PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
EN BANC
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
148869-74
December 11, 2003
-versus-
REMARIO PALMA Y
ROMERA
ALIAS "MARIO,"
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
Appellant Remario
Palma y Romera stood indicted before the court below for six (6) counts
of qualified rape which, except for the week and month of commission,
were
similarly worded, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal case No.
8173
"That on or about the
second week of October, 1997 in the morning, at Macasihi, Camagong,
Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of his own daughter Marife B. Palma (a minor), a girl who is below 10
years
of age, against her will."[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal
Case No. 8174
"That on or about
the
second week of October, 1997 in the afternoon, at Macasihi, Camagong,
Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of his own daughter Marife B. Palma (a minor), a girl who is below 10
years
of age, against her will."[2]
In Criminal Case
No.
8175
"That on or about
the
second week of October, 1997 in the evening, at Macasihi, Camagong,
Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of his own daughter Marife B. Palma (a minor), a girl who is below 10
years
of age, against her will."[3]
In Criminal Case
No.
8176
"That on or about
the
first week of November, 1997 in the morning, at Macasihi, Camagong,
Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of his own daughter Marife B. Palma (a minor), a girl who is below 10
years
of age, against her will."[4]
In Criminal Case
No.
8177
"That on or about
the
first week of November, 1997 in the afternoon at Macasihi, Nasipit,
Agusan
del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did then
and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of
his
own daughter Marife B. Palma (a minor), a girl who is below 10 years of
age, against her will."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case
No.
8178
"That on or about
the
first week of November 1997 in the evening, at Macasihi, Camagong,
Nasipit,
Agusan del Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge
of his own daughter Marife B. Palma (a minor), a girl who is below 10
years
of age, against her will."[6]
At his arraignment,
appellant
entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charges. During the trial that
followed,
the prosecution placed on the witness stand Marife B. Palma, the
private
complainant, and Dr. Zosima A. Padillo, the examining physician, while
the defense presented appellant Remario R. Palma.
The young Marife B.
Palma testified that she was subjected to sexual abuse by Remario R.
Palma
on various occasions. She was then staying with appellant in Macasihi,
Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, at a time when her "nanay" was working
abroad
for a living. One morning, in the second week of October 1997,
appellant
told Marife to lie down with her legs spread apart. He inserted his
penis
into her vagina, kissed her repeatedly, and licked her breast. In the
afternoon
of the same day, appellant again licked her vagina and inserted his
thumb
into the genital canal. When evening came, appellant arrived home drunk
and, upon chancing on Marife, fondled her vagina until he fell asleep.
The next round of sexual assault occurred in the morning of the first
week
of November 1997. Appellant took off her shorts and underwear. He also
rid himself of his own shorts and briefs. He carried Marife to the
living
room and went around the room with his penis touching the latter's
vagina.
During one afternoon of the same week, appellant inserted his middle
finger
into her private part, withdrew his finger and licked it. In yet
another
occasion, appellant shed off Marife's panty and shorts. He was about to
molest her when her brother arrived. He hastily put on his brief and
shorts,
telling her to do likewise.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Marife named Milagros
Bitco to be her real mother and said that appellant was not her
biological
father. Marife explained that she would call appellant her "father"
only
because he happened to be the husband of her "nanay," Fe Palma, the
sister
of her mother Milagros Bitco.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dr. Zosima A. Padillo,
who had conducted a medical examination on Marife, testified that there
was incomplete laceration on the victim's genital.cralaw:red
Appellant denied all
the charges hurled against him, claiming that Marife was only coached
by
his wife. The couple had parted ways since before and had not been
living
together. Once, his wife visited him in jail and insinuated that the
case
could be dropped if he would agree to pay Marife P30,000.00. He added
that
the healed lacerations on the girl's genital could have been the result
of her fondness to ride bicycles. He recounted that Marife would often
climb trees and so sit on the branches as if she were riding a horse.
