevitable result of the evidence on record, exclusively of any other consideration. Short of this, it is not only the right of the accused to be freed, it is even more, our constitutional duty to acquit him. (People vs. Maisug, 27 SCRA 742).

Meaning of Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable doubt is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt (United States vs. Losada, 18 Phil. 90; People vs. Alipio, L-17214, June 21, 1965). It is not a mere guess that defendant may or may not be guilty. It is such a doubt as a reasonable man might entertain after a fair review and consideration of the evidence (U.S. vs. Dougles, 2 Phil, 474).

"The doubt which entitles an accused to acquittal is reasonable doubt, not a whimsical or capricious doubt, based on probabilities unsupported by evidence."(People vs. Manilon, L-5198, April 17, 1953).

"Then what is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It is not mere possible doubt; because everything resulting to human affairs depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds (of the jurors) in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge." (Commonwealth vs. Webster, 52 American Review 731).

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Explained

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is more than a mere choice between probabilities. It is that degree of proof which produces moral certainty in the unprejudiced mind (People vs. Cabral, 51 OG 1423). It is such proof as is sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence to preclude every reasonable hypothesis except that which is given to support (U. S. vs. Reyes, 3 Phil. 3). It does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court).