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).

Baylon. supra). Elements of Rape The elements that constitute the crime of rape are carnal knowledge. sex organ into the complainant's sex organ (People vs. 527). even if no force or intiiiiidation is used and even if she is not deprived of reason or otherwise made unconscious. Jr. 48 Phil. or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction (People vs. Hernandez. "It is settled rule that for rape to be consummated. Oscar. Slight penetration. and even if she agrees or consents". Cawili. 172 SCRA 425). (People vs. "It is settled doctrine that carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age is always rape. complete and full penetration of the vagina. is sufficient to constitute the crime of rape (People vs. rape is committed although there is consent to the sexual act. For being of tender age. 48 Phil. People vs. is sufficient for conviction (People vs. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation. 57 SCRA 114. Villegas. 102 SCRA 483). Thus. 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. or when she is deprived of reason. Mere entry into the labia or lips of the female private parts without rupture of the hymen.W. or when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The above philosophy manifests the deep concern of the State for the welfare of the child. however slight. Bautista. it is not essential that there be perfect. 137 SCRA 160). Villamor. is sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. and this may be inferred from the circumstances of the crime (People vs. Selfaison. 56 SCRA 666. It is the actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman. It denotes penetration (15 CJS 471). 98 SCRA 644). if the offended party is less than twelve years old. or against the will. oi. People vs. Rebancos. where the latter is under twelve years of age. or otherwise unconscious. Oscar. The slightest penetration is enough for conviction in the crime of rape (People vs. Mangalino. State.In statutory rape. Penetration means that the sex organ of the male entered the sexual organ of the female (Calhoun v. Itac. People vs. For a consummated rape to exist. 265). 37 OG 947. People vs. People vs. 37 OG 974). 163 SCRA 745). Sato. Morales. 163 SCRA 602). 527. is immaterial (People vs. 115 S. Perfect penetration is not essential. 49 Phil. 49 Phil. citing People vs. 1 SCRA 235). . 58 SCRA 505. 47 OG 12 p 6337. sup ra. of the woman. Tirado. Hernandez. Villamor. It is settled rule that any penetration. and whether reaching the hymen or not. Any penetration of the female's body by the male organ is sufficient (People vs. when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Anonas. or lack of it. proof of intimidation or force used on the victim. Alvarez."People vs. Such an approach vitalizes further the concept of parens patriae (People vs. Mere entry of the labia or lips of the female organ without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina. 980). In the crime of rape. Royeras. It is undoubtedly the law that penetration even to the least extent will be sufficient. 201 SCRA 568. Carnal Knowledge Carnal knowledge means sexual intercourse. People vs. it is not necessary that there be a complete penetration or destruction of the hymen (People vs. Pelias Jover. what is essential is evidence of penetration of the offender's. 94 SCRA 191). force or intimidation and the commission of the act without the consent. 980. even without emission. Hangdaan. 65 SCRA 24). People vs. People vs.

ascendant. Ramirez. the penalty shall also be reclusion perpetua to death. In People vs. 182 SCRA 106. 40 SCRA 498. 88 SCRA 683. Conchada. 205 SCRA 266). 195 SCRA 55. People vs. When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old. 49 SCRA 146)."(People vs. People vs. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities. citing Stwart on Legal Medicine. People vs. guardian. the penalty shall likewise be death. therefore. 3. when the alleged rape was reported only after the five-month pregnancy of the complainant had become noticeable. and that. shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. a homicide is committed. cited in Hernandez case). 137. it is enough if the woman's body is entered. 1 SCRA 235). Cueto. but such penetration is not essential to the coinmission of the crime. 998. Magaluma. 91 Mo. 84 SCRA 774). in general. We do not think so. 4. and homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. it was ruled: "It has been suggested that the child was of such tender age that penetration was impossible. It is not necessary to determine how far the penis penetrated the vagina for rape to exist. It is probably true that a complete penetration was impossible. Basas. People vs. or even so far as to touch the hymen. it shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. whether it has gone past the hymen. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. that the crime of rape consequently was impossible of consummation. Johnson. Eclarinal. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape. . the offense committed should be treated only as abuso dishonestos. it is sufficient if there is a penetration of the labia. any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. Erinia. Paton-og. The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. when it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. 439. 2. However." The important consideration in rape is the penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid (People vs. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. the charge of rape is rendered doubtful (People vs."It is enough that there be proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum. 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. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband. State v. Thus. 50 Phil. or lips of the female organ (People vs. Pastores. 130 SCRA 178. After all--"Scientific and anatomical distinctions as to where the vagina commences are worthless in a case of rape. stepparent. Bacalso. 155 SCRA 675. Penalty for Rape The crime of rape. People vs. parent. and it is not necessary to show to what extent penetration of the parts has taken place. p. When the rape is attempted (or frustrated). Selfaison.