When
she was only one year and seven months old, Marife injured her vagina
when
she fell down the stairs of their house. The defense presented a
hospital
record from St. Christopher Hospital where an entry, dated 15 December
1989, indicated that Marife had indeed fallen down the stairs a week
before
the medical check-up. Finally, appellant claimed that, in March 1998,
one
Norman Marimon had fondled Marife and even attempted to rape her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The trial court found
the account of Marife to be credible, straightforward and trustworthy,
thereby discrediting the asseverations made by appellant. In Criminal
Case
No. 8173, it found appellant guilty of rape.[7]
In Criminal Case No. 8174, appellant was adjudged guilty of acts of
lasciviousness
when he inserted his thumb into the victim's vaginal orifice one
afternoon
during the second week of October 1997. In Criminal Case No. 8175,
appellant
was convicted of acts of lasciviousness for having fondled the vagina
of
the victim in the evening of the same day. In Criminal Case No. 8176,
the
trial court found appellant guilty of rape in carrying Marife around
the
room of their house with his penis "touching" her vagina during the
first
week of November 1997. In Criminal Case No. 8177, appellant was
convicted
of acts of lasciviousness when he inserted his middle finger into the
vagina
of the complainant at another time during the first week of November
1997.
The trial court concluded:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered finding accused Remario
Palma y Romera, alias 'Mario' GUILTY of two counts of rape and three
counts
of acts of lasciviousness perpetrated against one Marife Palma.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"As a consequence
of
this judgment and as provided for in Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code,
accused Palma being the victim's guardian and uncle and therefore, a
relative
within the third degree of affinity, each count of rape committed by
him
is punishable by death, which penalty shall be enforced by way of
lethal
injection.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"For the counts of
acts
of lasciviousness, he shall serve the penalty of imprisonment for a
period
of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional as maximum for each count. He shall
serve his sentence for these three crimes successively.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Accused is also
ordered
to pay private complainant a civil indemnity of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand
(P150,000.00) Pesos for the two counts of rape committed by him;
P30,000.00
for the three acts of lasciviousness and moral damages in the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Any period of
detention
served by accused shall be credited in his favor conformably with Art.
29 of the Revised Penal Code.cralaw:red
"He shall serve
his
sentence at the Bureau of Prisons facility at Muntinlupa City, Metro
Manila."[8]
Appellant, in an
automatic
appeal of his case to this Court, would contend that — "I
"THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES OF RAPE AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS
GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"II
"THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE
THE INACCURATE DESIGNATION IN THE INFORMATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
THE VICTIM AND THE ACCUSED."[9]
According to appellant,
the testimony of Marife Palma should not be given credence for it would
be inconceivable, as well as contrary to human experience, for her to
be
able to accurately say that "only a part two-thirds of the penis has
been
inserted into her vagina." With respect to the second conviction for
rape,
appellant argues that the mere epidermal contact or a slight brush or a
scrape of the penis on the vagina or mons pubis of the victim is not,
and
does not constitute, rape.[10]
Appellant seeks, at all events, the reversal of his conviction in each
of the six criminal cases, including the three counts for acts of
lasciviousness,
claiming that the charges against him have all been fabricated.
Finally,
appellant questions the imposition on him by the trial court of the
death
penalty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Like the court a quo,
this Court finds the testimony of Marife Palma to be forthright,
spontaneous
and unflawed in almost all material respects.cralaw:red
In open court, Marife
testified:chanrobles virtual law library
"Q Now in
the
second week of October 1997, in the morning do you recall where you
were
at that time?
"A I remember, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where were you?
"A I was in our
house,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where is this
house
of yours situated?
"A It is situated,
sir,
in Macasihi, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte.cralaw:red
"Q While you were
there
in your house Miss Palma, do you recall of any unusual incident?
"A I can recall,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q What was the
unusual
incident about?
"A I was raped,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Who raped you?
"A Remario Palma.cralaw:red
"Q Remario Palma
whom
you pointed to a while ago?
"A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where were you
raped?
"A In the bedroom
of
our house, sir.cralaw:red
"Q How did the
accused
rape you?
"A He made me lie
down
with my legs separated.cralaw:red
"Q Where, what
part
of the house?
"A On the floor,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q You mean, there
was
no bed at that time?
