G.R. No. 208835, January 19, 2018
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Noel Bejim y Romero, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Noel Bejim, was charged with seven counts of statutory rape involving three minor cousins, “AAA,” “BBB,” and “CCC,” who were all under twelve years of age at the time of the incidents in 2001. The Informations alleged that he “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge” of each victim. The prosecution evidence established that Bejim, a helper in the household of CCC’s father, would, on separate occasions, pull the victims to a sofa or table, undress them, apply cooking oil, and rub his penis against their vaginas. He threatened to kill them and their families if they reported the acts. The victims’ testimonies were consistent and detailed, though they did not explicitly state that full penile penetration was achieved.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bejim of seven counts of statutory rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but modified the nomenclature of the crimes. Bejim appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the element of carnal knowledge, or full penile penetration, beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant can be validly convicted of seven counts of statutory rape despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove the element of full penile penetration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the crimes from seven counts of statutory rape to seven counts of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The legal logic is grounded in the variance doctrine and the elements of the crimes charged versus proved. For statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d), carnal knowledge—defined as the full penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ—is an essential element. The Court found that while the victims’ testimonies credibly established that Bejim performed lascivious acts by rubbing his penis against their vaginas, the evidence did not conclusively prove that full penetration occurred. The Informations alleged rape, but the offense proved was acts of lasciviousness.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, when the offense charged (rape) necessarily includes the offense proved (acts of lasciviousness), the accused can be convicted of the lesser offense. Acts of lasciviousness is included in rape as both involve lewd designs against a victim, with rape requiring the additional element of sexual intercourse. Since the victims were all below twelve years old, the qualifying circumstance of minority under R.A. 7610 was properly applied, warranting the penalty for qualified acts of lasciviousness. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts on the credibility of the child witnesses and the occurrence of the abusive acts, applying the principle that the conviction must be based on the offense proven by the evidence, not solely on the crime alleged.