Case Summary (G.R. No. 166441)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: accused in two criminal informations—Criminal Case No. 2388 (attempted rape, victim AAA) and Criminal Case No. 2389 (acts of lasciviousness, victim BBB). Respondent: People of the Philippines.
Key Dates and Procedural History
Alleged incident: on or about December 21, 1993 (early morning). RTC judgment convicting petitioner of attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness: April 6, 2000. CA decision affirming attempted rape and acquitting as to acts of lasciviousness (in part): promulgated July 26, 2004. Supreme Court decision reviewed in the prompt: promulgated October 8, 2014. Procedural posture: appeal under Rule 45 (certiorari) raising only questions of law.
Applicable Law and Legal Authorities
Constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution (applicable because the decision date is 1990 or later). Penal provisions and doctrines applied: Revised Penal Code Articles 335 (rape, as in force on December 21, 1993), Article 336 (acts of lasciviousness), Article 6 (attempt and frustrated stages), Article 51 (penalty for attempted felony), and pertinent rules on attempted and frustrated felonies. Other applicable instruments: Indeterminate Sentence Law; Republic Act No. 7659 (amending penalty for rape); Republic Acts cited for victim protection and confidentiality (RA 7610, RA 9262). Civil remedies: Civil Code provisions on moral damages and related awards (Articles 2211, 2217, 2219). Controlling jurisprudence cited in the decision includes People v. Lamahang, People v. Orita, People v. Campuhan, People v. Lizada, People v. Dominguez, Jr., People v. Bugarin, and others referenced in the opinion.
Facts as Presented by the Prosecution
Petitioner and wife sold wares and employed AAA and BBB as sales assistants. On December 20–21, 1993, they were in Bangar, La Union, with tents provided for sleeping. AAA and BBB slept in a tent; shortly after AAA fell asleep, she allegedly awoke to find somebody atop her. She testified that the petitioner had removed her underclothes, was on top of her, was mashing her breasts and touching her genitalia, threatened her not to scream, and offered money to keep silent. AAA testified that she resisted, kicked the petitioner, momentarily left to seek help but later saw the petitioner touching BBB. The victims later reported the incidents to police and executed sworn statements on January 10, 1994.
Defense Version
The petitioner denied the allegations and argued it was implausible he could have committed the acts openly given the tents’ location and nearby people; he asserted the complainants filed the charges to extort money. He contested several factual points (e.g., how the complainant’s bra could have been removed unnoticed, how the alleged hour-long struggle could have occurred without detection) and raised inconsistencies and alleged motives for fabrication.
Charges and Informations
Criminal Case No. 2388 (AAA): attempted rape—information alleged that the petitioner removed AAA’s panties, laid on top of her, embraced and touched her vagina and breast with intent to have carnal knowledge, and was prevented only by the victim’s resistance. Criminal Case No. 2389 (BBB): acts of lasciviousness—information alleged the petitioner touched BBB’s vagina against her will to satisfy lascivious desire.
Trial Court Judgment
The RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both attempted rape (Crim. Case No. 2388) and acts of lasciviousness (Crim. Case No. 2389). The RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty for attempted rape (minimum: 4 years 2 months prision correccional; maximum: 10 years prision mayor) and for acts of lasciviousness (minimum: 4 months arresto mayor; maximum: 4 years 2 months prision correccional), and awarded moral damages to the victims.
Court of Appeals Decision
On appeal the CA affirmed conviction for attempted rape (finding AAA credible) and acquitted the petitioner of the acts of lasciviousness charge involving BBB for insufficiency of evidence (BBB did not testify and her sworn statement was not formally offered). The CA applied Article 51 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law in fixing penalties and awarded moral damages to AAA (P20,000) on the presumption of moral injury, particularly given the victim’s age.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Two principal legal issues were framed: (I) whether the Court of Appeals properly credited AAA’s testimony despite alleged incredibilities and inconsistencies; and (II) whether the prosecution proved the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt—specifically whether the acts proved constituted attempted rape or only acts of lasciviousness.