abduction. 58 OG 8825. Bahasa. (Art. Galamitan. This is understood that conspiracy has been established. Andal. 1968. L-19060..e. 97 SCRA672). vs. U. 70 SCRA 30). 6. 98 SCRA 353). Penalty for Attempted Rape The penalty imposable for attempted rape is prison correctional. two degrees lower than that of reclusion temporal (Art. 27. Jose. but also for the rape conmiitted by the others (People vs. A father who accompanied his son in dragging the victim and holding the latter's. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Multiple Rape In multiple rape.. et al. People vs. People vs. 681). Oct. i.s. August 23. although he did not himself have intercourse with her. April 18. People vs. No. is guilty of rape as co-principal (People vs. the act of one conspirator is attributable to all. "Once conspiracy is established. Where two persons are involved in the commission of a crime such as robbery. and also for robbery with rape. People vs. rape or other lascivious acts. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immuijo Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease. Pecson. each accused is guilty of the commission of three rapes by conspiracy and three separate penalties should be imposed"(People vs. No. Bohoso. et al. Casas.81 Phil. 183 SCRA 511.it was held that the offender who meanced the victim with a revolver. 130 SCRA 178). CA. 17 SCRA 450.5. CA-G. is not applicable (People vs. Dec. see also People vs. 29. (People vs. Daligdig. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape.e. regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed by law". is guilty of rape (People vs. 51. Santos. 1961). "and in cases analogous thereto. the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation. Penalty on Accomplice In Attempted Rape Under Article 56 of the Revised Penal Code.R. May 28. each conspirator must be liable for each of the acts committed as a result of the conspiracy. 17 Phil. Reglas. Sedanz. 7. 197. the latter is liable for the rape to the same extent as the one who actually raped the woman (People vs. each offender is responsible not only for the rape committed by him personally. 2219 of the New Civil Code which provides for recovery of moral damages in seduction. the offense .. People vs. Fernandez. 345. Art. 1954. Where a girl was forcibly taken by a group of several men. RPC). Alfaro. or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.. Hence. 05047-CR. 1965). as amended by RA 7659).. Revised Penal Code. The penalty does not carry with it any indemnity for the offended party (Art. hand so the son can rape her. 084 36-R. Peralta.1952). L-4231.R. 118 SCRA 344. 335. RPC). two of whom raped her. one of them rape a woman and the other makes an attempt to prevent the rape. In a prosecution for rape. 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. and in the course of which. but stands guard while it is going on. i. Villa. CA-G. "Where two of the accused were holding the victim while the third sexually abused her. L6303.

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. 91 SCRA 422). "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. Presumption of Innocence In all criminal prosecutions. To meet this standard. Tigulo. Nothing need be proved nor is any evidence necessary as basis for this presumption (Underhills Criminal Evidence. 1(a). 62 SCRA 51). People vs. independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. there is need for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State. May 2. Rule 133. Quiazon. must always be presumed innocent of the crime for which he is indicted until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence must yield where there is a showing of guilt beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. 845). 471) Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. 105 Phil. Zamora. than to confine in the penitentiary for the rest of his natural life a person who may be innocent. People vs. Jugion. both oral and documentary. Art. Sarmiento. People vs. sicor. Only by proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty may the presumption of innocence be overcome (People vs. Alvarez. Ordonio. 94 SCRA 183). 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. even though he may in reality be guilty. 1968. What is required then is moral certainty (People vs. 49 SCRA 440. Palacpac. Corachea. the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. III. Rules of Court. 2. 777). 42 SCRA 60). People vs. however degraded or debased he may be. 1 Phil. 1987 Constitution."(People vs. Delimos. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. was convicted only as an accomplice (People vs. A companion of the accused whose participation was merely removing the panty of the victim and holding her feet. 304. The defendant who did not have intercourse with the girl was nonetheless found guilty of abduction with two rapes. supra. Toledo. People vs. People vs. People vs. and no matter what may be the enormity of the crime charged against him. 61 SCRL 246. Beltran. Draniayo. 83 Phil. Rules of Court). The proof against him must survive the test of reason. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. L2568. People vs. 55 SCRA 81.was abduction with rape. 59 SCRA 144. 68 Phil. The prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. "It is better to acquit a man on reasonable doubt. 4th Edition. 14(2). People vs. 94 SCRA 944). It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence can be duly taken into account. he is entitled to an acquittal (Sec. 54 SCRA 521. 78 SCRA 521. Ramirez. Sec. Dramaya. Manoji. 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. It is a cardinal and important rule of the law of evidence that the defendant in a criminal trial. United States vs. 49-5 .

