Facts:

The case involves Joel Alibuyog y Bulala (the appellant) and the People of the Philippines (the appellee). The events transpired on May 5, 1999, in Davao City, Philippines. The appellant was charged with consummated rape against Jocel D. Madeloso, a seven-year-old minor, as per the Information filed on May 7, 1999. The prosecution's evidence included testimonies from the victim, her mother Juveniana Madeloso, Dr. Samuel Cruz (who examined the victim), and a neighbor, Emelina Albaraccin. On the night of the incident, while Juveniana was at a birthday party, Jocel, accompanied by the appellant and two other children, sought permission to go bicycle riding. Juveniana consented, and while riding, the appellant took Jocel to a secluded area where he undressed her and attempted to have sexual intercourse. A neighbor alerted Juveniana, who rushed to the scene and found her daughter crying. Jocel recounted the incident to her mother, leading them to the police station to file a r...

Facts:

Incident Details

• On May 5, 1999, in Davao City, appellant Joel Alibuyog y Bulala was accused of raping Jocel D. Madeloso, a 7-year-old minor.
• The victim, accompanied by appellant and two other children, sought permission from her mother, Juveniana Madeloso, to go bicycle riding. Juveniana allowed them to go.

Events During the Incident

• While riding a bicycle, appellant took the victim to a dark and grassy area.
• Appellant kissed the victim’s face and lips, undressed her, and removed her shorts and underwear.
• He lay on top of her and made push-and-pull movements.
• The victim’s playmate, Randy, informed Juveniana about the incident, prompting her to search for her daughter.

Aftermath

• The victim managed to free herself and ran to her mother, crying and recounting the incident.
• Juveniana took the victim to her aunt Emelina Albaraccin, and they reported the incident to the Toril Police Station.

Medical Examination

• Dr. Samuel Cruz examined the victim the following day. The findings showed:
  • The victim’s hymen was intact, with a small orifice that precluded complete penetration without causing injury.
  • No extra-genital physical injuries were found.
  • Semenalysis was negative for spermatozoa.
• Dr. Cruz testified that partial penetration (up to 0.8 cm) could occur without hymenal injury.

Defense’s Version

• Appellant denied the accusation and claimed that Juveniana had ill motives.
• He alleged that on the same day, he poured water on the victim, angering Juveniana, who chased him with a bolo.
• He also claimed that Juveniana was drunk and had spanked the victim.

Trial Court Decision

• The trial court found appellant guilty of consummated rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
• He was also ordered to pay P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Elements of Attempted Rape:

   • The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.
   • The offender does not perform all acts of execution required to produce the felony.
   • The non-performance of all acts of execution is due to causes other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance.

2. Lack of Proof of Penetration:

   • The victim’s testimony was ambiguous regarding penetration. She stated that appellant’s penis “touched” her vagina but denied penetration.
   • The medical findings (intact hymen, no spermatozoa, and no physical injuries) did not support the claim of penetration.
   • For consummated rape, there must be convincing proof of at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia majora, which was not established in this case.

3. Penalty for Attempted Rape:

   • The penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than that for consummated rape.
   • Since consummated rape of a minor under 12 carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua, the penalty for attempted rape is prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years).

4. Damages:

   • Civil indemnity for attempted rape is P30,000, and moral damages are P25,000, following prevailing jurisprudence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that appellant’s actions constituted attempted rape, not consummated rape, due to the lack of sufficient evidence proving penetration. The penalty and damages were adjusted accordingly.