Standard of Review and Treatment of Credibility Findings
Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court’s review is limited to questions of law; it does not reassess factual findings or reweigh witness credibility where the CA and RTC have already made findings. The Court therefore declined to re-evaluate AAA’s credibility—this would be a factual determination outside Rule 45’s scope—and confined its review to the legal question whether the proved acts constituted attempted rape.
Legal Principles on Attempt and the Required Overt Acts
The Court reiterated established law on attempt: an attempt exists when the offender commences execution of the felony directly by overt acts and does not complete the felony due to causes other than his spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal Code and People v. Lamahang). Overt acts must have a direct, logical relation to the consummation of the intended felony; acts susceptible of double interpretation or equivocal preparatory acts cannot support an attempt conviction. In the context of sexual offenses, the State must show overt acts that directly manifest the intent to commit intercourse (to “lie with” the female) — intent must be inferred from overt acts that, if carried to completion, would logically ripen into rape.
Jurisprudential Requirements for Carnal Knowledge and Penetration
Rape’s basic element is carnal knowledge (a male having sexual bodily connection with a woman). Jurisprudence clarifies that consummated rape requires proof of penetration sufficient to show that the penis touched the labia (i.e., some degree of penetration beneath the surface), not merely epidermal contact or grazing of the mons pubis. Frustrated rape is generally treated as a physical impossibility because completion occurs once carnal knowledge is achieved; attempted rape remains possible only when overt acts demonstrate an intention to effect penetration but completion is prevented by causes other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance. The “gauge” for attempted rape is the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse (penetration) before interruption.
Application of Law to the Acts Proven in Evidence
The proven acts were that the petitioner climbed atop AAA, embraced her, removed underclothing, mashed her breasts and touched her genitalia with his hands while she resisted and escaped. The Court held these acts, though lewd and forcible, were equivocal with respect to a specific intent to effect penile penetration. There was no evidence showing the petitioner’s erect penis poised to penetrate or that any penile contact with labia occurred. Because the overt acts proved did not directly and unambiguously manifest an intent to “lie with” the female (i.e., effect penile penetration), the legal requisites for attempted rape were not met.
Distinction Between Attempted Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness
The Court underscored the fundamental difference: attempted rape requires intent to lie with the female (manifested by overt acts directly tending to penetration); acts of lasciviousness do not require such intent. Where overt acts do not show that the penis had made or was in position to make contact with the external genitalia, the conduct—even if forcible and obscene—constitutes acts of lasciviousness rather than attempted rape. Preparatorily equivocal acts (e.g., arranging tents, separating sleeping areas, allowing others to leave) cannot be equated with overt acts directly leading t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 166441)
Title, Citation and Opinion
- Decision reported at 745 Phil. 54, First Division, G.R. No. 166441, promulgated October 8, 2014.
- Opinion penned by Justice Bersamin.
- Case concerns the proper characterization of the accused's acts as attempted rape versus acts of lasciviousness and the proper penalty and damages to be imposed.
- The decision reviews convictions previously rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, and affirmed in part and reversed in part by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Procedural History
- Petitioner charged in RTC with two separate offenses in two informations: Criminal Case No. 2388 (Attempted Rape) and Criminal Case No. 2389 (Acts of Lasciviousness).
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment to both informations.
- RTC, after joint trial, found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both attempted rape (Crim. Case No. 2388) and acts of lasciviousness (Crim. Case No. 2389) and imposed penalties and moral damages.
- On appeal, the CA, by decision promulgated July 26, 2004, affirmed the conviction for attempted rape (Crim. Case No. 2388) but acquitted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness (Crim. Case No. 2389) due to insufficiency of evidence regarding BBB (the other complainant).
- Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 raising questions of law before the Supreme Court.
Informations and Formal Charges (as alleged in the source)
- Criminal Case No. 2388 (Attempted Rape):
- Alleged date and time: on or about December 21, 1993, at about 2:00 a.m., along Bangar-Luna Road, Barangay Central West No. 2, Bangar, La Union.
