G.R. No. 188979 ; September 5, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER PAREJA y VELASCO, Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution charged appellant Christopher Pareja with the rape of his sister-in-law, AAA, a 13-year-old minor. The evidence showed that in the early morning of June 16, 2003, while AAA was sleeping on the floor beside her young nephew, the appellant embraced her, kissed her, and removed her clothing as well as his own. He went on top of her, held her hands, parted her legs with his own, and attempted to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA cried and resisted. The appellant desisted when her cries grew louder, after which he threatened her and left the room. AAA later reported the incident to her sister and the police. The appellant denied the accusation, claiming he was elsewhere and was later arbitrarily arrested and mauled by police.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Pareja of consummated rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that a slight penetration of the labia had occurred when the appellant’s penis touched the victim’s vagina during his attempt, which was sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. The appellate court also held that the presence of other people in the house did not negate the commission of the crime and that the victim’s resistance was adequate.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the element of carnal knowledge necessary for a conviction of consummated rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decisions, finding the appellant guilty only of attempted rape, not consummated rape. The legal logic centers on the essential element of carnal knowledge, defined as the act of a man having sexual bodily connection with a woman. For rape to be consummated, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt of at least the slightest penetration of the female organ by the male organ. The Court meticulously examined the victim’s testimony, where she stated the appellant “tried to insert” his penis and that she felt his penis “touching” her vagina. The Court held that these declarations, while credible, did not establish with moral certainty that actual penetration, however slight, was achieved. The testimony indicated an attempt that was aborted, not a completed sexual act. The Court distinguished between “touching” and “penetration,” ruling that the former alone is insufficient for consummation.
Consequently, the Court found that all the elements of attempted rape were present: the appellant commenced the commission of rape by overt acts (embracing, undressing, mounting, and attempting insertion) but did not perform all acts of execution due to causes other than his own spontaneous desistance—namely, the victim’s loud cries which prompted him to stop. The penalty was adjusted accordingly to an indeterminate sentence of six years of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor, as maximum. The awards of damages were also modified to align with the crime of attempted rape.