G.R. No. 137366; November 27, 2003
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Romeo Mole y Santos, appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Romeo Mole, an albularyo (quack doctor), was consulted by the Reyes family for treatment of itchiness. After a series of treatments at their home on April 12, 1997, appellant rendered the husband, Wilfredo, unconscious. He later returned around midnight, claiming the youngest son was in danger, and demanded money. After receiving payment, he sprinkled a pungent liquid on the sleeping family and performed rituals on Emerita Reyes, the wife, causing her to feel weak and dizzy. Appellant then dragged her to the kitchen, removed her underwear, and laid on top of her. Emerita testified she was too weak to resist, lost consciousness, and upon waking, felt pain in her vagina and believed she had been raped. She reported the incident to the police the next day. A medico-legal examination found no physical injuries consistent with recent sexual abuse, and a seminology test was negative.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of the crime of rape.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court acquitted appellant of rape but convicted him of acts of lasciviousness. The Court found Emerita’s testimony credible regarding the sexual assault but noted the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of carnal knowledge. The information was amended to allege rape committed while the victim was “dizzy or otherwise unconscious,” constituting rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the medical findings conclusively showed no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. The negative seminology report and the absence of genital injuries, coupled with the doctor’s testimony that there was no medical basis to conclude sexual abuse, created reasonable doubt as to the completion of the rape.
The Court emphasized that a conviction for rape requires proof of penetration, however slight. The medical evidence directly contradicted the allegation of completed intercourse. The appellant’s alleged extrajudicial confession to the police investigator was also correctly disregarded by the trial court as inadmissible for being obtained in violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation. Since the evidence proved indecent liberties and lascivious conduct but not carnal knowledge, the crime committed was acts of lasciviousness under Article 336, which is necessarily included in the rape charge. The case was remanded for determination of the proper penalty for acts of lasciviousness.