Dougles. It is not a mere excresence (Bermudez vs. It applies to both civil and criminal cases (Soledad Dalisan vs. Dramayo. 54 SCRA 56). Losada. 75 Phil. (People vs.S. It is not a mere phrase without meaning. The proof against him must survive the test of reason (Duran vs. This is a presumption which attends all the proceedizgs against him. Court of Appeals. cited in Presumption of Innocence by Judge Domingo Lucenario. Alipio. 1965). Quantum of Evidence in Rape The crime of rape must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. exclusively of any other consideration. It goes with every part and parcel of the evidence (Wigmore on Evidence. 483). 2 Phil. Vol. Poblador. 408). 92 SCRA 679). L-17214. 90. 76 SCRA 634. Rovira. 452). 477). Fink. People vs. Presumption of innocence is sacred. Joven. That is a mandate of the fundamental law. to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt (United States vs. 18 Phil. Constitutional Law. 64 SCRA 126). Mendiguarin. It is not a mere guess that defendant may or may not be guilty. Asiao (1 PhiL 304). People vs. 474). Maisug.1). must be presumed to be innocent and even in case there is a reasonable doubt as to his innocence he is entitled a acquittal. supra). "The humanity of our laws always presumes an accused person innocent until he is provea to be guilty." (Thid). 71 SCRA 68. after such investigation. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law as basis for conviction of any criminal charge. but to prevent the conviction of an innocent person (Malcolm. Castillo. The accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence. Phil. it is not only the right of the accused to be freed. a defendant according to the early case of United States vs. 634).. People vs. 27 SCRA 742). . p. Meaning of Reasonable Doubt Reasonable doubt is that engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability."(People vs. vs. but moral certainty is required as to the proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. It attaches to the accused person until he is proven guilty. "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. 64 Phil.Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed (People vs. Short of this." (Herras Teehankee vs. It hovers over the prisoner as a guardian angel throughout the trial. Presumption of innocence is founded on the principle of justice and is intended not to protect the guilty. June 21.. not a whimsical or capricious doubt. it is even more. 9. 55 Phil. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to demosntrate guilt. 1953). It is such a doubt as a reasonable man might entertain after a fair review and consideration of the evidence (U. It disappears after his conviction (People vs. 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. "The doubt which entitles an accused to acquittal is reasonable doubt. our constitutional duty to acquit him. De los Reyes. April 17. Every circumstances favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. It may be noted that even when the previous Organic Act did not so provide. based on probabilities unsupported by evidence. 5 Pac (21) 641. Manilon. 3rd ed. L-5198.

52 American Review 731)."Then what is reasonable doubt? It is a term often used. It is that state of the case. or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind (Section 2. Cabral. because everything resulting to human affairs depending on moral evidence. It does not mean such degree of proof as. excluding possibility of error. Moral certainty only is required. Rule 133. leaves the minds (of the jurors) in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction. . 51 OG 1423). S. It is not mere possible doubt. 3 Phil. but not easily defined. Rules of Court). It is that degree of proof which produces moral certainty in the unprejudiced mind (People vs. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Explained Proof beyond reasonable doubt is more than a mere choice between probabilities. Webster. vs. 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. to a moral certainty. of the truth of the charge. produces absolute certainty. is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. 3)." (Commonwealth vs. which after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence. probably pretty well understood. Reyes.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful