(G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.) People of The Philippines, Plaintiff, V. Primo Campuhan Y BELLO, Accused. Decision
(G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.) People of The Philippines, Plaintiff, V. Primo Campuhan Y BELLO, Accused. Decision
(G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.) People of The Philippines, Plaintiff, V. Primo Campuhan Y BELLO, Accused. Decision
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
On 3 April 1990 this Court in People v. Orita 1 finally did away with frustrated rape 2
and allowed only attempted rape and consummated rape to remain in our statute
books. The instant case lurks at the threshold of another emasculation of the stages of
execution of rape by considering almost every attempt at sexual violation of a woman
as consummated rape, that is, if the contrary view were to be adopted. The danger
there is that that concept may send the wrong signal to every roaming lothario,
whenever the opportunity bares itself, to better intrude with climactic gusto, sans any
restraint, since after all any attempted fornication would be considered consummated
rape and punished as such. A mere strafing of the citadel of passion would then be
considered a deadly fait accompli, which is absurd.
In Orita we held that rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his objective. All the elements of the
offense were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having
performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. We ruled then
that perfect penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the
male organ, however slight, was sufficient. The Court further held that entry of the
labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina, was sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. We distinguished
consummated rape from attempted rape where there was no penetration of the female
organ because not all acts of execution were performed as the offender merely
commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. 3 The inference that may
be derived therefrom is that complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required
for rape to be consummated. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise
the crime to its consummated stage. chanrobles.com : virtual law library
But the Court in Orita clarified the concept of penetration in rape by requiring entry into
the labia or lips of the female organ, even if there be no rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for consummated rape. While the entry
of the penis into the lips of the female organ was considered synonymous with mere
touching of the external genitalia, e.g., labia majora, labia minora, etc., 4 the crucial
doctrinal bottom line is that touching must be inextricably viewed in light of, in relation
to, or as an essential part of, the process of penile penetration, and not just mere
touching in the ordinary sense. In other words, the touching must be tacked to the
penetration itself. The importance of the requirement of penetration, however slight,
cannot be gainsaid because where entry into the labia or the lips of the female genitalia
has not been established, the crime committed amounts merely to attempted rape.
Verily, this should be the indicium of the Court in determining whether rape has been
committed either in its attempted or in its consummated stage; otherwise, no
substantial distinction would exist between the two, despite the fact that penalty-wise,
this distinction, threadbare as it may seem, irrevocably spells the difference between
life and death for the accused — a reclusive life that is not even perpetua but only
temporal on one hand, and the ultimate extermination of life on the other. And, arguing
on another level, if the case at bar cannot be deemed attempted but consummated
rape, what then would constitute attempted rape? Must our field of choice be thus
limited only to consummated rape and acts of lasciviousness since attempted rape
would no longer be possible in light of the view of those who disagree with this
ponencia?
On 27 May 1997 Primo Campuhan y Bello was found guilty of statutory rape and
sentenced by the court a quo to the extreme penalty of death, 5 hence this case before
us on automatic review under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA
7659. 6
As may be culled from the evidence on record, on 25 April 1996, at around 4 o’clock in
the afternoon, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old Crysthel
Pamintuan, went down from the second floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate
drinks for her two (2) children. At the ground floor she met Primo Campuhan who was
then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located
at the second floor. Primo was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. As
Corazon was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayoko,
ayoko!" 7 prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon, she saw Primo Campuhan
inside her children’s room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants"
and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.
< Ma. Corazon, mother of (4)-year old Crysthel, went down from the second floor of
their house to prepare Milo drinks for her two (2) children. At the ground floor she met
accused who was then busy filling small plastic bags. As Corazon was busy preparing
the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayoko, ayoko!" prompting Corazon to
rush upstairs. She saw accused on the act of inserting his penis to Crysthel’s vagina >
According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel’s vagina. Horrified, she
cursed the accused, "P - t - ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. He
evaded her blows and pulled up his pants. He pushed Corazon aside when she tried to
block his path. Corazon then ran out and shouted for help thus prompting her brother,
a cousin and an uncle who were living within their compound, to chase the accused. 8
Seconds later, Primo was apprehended by those who answered Corazon’s call for help.
They held the accused at the back of their compound until they were advised by their
neighbors to call the barangay officials instead of detaining him for his misdeed.
Physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign of extra-
genital physical injury was noted by the medico-legal officer on Crysthel’s body as her
hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in diameter. chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
Primo Campuhan had only himself for a witness in his defense. He maintained his
innocence and assailed the charge as a mere scheme of Crysthel’s mother who
allegedly harbored ill will against him for his refusal to run an errand for her. 9 He
asserted that in truth Crysthel was in a playing mood and wanted to ride on his back
when she suddenly pulled him down causing both of them to fall down on the floor. It
was in this fallen position that Corazon chanced upon them and became hysterical.
