People v. Banzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On June 29, 1901, around 8 o'clock in the evening, two sisters, Manuela (13 years old) and Felicisima Rey Hipolito (15 years old), were in a watercloset some distance from their house. They observed the two defendants concealed behind a tree near the privy. As the girls left the closet to return to their house, the defendants approached them. Manuel Banzon seized Manuela, and Jose seized Felicisima, embracing them and attempting to throw them to the ground with the intent to rape them. Procedural History: The case originated from a complaint filed against Manuel Banzon and Jose (surname not specified) for attempted rape. The trial court found the defendants guilty. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. The Appeal: The defendants-appellants pleaded not guilty and alleged that the incident was a simple quarrel. They appealed the judgment of the lower court, which had found them guilty of attempted rape.
Issue(s)
Whether the actions of the defendants constituted attempted rape. Whether there were aggravating or mitigating circumstances present.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court. It convicted each of the defendants of attempted rape and sentenced them to one year and six months of prision correccional, to pay half of the costs, and to suffer the accessory penalties established by Article 61 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the facts presented constituted the double crime of attempted rape. The Court reasoned that the defendants, by embracing the complaining witnesses and struggling with them with the clear intent to rape, commenced the execution of the crime through overt acts. Their failure to consummate the crime was not due to voluntary desistance but to the resistance of the victims and the intervention of their parents, who were attracted by the girls' screams. The Court cited Article 438 in connection with Articles 3 and 66 of the Penal Code as the basis for the conviction. On Issue 2: The Court found no aggravating circumstances present in the commission of the offense. However, it applied the mitigating circumstances provided in Article 11 of the Penal Code, considering the character of the crimes prosecuted and the personal conditions of the defendants and the complaining witnesses. Consequently, the penalty imposed was the minimum degree of that prescribed by law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that the crime of attempted rape was committed by the appellants. The Court held that the appellants' actions of approaching the victims, embracing them, and attempting to throw them to the ground, coupled with the clear intent to rape, constituted the commencement of the execution of the crime. The failure to consummate the rape was attributed to the victims' resistance and the arrival of their parents, not to any voluntary desistance by the appellants, thus satisfying the elements of attempted rape under Article 438 in relation to Articles 3 and 66 of the Penal Code.