People v. Monteron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 7, 1996, a fifteen-year-old victim, Mary Ann Martenez, was walking home from school when she was hit on the head by a slingshot. She fell unconscious and upon regaining consciousness, found herself naked on the grass with the accused-appellant, Marianito Monteron, lying on top of her, also naked. The victim struggled, but the accused restrained her. He placed his penis on top of her vagina, causing her pain. The victim grabbed his penis, causing him pain, and he stood up. The victim ran away and reported the incident to her uncle, who informed her mother. The accused was arrested. Procedural History: The victim was examined by Dr. Danilo P. Ledesma, who found her hymen intact but her labia minora coaptated and labia majora gaping. The accused was charged with rape. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15, convicted the accused-appellant of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim. The accused appealed. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision, arguing that the court erred in not acquitting him due to reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of rape. Whether the crime committed was attempted rape or consummated rape. Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Rape and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum. He was also ordered to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P25,000.00 as moral damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On the guilt of the accused-appellant: The Court found the positive identification of the accused-appellant by the victim, Mary Ann Martenez, and her cousin, Arnel Arat, to be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The victim positively identified the accused as the person who hit her with a slingshot and who was on top of her. Her cousin corroborated this testimony. The Court dismissed the accused-appellant's defenses of denial and alleged ill-will as unsubstantiated and inherently weak against positive identification. The Court also noted that the defense of denial is not given much weight against the positive assertions of prosecution witnesses. The Court further held that the relationship of Arnel Arat to the victim did not impair his credibility, as relatives often have a stronger interest in seeing the truth prevail. The Court also found that the alleged family feud was not a strong enough motive to falsely accuse the accused of rape, and it is unnatural for a parent to expose their daughter to such shame if the charges were untrue. The Court also dismissed the argument that it was unlikely to commit rape in broad daylight, stating that lust respects no time or place. On whether the crime committed was attempted rape or consummated rape: The Court found that the crime committed was only attempted rape. The victim testified that the accused-appellant only placed his penis on top of her vagina and that she felt pain, but she was able to grab his penis and push it away, preventing insertion. The medical finding that the victim's hymen was intact and had no laceration further supported this conclusion. Citing People v. Campuhan, the Court reiterated that for rape to be consummated, there must be penetration of the female organ, not merely stroking the surface or touching the mons pubis. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration, the crime is at most attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. The Court concluded that the accused commenced the commission of rape by overt acts but did not perform all acts of execution due to the victim's resistance. On the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority: The Court considered the accused-appellant's testimony that he was born on December 3, 1979, making him seventeen years old at the time of the crime on March 7, 1996. The Court held that a claim of minority by an accused will be upheld even without corroborating proof, especially when the prosecution fails to present contradictory evidence. Therefore, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority was applied, which lowered the penalty by one degree. The penalty for attempted rape, which is two degrees lower than consummated rape (prision mayor), was further lowered by one degree due to minority, resulting in prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was set at four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court modified the RTC decision, finding the accused guilty of attempted rape instead of consummated rape due to lack of penetration, and applying the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority to lower the penalty.