Corazon slapped him and accused him of raping her child. He got mad but restrained
himself from hitting back when he realized she was a woman. Corazon called for help
from her brothers to stop him as he ran down from the second floor.
Vicente, Corazon’s brother, timely responded to her call for help and accosted Primo.
Vicente punched him and threatened to kill him. Upon hearing the threat, Primo
immediately ran towards the house of Conrado Plata but Vicente followed him there.
Primo pleaded for a chance to explain as he reasoned out that the accusation was not
true. But Vicente kicked him instead. When Primo saw Vicente holding a piece of lead
pipe, Primo raised his hands and turned his back to avoid the blow. At this moment, the
relatives and neighbors of Vicente prevailed upon him to take Primo to the barangay
hall instead, and not to maul or possibly kill him.
Although Primo Campuhan insisted on his innocence, the trial court on 27 May 1997
found him guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the extreme penalty of death, and
ordered him to pay his victim P50,000.00 for moral damages, P25,000.00 for
exemplary damages, and the costs.
< the trial court found the accused guilty of statutory rape >
The accused Primo Campuhan seriously assails the credibility of Ma. Corazon
Pamintuan. He argues that her narration should not be given any weight or credence
since it was punctured with implausible statements and improbabilities so inconsistent
with human nature and experience. He claims that it was truly inconceivable for him to
commit the rape considering that Crysthel’s younger sister was also in the room playing
while Corazon was just downstairs preparing Milo drinks for her daughters. Their
presence alone as possible eyewitnesses and the fact that the episode happened within
the family compound where a call for assistance could easily be heard and responded
to, would have been enough to deter him from committing the crime. Besides, the door
of the room was wide open for anybody to see what could be taking place inside. Primo
insists that it was almost inconceivable that Corazon could give such a vivid description
of the alleged sexual contact when from where she stood she could not have possibly
seen the alleged touching of the sexual organs of the accused and his victim. He asserts
that the absence of any external signs of physical injuries or of penetration of Crysthel’s
private parts more than bolsters his innocence.
In convicting the accused, the trial court relied quite heavily on the testimony of
Corazon that she saw Primo with his short pants down to his knees kneeling before
Crysthel whose pajamas and panty were supposedly "already removed" and that Primo
was "forcing his penis into Crysthel’s vagina." The gravamen of the offense of statutory
rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12), as provided in Art. 335, par.
(3), of the Revised Penal Code. Crysthel was only four (4) years old when sexually
molested, thus raising the penalty, from reclusion perpetua to death, to the single
indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659, Sec. 11, the offended party being below
seven (7) years old. We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal
knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential
ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the
external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge. 10 But the act of touching should be understood here as
inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not
mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum.
In People v. De la Peña 11 we clarified that the decisions finding a case for rape even if
the attacker’s penis merely touched the external portions of the female genitalia were
made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis capable of full
penetration. Where the accused failed to achieve an erection, had a limp or flaccid
penis, or an oversized penis which could not fit into the victim’s vagina, the Court
nonetheless held that rape was consummated on the basis of the victim’s testimony
that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain, to insert his penis into her vagina and in
all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the lips
of her vulva, 12 or that the penis of the accused touched the middle part of her vagina.
13 Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal
contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the
external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be
sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be
convicted of consummated rape. 14 As the labias, which are required to be "touched"
by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the
vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration
beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia
minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.
The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs that are
visible in the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the hymen,
the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is the rounded eminence that
becomes hairy after puberty, and is instantly visible within the surface. The next layer
is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex
surface and the inner surface. The skin of the outer convex surface is covered with hair
follicles and is pigmented, while the inner surface is a thin skin which does not have any
hair but has many sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia majora is the labia
minora. 15 Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated, 16 and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female
organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of
the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of
the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the
pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be
attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft-quoted
"touching of the female organ," 17 but has also progressed into being described as "the
introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum," 18 or "the
bombardment of the drawbridge." 19 But, to our mind, the case at bar merely
constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency," or as earlier stated, a
"strafing of the citadel of passion."
cralaw virtua1aw library
A review of the records clearly discloses that the prosecution utterly failed to discharge
its onus of proving that Primo’s penis was able to penetrate Crysthel’s vagina however
slight. Even if we grant arguendo that Corazon witnessed Primo in the act of sexually
molesting her daughter, we seriously doubt the veracity of her claim that she saw the
inter-genital contact between Primo and Crysthel. When asked what she saw upon
entering her children’s room Corazon plunged into saying that she saw Primo poking his
penis on the vagina of Crysthel without explaining her relative position to them as to
enable her to see clearly and sufficiently, in automotive lingo, the contact point. It
should be recalled that when Corazon chanced upon Primo and Crysthel, the former
was allegedly in a kneeling position, which Corazon described thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A: (The witness is demonstrating in such a way that the chest of the accused is pinning
down the victim, while his right hand is holding his penis and his left hand is spreading
the legs of the victim).