"A There was none,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q While he made
you
lie down, what did he do next if any?
"A He inserted his
penis
into my vagina.cralaw:red
"Q And what did
you
feel?
"A I felt pain,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Did the whole
penis
penetrate your vagina?
"A Only part of
the
penis of the accused was inserted into my vagina, sir. (Witness
indicating
about 2/3 of her middle finger.)
"Q Now after that,
after
he inserted his penis into your vagina what else if anything happened
to
you?
"A He kissed my
lips
repeatedly.cralaw:red
"Q What else, what
other
parts of your body was being touched?
"A He licked my
neck
and my upper chest.cralaw:red
"Q In the
afternoon
at that same week of October 1997, do you recall where [you were] at
that
time?
"A I was in the
house,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q And while you
were
there, in your house, what happened if any?
"A Again, he raped
me,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Who raped you?
"A Remario Palma.cralaw:red
"Q This Remario
Palma
whom you pointed to a while ago?
"A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where were you
raped?
"A In the same
bedroom,
sir where he raped me in the morning of that day.cralaw:red
"Q How did he rape
you
in the afternoon on that same date?
"A He inserted his
thumb
into my vagina, sir.cralaw:red
"Q After that what
happened
next?
"A He licked my
vagina,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q And after that,
what
happened next?
"A After that he
stopped.cralaw:red
"Q In the evening
of
October 1997, second week of October 1997, do you recall where you were?
"A Again I was in
our
house, sir.cralaw:red
"Q where in your
house?
"A In our bedroom,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Now, while you
were
there what happened, if any?
"A The accused was
drunk
at that time, I was already lying down sleeping, and then, I felt the
accused
fondling me starting from my legs upward to my vagina.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q After he
touched
you what did he do next, if any?
"A He fell asleep.cralaw:red
"Q Now in the
first
week of November 1997, do you recall where [you were]?
"A I remember, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where were you?
"A I was in our
house,
sir,
"Q While you were
there
in your house, what happened, if any?
"A Again, the
accused
raped me.cralaw:red
"Q Who raped you?
"A Remario Palma,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Remario Palma
whom
you pointed to a while ago?
"A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where were you
raped?
"A Also in the
bedroom,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Now, how did he
rape
you?
"A He took off my
shorts
and underwear, and he also took off his shorts and brief then he
carried
me by raising me up with his two arms with my head on his shoulder.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q Now, after he
carried
you Miss Palma, what did he do next at that time?
"A He brought me
to
our living room, and while he was carrying me, going around our living
room, my vagina and his penis were touching each other.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q After his penis
touched
your vagina, what did he do with his penis?
"A He let his
penis
touch my vagina.cralaw:red
"Q That was the
only
thing that he did?
"A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q Now in the
afternoon,
in the first week of November 1997, do you recall where [you were]?
"A I was in the
house,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q While you were
in
your house, what happened?
"A Again he raped
me,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q Where did he
rape
you?
"A In the same
bedroom
where the previous incidents occurred.cralaw:red
"Q By the way, how
many
rooms are there in your house?
"A Only one
bedroom,
sir.cralaw:red
"Q As big as this
chamber
of the Honorable Court?
"A Our bedroom is
as
big as the chamber of the Honorable Court.cralaw:red
"Q How did your
father
rape you?
"A He took off my
shorts
and panty and he inserted his thumb into my vagina.cralaw:red
"Court:chanrobles virtual law library
Let's make
of
record that the witness is crying.cralaw:red
"Q Now, what did
he
do with his finger?
"A (While the
witness
mentioned the word 'kumangko' which in English is thumb she indicated
her
middle finger).cralaw:red
He just
inserted
his middle finger into my vagina.cralaw:red
"Q After he
inserted
his finger into your vagina, what did he do next, if any?
"A He licked his
middle
finger."[11]
It would be difficult
to
accept appellant's claim that the complaints were merely instigated by
the victim's mother. No strong ill-motive was given to account for such
a possibility. Neither was it shown that Marife herself could be so
morally
debased or psychologically wicked as to freely concoct unusual tales of
sexual exploitation against appellant. Between the categorical
testimony
of the young girl and the bare denial of the appellant, there was
scarcely
any real contest.
