Lutap v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edmisael C. Lutap was charged with rape by sexual assault for allegedly inserting his finger into the vagina of AAA, a 6-year-old minor, on April 27, 2004. The prosecution presented AAA, her younger brother BBB, her mother DDD, and a police officer as witnesses. AAA testified that petitioner touched her vagina while she was wearing shorts and a panty, and she swayed his hand away. BBB corroborated this, stating petitioner used his middle finger and described the act as "tickling" AAA's vagina. AAA also told her mother that petitioner had touched her vagina "many times" and had previously made her remove her panty and let him lick her vagina. Petitioner denied the accusations, claiming he merely pacified AAA and BBB who were quarreling over text cards. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found petitioner guilty of rape by sexual assault, considering the victim's age as an aggravating circumstance, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision, finding petitioner guilty of attempted rape, reasoning that there was no insertion of the finger but merely touching, and thus no penetration. The Petition: Petitioner sought the reversal of the CA decision, arguing that there was no evidence of his sexual organ touching the victim's body, nor clear evidence of intent to forcefully insert his finger into her vagina, especially since she was fully clothed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner for the crime of attempted rape. Whether the act of touching the victim's vagina, without penetration, constitutes attempted rape or rape by sexual assault.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision finding the petitioner guilty of attempted rape. The Court found petitioner Edmisael Lutap guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of R.A. 7610. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum. Petitioner was also ordered to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, and a fine of PhP15,000.00 each, and civil indemnity of PhP20,000.00, with legal interest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner for the crime of attempted rape: The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner for attempted rape. The Court reiterated that for rape by sexual assault involving the use of fingers, there must be evidence of at least the slightest penetration of the sexual organ, not merely a brush or graze of its surface. The testimonies of AAA and BBB, while establishing malicious touching, did not convincingly prove the insertion of petitioner's finger into AAA's vagina. The Court emphasized that the act of touching a female's sexual organ, standing alone, is not equivalent to rape, not even an attempted one, as it requires sufficient and convincing proof of penetration or entry into the labia. Therefore, the overt act of touching AAA's vagina, without more, could not be interpreted as demonstrating an intent to actually insert his finger inside her sexual organ or to have carnal knowledge with the victim. On the issue of whether the act of touching the victim's vagina, without penetration, constitutes attempted rape or rape by sexual assault: The Supreme Court held that the act of touching AAA's vagina, even with the use of a finger, did not constitute attempted rape or rape by sexual assault because there was no penetration. The Court applied the principle that the slightest penetration is required to consummate rape, and for attempted rape, there must be overt acts directly connected to the commission of the felony that would ripen into rape. In this case, the established act was merely touching, which was insufficient to prove the intent to penetrate or commit rape. Instead, the Court found that petitioner's lewd act of fondling AAA's sexual organ consummated the felony of acts of lasciviousness, as defined under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 2(h) of R.A. 7610. The Court noted that the intentional touching, directly or through clothing, of the genitalia with intent to abuse, humiliate, degrade, or arouse sexual desire, is considered lascivious conduct under R.A. 7610, especially when the victim is a child under twelve years of age.
Main Doctrine
The mere touching of a female's sexual organ, without any penetration, does not constitute attempted rape or rape by sexual assault. At most, such act, when committed upon a minor, constitutes acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 of R.A. 7610.