It can reasonably be drawn from the foregoing narration that Primo’s kneeling position
rendered an unbridled observation impossible. Not even a vantage point from the side
of the accused and the victim would have provided Corazon an unobstructed view of
Primo’s penis supposedly reaching Crysthel’s external genitalia, i.e., labia majora, labia
minora, hymen, clitoris, etc., since the legs and arms of Primo would have hidden his
movements from Corazon’s sight, not to discount the fact that Primo’s right hand was
allegedly holding his penis thereby blocking it from Corazon’s view. It is the burden of
the prosecution to establish how Corazon could have seen the sexual contact and to
shove her account into the permissive sphere of credibility. It is not enough that she
claims that she saw what was done to her daughter. It is required that her claim be
properly demonstrated to inspire belief. The prosecution failed in this respect, thus we
cannot conclude without any taint of serious doubt that inter-genital contact was at all
achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve the doubt in favor of the prosecution
but to run roughshod over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed
innocent.
Corazon insists that Primo did not restrain himself from pursuing his wicked intention
despite her timely appearance, thus giving her the opportunity to fully witness his
beastly act.
What appears to be the basis of the conviction of the accused was Crysthel’s answer to
the question of the court —
A: Yes, sir.
But when asked further whether his penis penetrated her organ, she readily said, "No."
Thus —
Q: But did his penis penetrate your organ?
A: No, sir. 20
This testimony alone should dissipate the mist of confusion that enshrouds the question
of whether rape in this case was consummated. It has foreclosed the possibility of
Primo’s penis penetrating her vagina, however slight. Crysthel made a categorical
statement denying penetration, 21 obviously induced by a question propounded to her
who could not have been aware of the finer distinctions between touching and
penetration. Consequently, it is improper and unfair to attach to this reply of a four (4)-
year old child, whose vocabulary is yet as underdeveloped as her sex and whose
language is bereft of worldly sophistication, an adult interpretation that because the
penis of the accused touched her organ there was sexual entry. Nor can it be deduced
that in trying to penetrate the victim’s organ the penis of the accused touched the
middle portion of her vagina and entered the labia of her pudendum as the prosecution
failed to establish sufficiently that Primo made efforts to penetrate Crysthel. 22 Corazon
did not say, nay, not even hint that Primo’s penis was erect or that he responded with
an erection. 23 On the contrary, Corazon even narrated that Primo had to hold his
penis with his right hand, thus showing that he had yet to attain an erection to be able
to penetrate his victim.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
Lastly, it is pertinent to mention the medico legal officer’s finding in this case that there
were no external signs of physical injuries on complaining witness’ body to conclude
from a medical perspective that penetration had taken place. As Dr. Aurea P. Villena
explained, although the absence of complete penetration of the hymen does not negate
the possibility of contact, she clarified that there was no medical basis to hold that
there was sexual contact between the accused and the victim. 27
In cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both
should in all respects complement each other; otherwise, to rely on the testimonial
evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate,
would be productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to
carefully ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial
threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated.
Failing in this, the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape will
significantly disappear.
Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when
the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of
attempted rape — and on]y of attempted rape — are present in the instant case,
hence, the accused should be punished only for it.
<Since it is not proven that the accused penetrated the vagina of the girl. Under Art. 6,
in relation to Art. 335, of the RPC, rape is attempted when the offender commences the
commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. He is instead found guilty of attempted
rape
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable penalty of
death for the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor below seven (7)
years. Two (2) degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
and in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the
penalty to be imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the medium period of
reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and (1)
day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be taken
from the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is
from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
chanrobles.com : virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused PRIMO "SONNY"
CAMPUHAN Y BELLO guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him to death and to pay
damages is MODIFIED. He is instead found guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and sentenced to
an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of
prision mayor medium as minimum, to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and twenty
(20) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
< Ma. Corazon, mother of (4)-year old Crysthel, went down from the second floor of
their house to prepare Milo drinks for her two (2) children. At the ground floor she met
accused who was then busy filling small plastic bags. As Corazon was busy preparing
the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayoko, ayoko!" prompting Corazon to
rush upstairs. She saw accused on the act of inserting his penis to Crysthel’s vagina >
< the trial court found the accused guilty of statutory rape >
<Yes. Since it is not proven that the accused penetrated the vagina of the girl. Under
Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the RPC, rape is attempted when the offender
commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. He is instead found guilty of
attempted rape
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: