PIEDAD

CASE NO. 19

Crimes Against Persons: Rape

People vs. Banzuela, GR No. 202060, 11 December 2013

FACTS: Accused-appellant Ferdinand Banzuela challenges the decision of Court of Appeals

where he was convicted for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness. On February 2003, AAA 6
years of age and BBB 7 years of age were watching TV when Banzuela invited them to go to
the nearby cemetery, when they refused, he carried AAA away prompting BBB to follow suit.
Upon reaching the cemetery Banzuela proceeded to lay AAA on the dirty tomb, removed her
dress and underwear, he then started to insert his penis in her vagina and threatened to kill
her entire family if she ever spoken of this incident.

After the Incident Banzuela used the same method on BBB, the daughter of his mother’s half-
brother. When Banzuela started to lay her down, pulled her dress up, removed her
underwear, kissed her and before he could do anything more, a man passed by causing
Banzuela to flee the scene. AAA, with her mother, submitted herself for examination but the
medico-legal report stated that AAA was physically in a virgin state, and her hymen was
intact. Banzuela denied all allegations claiming that he was working at the time the incident
occurred by submitting photocopies of DTR.

The RTC rendered a decision convicting Bansuela of Rape for what he did to AAA and
Attempted Rape to BBB. However, on appeal, the CA did not affirm RTC’s decision that
Bansuela committed attempted rape but it was actually acts of lasciviousness.

ISSUE: W/N the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Bansuela of Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness.

RULLING: NO. The CA correctly convicted Bansuela of Statutory Rape even if the Medico
Legal Report yielded negative results because in People v. Boromeo, hymenal laceration is
not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped.
To sustain a conviction for a statutory rape, the elements of it should be present. (1) The age
of the complainant; (2) The identity of the accused; and (3) the Carnal Knowledge between
the accused and the complainant. In this case, all of the elements were present because AAA
was proven to be 6 years old when the incident occurred, she consistently identified the
accused as her offender and there was Carnal Knowledge. Even if the Medico Legal Report
yielded that AAA was still a virgin and the Hymen was still intact, Carnal Knowledge is still
proven because the full penetration of the female genital organ is not necessary. It is enough
that there is proof of entry of the male organ into labia or lips of the female organ to
consummate the sexual act.

The CA correctly convicted Bansuela of Acts of Lasciviousness in lieu of Attempted Rape

because in attempted rape, he must have already commenced the act of inserting his sexual
organ in the vagina of BBB, but due to some cause or accident, excluding his own
spontaneous desistance, he wasn’t able to even slightly penetrate BBB . Both crimes are
similar in nature but the intent to lie with the woman is the fundamental difference between the
two, as it is present in rape or attempt of it, and absent in acts of lasciviousness. Attempted
rape is committed when the touching of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to
penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness. In this case, Banzuela’s acts of
laying BBB on the ground, undressing her, and kissing her, do not constitute the crime of
attempted rape, absent any showing that Banzuela actually commenced to force his penis into
BBB’s sexual organ.