GR L 571; (October, 1902) (Digest)
March 7, 2026GR L 928; (October, 1902) (Digest)
March 7, 2026G.R. No. L-946, October 22, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. MANUEL BANZON, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
On the night of June 29, 1901, sisters Manuela and Felicisima Rey Hipolito (aged 13 and 15, respectively) were in a water closet near their house when they saw the defendants, Manuel Banzon and Jose Banzon, hiding behind a tree. As the girls attempted to return to their house, the defendants approached them. Manuel seized Manuela, and Jose seized Felicisima. They embraced the girls and tried to throw them to the ground with the intent to rape them. The defendants failed to consummate the crime due to the girls’ resistance and their screams for help, which alerted their parents. During the struggle, Manuela tore and retained a piece of Manuel’s shirt. The defendants fled before the parents could apprehend them. The prosecution presented evidence including the testimony of the victims, their parents, and other witnesses; the piece of torn shirt; and letters written by the defendants to the girls after the incident, confessing guilt and asking for pardon.
ISSUE:
Whether the acts committed by the defendants constitute the crime of attempted rape.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed that the defendants committed the crime of attempted rape under Article 438 in relation to Articles 3 and 66 of the Penal Code. The defendants commenced the execution of the crime through overt actsembracing the victims and attempting to throw them to the ground with the clear intent to have carnal knowledge. Their failure to consummate the rape was not due to voluntary desistance but to the active resistance of the victims and the timely intervention prompted by their calls for help. No aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime. Considering the nature of the offense and the personal conditions of both the defendants and the victims, the mitigating circumstance under Article 11 of the Penal Code was applied. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and sentenced each defendant to the minimum penalty of one year and six months of prision correccional, with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to each pay one-half of the costs.
