People v. Dominguez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused was charged in multiple informations with counts of rape and attempted rape, qualified by relationship and the minority of the private offended party. The prosecution presented the private offended party, her mother, a relative eyewitness, and a medico-legal officer. A medico-legal report and civil registry documents were offered. The facts, as found by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, supported repeated incidents involving the private offended party when she was 12 to 13 years old and included corroborative medical findings. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty and the cases were tried before the Regional Trial Court (Regional Trial Court (RTC)). The RTC found the accused guilty of three counts of qualified rape and two counts of attempted rape and rendered a decision dated 2006-02-06. The records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals (CA)) which, in a decision dated 2007-07-31, affirmed in part and modified the RTC judgment, converting two counts to acts of lasciviousness and reducing penalties in light of Republic Act No. 9346. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued the present decision affirming the convictions for three counts of qualified rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness with modifications to damages and penalties on 2010-11-24. The Petition: The accused argued on appeal that (a) the trial court erred in convicting him of attempted rape in two counts, (b) the penalties imposed for attempted rape were improper given the abrogation of the death penalty, and (c) the conviction for three counts of qualified rape and imposition of the death penalty were erroneous. The Office of the Solicitor General (Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)) represented the prosecution on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in converting two counts of attempted rape into acts of lasciviousness. Whether the penalty imposed for attempted rape was proper in view of the abrogation of the death penalty by Republic Act No. 9346. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused of three counts of qualified rape and imposing the supreme penalty of death.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision with modifications. The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of qualified rape and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count, and ordered to pay civil indemnity of ₱75,000, moral damages of ₱75,000, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000 for each count. The accused is also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced for each count to imprisonment of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correccional as maximum, and ordered to pay civil indemnity of ₱20,000, moral damages of ₱30,000, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000 for each count. Interest at 6% per annum from finality is ordered on all damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the CA erred in converting two counts of attempted rape into acts of lasciviousness: The Court reasoned that under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, attempt requires that the offender commence the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and fail to complete it for reasons independent of his spontaneous desistance. The Court emphasized that in rape the commencement of the act is marked by penetration of the penis into the vagina and that penetration, however slight, must be shown to sustain a conviction for attempted rape. Applying Perez v. Court of Appeals and People v. Caingat, the Court found that the evidence for the two contested incidents established only undressing of the parties and interruption prior to any commencement of penetration. The Court further relied on the absence of medical or testimonial proof of any attempted penetration during those two occasions and held that the acts described fit the statutory elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 rather than attempted rape. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals modification to convict for acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape. On Whether the penalty for attempted rape was proper in view of RA No. 9346: The Court noted that Republic Act No. 9346 abolished the death penalty and requires that penalties previously carrying death be adjusted accordingly. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in reducing any death sentences to reclusion perpetua where applicable and clarified that attempted rape, when properly convicted, must bear the penalty two degrees lower than the intended felony; however, because the two counts were reclassified as acts of lasciviousness, the issue of attempted rape penalties was rendered academic for those counts. The Court therefore affirmed modified penalties consistent with RA No. 9346 for the qualified rape convictions and applied the indeterminate sentence law and applicable provisions for acts of lasciviousness. The Court also adjusted exemplary damages in light of current jurisprudence. On Whether the RTC erred in convicting the accused of three counts of qualified rape and imposing death: The Court upheld the convictions for three counts of qualified rape, finding that the private offended party gave consistent, candid, and detailed testimony corroborated by medico-legal findings indicating repeated penile penetration. Applying People v. Orillosa, the Court held that in incestuous rape the father's moral ascendancy can constitute sufficient force or intimidation, and that the victim's explanations for delay in reporting were credible and consistent with established jurisprudence. The accused's bare denials and alibi were found inadequate to overcome the positive identification and corroborative medical evidence, following People v. Nieto and related authorities. Given RA No. 9346, the Court converted the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and fixed damages accordingly.
Main Doctrine
In incestuous rape of a minor the moral ascendancy of the father suffices to establish force or intimidation; attempted rape requires commencement of penetration to be established; where penetration is not shown the proper crime is acts of lasciviousness.