Criminal liability – Stages of commission – Rape
When a woman testifies that she has been raped,
People v. Ceilito Orita (1990)
Medialdea, J.
FACTS
1. In March 1983, complainant Cristina Abayan, a freshman student at
St. Joseph’s College in Borongan, Samar, was brought home from a
party. While knocking at the door of her boarding house, somebody
held her and poked a knife at her neck. She recognized that it was
Orita, a Constabulary soldier, who was a frequent visitor of another
boarder. Orita continuously held a knife against her neck, until they
entered Abayan’s room in the upper floor of the boarding house.
2. Upon entering Abayan’s room, Orita pushed her, thereby causing her
head to hit the wall. With one hand holding the knife, Orita undressed
himself and then ordered Abayan to take off her clothes. Scared, she
complied. Orita ordered her to lie down on the floor and then
mounted her, making made her hold his penis and insert it in her
vagina. She followed his order as he continued to poke the knife at
her. At such position, however, Orita could not fully penetrate her
and only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on moving.
3. Orita then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him.
In this position, only a small part again of his penis was inserted into
her vagina. At this stage, Abayan tried to escape, dashing out of the
boarding house naked into the municipal building about 18 meters
away, where policemen were stationed. Upon knowing what
happened, three policemen went to the boarding house, whereby
they heard a sound at the second floor and saw a man running
away. Due to the darkness, they failed to apprehend the man.
4. The medical report showed that the patient was in a state of shock,
with hematoma in the neck, abrasions at the breast and extremities.
No visible abrasions nor lacerations were found in the vulva, hymen
was found to be intact.
5. The RTC convicted Orita of frustrated rape. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals modified the judgment and convicted Orita of rape.
ISSUE with HOLDING
WoN the trial court and the CA erred in convicting Orita of Rape? No.
1. Orita assails inconsistencies in the testimonies, but the Court held
that these inconsistencies were trivial and insufficient to cast doubt
on the witnesses’ straightforward attestations. The Court found that
the offended party’s testimony before the court was plain and
straightforward.
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed provided her testimony is clear and free from
contradiction and her sincerity and candor, free from suspicion. Her
testimony was corroborated by the policeman who attended to her,
and medical findings conclusively proved the struggle against force
and violence exerted on her.
WoN Orita’s conviction for frustrated rape is proper? No.
1. The trial court was of the belief that there is no conclusive evidence
of penetration of the genital organ of the victim and thus convicted
the accused of frustrated rape only. Orita and the Solicitor General
however contends that there is no such crime.
2. Correlating Arts. 335 (Rape) and 6 (Consummated, frustrated, and
attempted felonies), there is no debate that the attempted and
consummated stages apply to the crime of rape. Meanwhile, the
requisites of a frustrated felony are:
a. that the offender has performed all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony and
b. that the felony is not produced due to causes independent of
the perpetrator's will.
3. In US v. Eduave, the Court held that an attempted crime is when an
offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts,
is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing
all of the acts which should produce the crime. The essential element
which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the
latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or
agency between the beginning of the commission of the crime and
the moment when all of the acts have been performed which should
result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is such
intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of
performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. He is
stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary
desistance.
4. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has
carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and,
from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have
been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender,
because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated.
5. In a long line of cases, the Court has held that for rape to be
consummated, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration
of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient.
6. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female
organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender
merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
7. Thus, taking into account the nature, elements and manner of
execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is
hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.
8. The decision in People v. Erina where the accused was found guilty
of frustrated rape, there being no conclusive evidence of penetration,
was held to be a stray decision, no longer reiterated in subsequent
decisions. Moreover, while Art. 335 of the RPC as amended by RA
2632 and RA 4111 providing a penalty of death when rape is
attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on
the occasion thereof, the Court held that this particular provision on
frustrated rape is a dead provision. It was the Erina case that
prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape
in the amendments introduced by the later laws.
9. In this case, the trial court held that there was an inconsistency
between the positive testimony of the offended party that penetration
happened, and the medical certificate stating that there was no
concrete disclosure of penetration. However, the Supreme Court
held that there was no inconsistency. The medical certificate stated
that there was abnormal redness of the skin due to inflammation,
and that the skin was tender. Thus, the examining doctor did not rule
out the possibility of penetration, only that there was an uncertainty.
On the other hand, the victim positively testified that there had been
penetration. The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused
may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's testimony if
credible. The doctor’s testimony is merely corroborative and is not an
indispensable element in the prosecution of the case.
10. Thus, Orita should be found guilty of consummated rape, sentenced
to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of
PhP 30,000.00.