- Allegations: petitioner removed private complainant AAA's panty and underwear, laid on top of her, embraced and touched her vagina and breast, and commenced the commission of rape by overt acts with intent to have carnal knowledge; the failure to consummate was due to the victim's resistance, not voluntary desistance.
- Criminal Case No. 2389 (Acts of Lasciviousness):
- Alleged date and time: on or about December 21, 1993, at about 3:00 a.m., same location.
- Allegations: petitioner, with lewd design, willfully touched the vagina of BBB against her will to satisfy his lascivious desire.
Prosecution Version of Facts (as summarized by the CA and reproduced in the source)
- Petitioner Norberto Bartolome and his wife Belinda sold wares and employed AAA and BBB as helpers for a barangay fiesta in Bangar, La Union.
- They, with driver Ruben Rodriguez and a sales boy "Jess", slept in tents set up for the group; two tents were fixed—one for AAA and BBB and another for petitioner and his assistant.
- On December 21, 1993, at about 1:00 a.m., AAA and BBB slept; less than an hour later AAA woke feeling somebody on top of her.
- AAA alleged petitioner was on top of her mashing her breasts and touching her private parts; she was naked; petitioner threatened to kill her if she screamed and offered money and threats to silence her.
- AAA fought and kicked petitioner, who was unable to accomplish his objective; she attempted to seek help from Jess without success.
- Later, AAA observed petitioner touching BBB’s private parts; petitioner left the tent thereafter.
- AAA and BBB reported the incidents to a policeman at the municipal hall on the evening of December 21, 1993; petitioner and his wife confronted the accusers at the police station.
- After initial police involvement, AAA and BBB continued working for petitioner and his wife until December 30, 1994, and later executed sworn statements on January 10, 1994.
Defense Version of Facts (as summarized in the CA decision)
- Petitioner denied the charges and maintained it was impossible for him to have committed the alleged acts given the public and conspicuous location of the tents (near the road and municipal hall) and the number of people preparing for "simbang gabi."
- He argued that screams could have been heard by policemen at the municipal hall and that the complainants filed suit to extort money from him.
Trial Court Judgment (RTC)
- RTC convicted petitioner of both attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness.
- For attempted rape (AAA): sentenced to an indeterminate penalty—minimum of four (4) years and two (2) months prision correccional to a maximum of ten (10) years prision mayor—and ordered to pay moral damages of P20,000.00 to AAA.
- For acts of lasciviousness (BBB): sentenced to an indeterminate penalty—minimum of four (4) months arresto mayor to a maximum of four (4) years and two (2) months prision correccional—and ordered to pay moral damages of P10,000.00 to BBB.
- Preventive imprisonment credited in favor of petitioner.
Court of Appeals Decision
- CA affirmed conviction for attempted rape (Crim. Case No. 2388) and properly awarded moral damages of P20,000.00 to AAA, noting moral damages may be awarded in rape cases, especially when victim is aged 13 to 19.
- CA acquitted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness (Crim. Case No. 2389) due to insufficient evidence: BBB did not testify and her sworn statement was not formally offered; AAA’s testimony that she personally saw petitioner touching BBB’s private parts did not include testimony that such acts were without BBB’s consent or against her will.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in giving credence to AAA’s testimony and convicting petitioner despite alleged incredibility and inconsistencies.
- Whether the prosecution proved petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- More narrowly, whether the acts shown (petitioner climbing on top of a naked AAA, mashing her breasts and touching her genitalia with his hands) constituted attempted rape under law or were limited to acts of lasciviousness.
Standard of Review and Scope of Supreme Court Review
- In a Rule 45 petition, the Supreme Court reviews only questions of law; findings of fact by the CA are not subject to review.
- The Court affords highest respect to trial court findings on credibility and probative weight, especially when affirmed by the CA.
- Petitioner’s challenges to AAA’s credibility we