Except in Criminal Cases
No. 8176 and No. 8177, the trial court correctly found appellant guilty
of the crimes with which he was charged. In Criminal Case No. 8176, the
crime of rape was not committed. In People v. Arce, Jr.,[12]
the victim asserted that the man had touched her or "idinidikit yung
ari
niya;" there, the Court refused to hold, in the absence of convincing
proof
that the penis had slid into the female organ, that rape was committed.
In People v. Francisco,[13]
the Court also declined to convict an accused of consummated rape when
it had failed to discern from the testimony of the complainant that
some
degree of penile penetration was attained even when he made pumping
motions.
Marife, in the case at bar, merely stated that she was carried around
the
sala with appellant's penis "touching" her vagina. With this bare
statement,
it would not be right to conclude that the act of the penis "touching"
the vagina was an entry or penetration, even slightly, of the labia
majora
or the labia minora of the pudendum. In Criminal Case No. 8177, the
first
incident of insertion of appellant's finger into the victim's vagina
during
the second week of October 1997 could only render appellant guilty of
an
act of lasciviousness. The second incident of the insertion of
appellant's
middle finger, however, during the first week of November 1997,
constituted
consummated rape through sexual assault under Republic
Act No. 8353 or "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997,"[14]
which took effect on 22 October 1997; this law, in part provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Art.
266-A.
Rape; when and how committed.- Rape is committed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1) By a
man
who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"a)
Through
force, threat, or intimidation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"b) When the
offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"c) By means
of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"d) When the
offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"2) By any person
who,
under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit
an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's
mouth
or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person." (Emphasis supplied.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In consonance with
paragraph
1, above, the contact of the male penis with the woman's vagina is
referred
to as "rape by sexual intercourse," while the sexual abuse under
paragraph
2 is categorized as "rape through sexual assault."[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant contends that
the trial court has erred in imposing the death penalty. The argument
has
merit. Republic
Act No. 7659[16]
imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under eighteen years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian,
relative
by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the
common
law spouse of the victim's parent. Being qualifying circumstances; it
is
essential that the age of the victim and her affiliation or kinship
with
the accused are properly alleged and duly proven.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While the age of the
victim was alleged in the information, the records are bereft, however,
of testimonial or documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate, or
even documents of less import, that would substantiate the age of the
complainant.
Nor could the qualifying circumstance of relationship be considered.
Appellant
was alleged in the Informations to be the biological father of Marife
but,
during the trial, it was established that he actually was just Marife's
uncle by affinity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Article 266-B,
conviction for the crime of rape through sexual intercourse (in
Criminal
Case No. 8173) is punished by reclusion perpetua; while, rape through
sexual
assault (in Criminal Case No. 8177) carries the penalty of prision
mayor.
The latter being a penalty composed of three periods, it shall be
imposed
in its medium period (8 years and 1 day to 10 years) since there is
neither
a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance that can be appreciated.[17]
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum to be imposed is
prision
correcional, anywhere in its entire range, being the penalty next lower
in degree prescribed by the Code, with prision mayor, anywhere within
its
medium period, as the maximum penalty. In Criminal Cases No. 8174, No.
8175, and No. 8176, Section 5 of Republic
Act No. 7610,[18]
a special law, imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period, when the victim is below 12 years old, for an act of
lasciviousness.
The age of the victim not having been duly established, appellant shall
instead be held accountable, conformably with the same statute, under
Article
336 of the
Revised Penal Code. The penalty for acts of lasciviousness under
the
Code is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum penalty to be imposed is arresto mayor, in any of its
period,
being the penalty next lower in degree prescribed by the Code, with
prision
correccional, anywhere within the range of its medium period, as the
maximum
penalty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Relative to the amount
of damages, the complainant is entitled in Criminal Case No. 8173 to
P50,000.00
civil indemnity and P50,000.00 moral damages for rape through sexual
intercourse,
in Criminal Case No. 8177 to P30,000.00 civil indemnity and P30,000.00
moral damages for rape through sexual assault, and in Criminal Cases
No.
