You are on page 1of 3

Acts of Lasciviousness

No. 197 - R
People vs Famularcano
Felix, J.

Summarized by Sarah

Fernando Famularcano committed acts of lasciviousness against Dionisia

Navarro as revenge on Dionisia’s father. The SC held that there is no such crime as
frustrated acts of lasciviousness.

Fernando Famularcano – Accused
Dionisia Navarro – Offended Party

1. Fernando Famularcano was a driver of the Camp John Hay Motor Pool in
Baguio. One of Famularcano’s duties is to take home the employees of the
2. Dionisia Navarro was a cashier at the Post Exchange of the US Army.
3. April 4, 1946 – At about 9:30pm, a group of the personnel of Camp John Hay,
including Navarro, was being taken home in a weapons carrier driven by
4. At about 10pm, when the truck had passed the new Lukban Bridge, the
defendant stopped the truck. He told Navarro that the truck was out of gas.
5. Navarro decided to walk home. She stepped out of the truck and started
6. The defendant followed her, held her and hugged her.
- Her dress was torn in front, from the collar to the waistline, because the
defendant was trying to touch her breast.
- Because she struggled against him, she was able to escape.
- She went to the house of her friend and spent the night there.
- Defendant did not follow her anymore.
7. Defendant did not deny Navarro’s allegations. He alleged that he assaulted
Navarro as revenge for what Navarro’s father did to his wife.
- He learned that Navarro was the daughter of a Filipino Japanese spy,
- Florague was responsible for the arrest of Famularcano’s wife. Florague
also committed acts of lasciviousness against Famularcano’s wife.
8. Lower court convicted him of frustrated acts of lasciviousness, with the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity. He was sentenced to 4 months and 1
day of arresto mayor.


1. Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting him of frustrated acts of
lasciviousness – YES.
- Defense:
o The crime committed by appellant is not frustrated acts of
lasciviousness, a crime impossible of frustration, but merely unjust
o Acts were motivated by revenge and not lasciviousness. In the
absence of lustfulness on the part of the offender, the mere kissing
of a woman, of embracing her and of touching her breasts could not
constitute the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
- SolGen:
o Under the specific allegations in the complaint, the crime committed
was acts of lasciviousness.
o Motive of defendant to commit the offense is of no importance.
According to the definition of the crime, the essence of lewdness is
in the very act itself.
- SC:
o Defendant cannot be convicted of frustrated acts of
lasciviousness because under the terms of the law, such
frustration can never take place.
o It is an undisputed fact that the defendant forcibly held and hugged
the offended party, and though he did not succeed in his intention
of kissing her, or of touching her private parts, he must have
touched her bosom. (Dress was torn.)
o Even if there was no touching of the breast, the acts of taking the
offended party by the waist, of holding her to his breast and
hugging her with intention of kissing her and touching her breast
and private parts, are in themselves an abuse directed by the
former against the chastity of the latter.
o Art 336 of the RPC comprises all acts of lasciviousness
performed upon a person of either sex short of lying with a
woman and anything leading up to it, independently of the
intention of the wrongdoer.

o Albeit the act executed by the appellant might constitute
unjust vexation, if it also falls within the purview of Art 336 of
the RPC, there would be no reason why appellant should not
be convicted for the more serious offense of acts of
- Lower court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity – no evidence that appellant purposely sought the cover of night
to facilitate the commission of the offense.
- Alleged grievance that appellant felt for the acts of complainant’s father
may have produced a state of mind and a sentiment equivalent and similar
to passion and obfuscation.

Accused is found GUILTY of consummated acts of lasciviousness, with the
mitigating circumstance of par 10 of art 13, similar and analogous to the
mitigating circumstances comprised in par 6 (passion and obfuscation) and par 7
(voluntary confession). Accused is sentenced to 6 months and 1 day of prision

There is no crime of frustrated acts of lasciviousness.