People v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Enrico Mariano y Exconde, was charged with three counts of rape against his then ten-year-old daughter, Jenalyn F. Mariano. The alleged incidents occurred in August 1992, September 1996, and February 1997. In all three instances, the accused, while intoxicated, allegedly attempted to have sexual intercourse with Jenalyn. During these attempts, the accused used force and intimidation, including the display of a knife, and removed Jenalyn's undergarments. However, according to Jenalyn's testimony, the accused was unable to achieve penetration of her vagina on any of the occasions, with his penis only touching her groin area or external surface. Jenalyn eventually confided in her aunt, who brought her to the police. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and sentenced him to death for each count, ordering him to pay P500,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. The Petition: The accused appealed his conviction, questioning the truthfulness of Jenalyn's testimony and arguing it lacked the element of penetration necessary for consummated rape. The prosecution sought to uphold the conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused is guilty of consummated rape or attempted rape. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established penetration for the crime of consummated rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the accused guilty of three counts of attempted rape, not consummated rape. The Court SET ASIDE the decision of the RTC and sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each case. The accused was ordered to indemnify the victim P30,000.00 as civil indemnity, P25,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, in each case, to be served successively.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the accused is guilty of consummated rape or attempted rape: The Court ruled that the evidence did not establish consummated rape. The victim, Jenalyn F. Mariano, testified that while her father attempted to insert his penis into her vagina, penetration did not occur. She stated that his penis only touched her groin area ('singit') or the external surface of her vagina. The Court cited jurisprudence, including People v. Campuhan, People v. Bation, and People v. Oliver, which consistently hold that for rape to be consummated, there must be penetration of the female organ, however slight. Merely touching the external surface of the female organ or the mons pubis is insufficient. The Court noted that Jenalyn's testimony indicated that the accused's penis was too big to penetrate her vagina, and that the lacerations found by the doctor could have resulted from causes other than sexual penetration. Therefore, based on the lack of proof of penetration, the crime committed was attempted rape, not consummated rape. The Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the precise degree of culpability, and the victim's testimony alone, without sufficient proof of penetration, is not enough to convict for consummated rape. On the issue of whether the evidence presented sufficiently established penetration for the crime of consummated rape: The Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish penetration. Jenalyn's testimony was clear that there was no penetration of her vagina, only touching of the external parts or 'fingering.' The medical examination revealed old healed lacerations that could have been caused by various factors, not exclusively sexual penetration. The Court reiterated that in cases of rape, medical findings must complement testimonial evidence. In the absence of clear proof that the penis entered the labial threshold of the female organ, the charge of consummated rape cannot be sustained. The Court applied the principle that 'absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching 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.' Consequently, the conviction for attempted rape was deemed appropriate.
Main Doctrine
For consummated rape to be established, there must be penetration of the female organ, however slight. Mere touching of the external surface of the female organ or stroking the groin area does not constitute consummated rape, but may be considered attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.