8174, No. 8175 and No. 8176 to P20,000.00 civil indemnity and
P20,000.00
moral damages in each of said criminal cases for acts of
lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION; appellant
Remario
Palma y Romero is hereby found GUILTY:chanrobles virtual law library
1. In
Criminal
Case No. 8173, of rape through sexual intercourse, and he is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
2. In Criminal
Case
No. 8174, of acts of lasciviousness, and he is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of from 3 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as
minimum,
to 3 years and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. In Criminal
Case
No. 8175, of acts of lasciviousness, and he is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of from 3 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as
minimum,
to 3 years and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. In Criminal
Case
No. 8176, of acts of lasciviousness, and he is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of from 3 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as
minimum,
to 3 years and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. In Criminal
Case
No. 8177, of rape through sexual assault and to suffer the
indeterminate
penalty of 3 years, 3 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as
minimum,
to 8 years and 11 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant is likewise
ordered
to pay complainant, as so heretofore explained, a total of P140,000.00
civil indemnity and P140,000.00 moral damages or a grand total of
P280,000.00
for all the above criminal cases. Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[1]
Rollo, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
7. Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed — Rape is Committed. —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1) by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 38–39.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, p. 73.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, p. 84.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, 17 July 2000, pp. 15–20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
G.R. No. 139064-66, 06 September 2001, 364 SCRA 550.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
G.R. No. 135201-02, 15 March 2001, 354 SCRA 475.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Amended Title Eight of the Revised Penal Code; new provisions of RA
8353
are incorporated as Chapter Three of Title Eight.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
In People v. Soriano, G.R. No. 142779-95, 29 August 2002, 388 SCRA 140,
it was ruled that the appellant is guilty of rape through sexual
assault
when he inserted his finger into the vagina of his victim. This is one
of the significant amendments introduced by the new law, thus making
the
insertion of any instrument, object, or any part of the human body
other
than the sexual organ into the genital or anus of another person as
rape
15 and not merely acts of lasciviousness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Congressional deliberations on the bill could be helpful; here are
some excerpts from Senate Deliberations of 24 July 1996 on Senate Bill
No. 950 (now Republic Act 8353 or "The Anti-Rape Law" of 1997):chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Senator Sotto: Mr. President, at the onset, may I state that I am in
full
support of this bill and its intentions x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Having said that, may I now be allowed to ask a few questions x
x
x which pertains to the consummation of the crime of rape. Section 3,
paragraph
2 (referring to the senate bill draft) states: The slightest contact of
any part of his body other than the sexual organ or any object or
instrument,
or any part of the animal used by the offender with the genital or anus
of the offended party under paragraphs (3) and (4) of Section 2 hereof
shall consummate the crime of rape.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I am concerned, Mr. President, with the use of the phrase "slightest
contact."
May I know what is meant by this phrase and how this is to be
construed?
For instance, does this require skin-to-skin contact between the
offender
and the offended party?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Senator Shahani: Mr. President, before I answer that question, I just
would
like to inform our colleague from Quezon City that we are using the
version
of the bill of June 3, 1996 where we have left the gender-free approach
to rape and we are just saying "a woman." So here, we say the
"slightest
contact of any part of the body of a man."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Yes, Mr. President the slightest contact of any part of the body of a
man
with the genital or anus of a woman under paragraphs (3) and (4) of
Section
2 shall consummate the crime of rape.
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Senator Santiago: Mr. President, when the principal sponsor and I were
participating in the Committee deliberations, the principal author,
Senator
Shahani, already expressed concurrence to a possible amendment that
will
add the following clause to paragraph 3, which is now the subject of
the
distinguished Senators' comments. Section 3 redefines rape as committed
by any person who shall insert any part of his body other than the
sexual
organ or who shall introduce any object or instrument into the genital
or anus of another. (Emphasis supplied.).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
"An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special
Penal
Laws, and for Other Purposes."
x
x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection Against
Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|