GR 166441; (October, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166441 ; October 8, 2014
Norberto Cruz y Bartolome, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Norberto Cruz was charged with Attempted Rape (Criminal Case No. 2388) against AAA and Acts of Lasciviousness (Criminal Case No. 2389) against BBB. The incidents allegedly occurred in the early morning of December 21, 1993, in Bangar, La Union. AAA, a 15-year-old, testified that while she was sleeping in a tent, the petitioner lay on top of her, removed her clothing, mashed her breast, touched her private part, and threatened to kill her if she screamed. She resisted by pushing and kicking him, preventing the consummation of rape. Later, she saw the petitioner touching the private parts of BBB inside the same tent. The petitioner denied the accusations, claiming the acts were impossible due to the public location and alleged the complaints were for extortion. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of both charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for Attempted Rape but acquitted him of Acts of Lasciviousness due to insufficient evidence, notably BBB’s failure to testify and the lack of proof that the acts against her were against her will.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s acts as proven constitute the crime of Attempted Rape.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted the petitioner of Attempted Rape. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the petitioner’s intent to have carnal knowledge, which is essential for attempted rape. The overt acts proven—climbing on top of the naked victim, embracing her, and touching her breast and vagina—without evidence that his erect penis was in a position to penetrate her vagina, are equivocal and do not conclusively establish an intent to lie with her. Such acts could indicate the intent to commit acts of lasciviousness instead. Since intent in attempted rape must be proved by direct overt acts, and the evidence was insufficient to establish such intent, the petitioner could only be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. However, as he was not charged with that crime against AAA, he must be acquitted. The Court modified the award of damages, deleting the moral damages for lack of basis upon acquittal.