G.R. No.

188979 September 5, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER PAREA ! "ELASCO, Appellant.
FACTS:
At around 3:30 a.m. of June 16, 2003, AAA was sleeping beside her two-ear old nephew, !!!, on
the floor of her sister"s room, when the appellant hugged her and #issed her nape and ne$#.
%
AAA
$ried, but the appellant $overed her and !!! with a blan#et.
6
&he appellant removed AAA"s $lothes,
short pants, and underwear' he then too# off his short pants and briefs.
(
&he appellant went on top of
AAA, and held her hands. AAA resisted, but the appellant parted her legs using his own legs, and
then tried to insert his penis into her vagina.
)
&he appellant stopped when AAA"s $r got louder' AAA
#i$#ed the appellant"s upper thigh as the latter was about to stand up. &he appellant put his $lothes
ba$# on, and threatened to #ill AAA if she dis$losed the in$ident to anone. *mmediatel after, the
appellant left the room.
+
AAA $overed herself with a blan#et and $ried.
10
&he prose$ution $harged the appellant before the ,&- with the $rime of rape
&he ,&- $onvi$ted the appellant of rape
&he -A affirmed the ,&- de$ision. *t e.plained that a slight penetration of the labia b the male
organ is suffi$ient to $onstitute rape.
*//01:
234 the rape was $onsummated.
5167:
&he -ourt ruled in the negative. 2e find that the prose$ution failed to prove the appellant"s
guilt beond reasonable doubt of the $rime of $onsummated rape. 2e $onvi$t him instead of
attempted rape, as the eviden$e on re$ord shows the presen$e of all the elements of this $rime.
8rom the foregoing, we find it $lear that the appellant"s penis did not penetrate, but merel 9tou$hed"
:i.e.,"naidikit";, AAA"s private part. *n fa$t, the vi$tim #o$%&rme' o$ #ro(()e*+m&$+t&o$ t,+t t,e
+ppe--+$t '&' $ot (.##ee' &$ &$(ert&$/ ,&( pe$&( &$to ,er 0+/&$+. /ignifi$antl, AAA"s
/inumpaang /alasa
2<
also dis$losed that the appellant was holding the vi$tim"s hand when he was
tring to insert his penis in her vagina. &his $ir$umstan$e = $oupled with the vi$tim"s de$laration that
she was resisting the appellant"s attempt to insert his penis into her vagina = ma#es penile
penetration highl diffi$ult, if not improbable. /ignifi$antl, nothing in the re$ords supports the -A"s
$on$lusion that the appellant"s penis penetrated, however slightl, the vi$tim"s female organ.
/impl put, >rape is $onsummated b the slightest penile penetration of the labia ma?ora or
pudendum of the female organ.>
2(
2ithout an showing of su$h penetration, there $an be no
$onsummated rape' at most, it $an onl be attempted rape @orA a$ts of las$iviousness.
, the prose$ution failed to present suffi$ient and $onvin$ing eviden$e to establish the reBuired penile
penetration. AAA"s testimon did not establish that the appellant"s penis tou$hed the labias or slid
into her private part. Aside from AAA"s testimon, no other eviden$e on re$ord, su$h as a medi$o-
legal report, $ould $onfirm whether there indeed had been penetration, however slight, of the vi$tim"s
labias. *n the absen$e of testimonial or phsi$al eviden$e to establish penile penetration, the
appellant $annot be $onvi$ted of $onsummated rape.
Arti$le 6 of the ,evised Cenal -ode, as amended, states that there is an attempt when the offender
$ommen$ed the $ommission of the $rime dire$tl b overt a$ts but does not perform all the a$ts of
e.e$ution b reason of some $ause or a$$ident other than his own spontaneous desistan$e.
*n People v. Publico,
2+
we ruled that 1,e$ t,e 2to.#,&$/2 o% t,e 0+/&$+ b! t,e pe$&( &( #o.p-e'
1&t, t,e &$te$t to pe$etr+te, +ttempte' r+pe &( #omm&tte'3 otherwise, the $rime $ommitted is
merel a$ts of las$iviousness.
*n the present $ase, the appellant $ommen$ed the $ommission of rape b the following overt a$ts:
#issing AAA"s nape and ne$#' undressing her' removing his $lothes and briefs' ling on top of her'
holding her hands and parting her legs' and tring to insert his penis into her vagina. &he appellant,
however, failed to perform all the a$ts of e.e$ution whi$h should produ$e the $rime of rape b
reason of a $ause other than his own spontaneous desistan$e, i.e., the vi$timDs loud $ries and
resistan$e. &he totalit of the appellant"s a$ts demonstrated the unmista#able ob?e$tive to insert his
penis into the vi$tim"s private parts.
>*n rape $ases, the prose$ution bears the primar dut to present its $ase with $larit and
persuasion, to the end that $onvi$tion be$omes the onl logi$al and inevitable $on$lusion.>
<2
2e
emphasiEe that a $onvi$tion $annot be made to rest on possibilities' strongest suspi$ion must not be
permitted to swa ?udgment. *n the present $ase, the prose$ution failed to dis$harge its burden of
proving all the elements of $onsummated rape.