CRUZ v.

PEOPLE
GR 166441; OCT 8,
2014

RTC: Attempted Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness

CA: Attempted Rape affirmed; Acts of Lasciviousness acquitted
R45
ISSUES:
1. In giving credence to the incredulous and unbelievable testimony of the alleged victim
2. In convicting the accused notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
FIRST:
Petitioner assails the behavior and credibility of AAA. He argues that AAA still continued working for him
and his wife until December 30, 1994 despite the alleged attempted rape in the early morning of
December 21, 1994, thereby belying his commission of the crime against her; that he could not have
undressed her without rousing her if she had gone to sleep only an hour before, because her bra was
locked at her back; that her testimony about his having been on top of her for nearly an hour while they
struggled was also inconceivable unless she either consented to his act and yielded to his lust, or the
incident did not happen at all, being the product only of her fertileimagination; that the record does not
indicate if he himself was also naked, or that his penis was poised to penetrate her; and that she and her
mother demanded from him P80,000.00 as settlement, under threat that she would file a case against
him.
Nonetheless, rape admits of an attempted stage. In this connection, the character of the overt actsfor
purposes of the attempted stage has been explained in People v. Lizada: 22
An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
The raison detrefor the law requiring a direct overtact is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the
accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily
so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the
act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt
act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so
long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is.It is
necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the

design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the
commission of the offense after the preparations are made." The act done need not constitute the last
proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to
the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation
to the offense. (Bold emphasis supplied)
In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts of
execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates
rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should produce the
felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to have a causal
relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female.
Accepting that intent, being a mental act, is beyond the sphere of criminal law, 23 that showing must be
through his overt acts directly connected with rape. He cannot be held liable for attempted rape without
such overt acts demonstrating the intent to lie with the female. In short, the State, to establish attempted
rape, must show that his overt acts, should his criminal intent be carried to its complete termination
without being thwarted by extraneous matters, would ripen into rape, 24 for, as succinctly put in People v.
Dominguez, Jr.:25 "The gauge in determining whether the crime of attempted rape had been committed is
the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse, i.e., penetration of the penis into the vagina, before
the interruption."
The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her genitalia with his hands
and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on
her. Yet, inferring from such circumstances thatrape, and no other,was his intended felony would be
highly unwarranted. This was so, despite his lust for and lewd designs towards her being fully manifest.
Such circumstances remained equivocal, or "susceptible of double interpretation," as Justice Recto put in
People v. Lamahang, supra, such that it was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to
cause rape as the particular injury. Verily, his felony would not exclusively be rapehad he been allowed by
her to continue, and to have sexual congress with her, for some other felony like simple seduction (if he
should employ deceit to have her yield to him) 26 could also be ultimate felony.
It is obvious that the fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the
offendersintent to lie with the female. In rape, intent to lie with the female is indispensable, but this
element is not required in acts of lasciviousness. 29 Attempted rape is committed, therefore, when the
"touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate is
manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching the

external genitalia of the female.30 Without such showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is
committed.31
The information charged that the petitioner "remove[d] her panty and underwear and la[id] on top of said
AAA embracing and touching her vagina and breast." With such allegation of the information being
competently and satisfactorily proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts
of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. His embracing her and touching her vagina and
breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his
erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred any inference
about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her.
The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from his own
declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts directly leading to rape. A good illustration of this
can be seen in People v. Bugarin, 34 where the accused was charged with attempted rape through an
information alleging that he, by means of force and intimidation, "did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously commence the commission of the crime of Rape directly by overt acts, by then and there
kissing the nipples and the vagina of the undersigned [complainant], a minor, and about to lay on top of
her, all against her will, however, [he] did not perform all the acts of execution which would have
produced the crime of Rape by reason of some causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that
is, undersigned complainant push[ed] him away." The accused was held liable only for acts of
lasciviousness because the intent to commit rape "is not apparent from the act described,"
and the intent to have sexual intercourse with her was not inferable from the act of licking
her genitalia. The Court also pointed out that the "act imputed to him cannot be considered a
preparatory act to sexual intercourse."

PEOPLE v. PAREJA
(GR 202122;
JANUARY 15, 2014)

SECOND:
The petitioner assails the glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA that cast doubt on her veracity.
RTC: Attempted Rape acquitted for lack of evidence
For Acts of Lasciviousness and Rape convicted
CA: reversed the two convictions
ISSUES:
1. TC seriously erred in convicting Pareja of the crimes charged notwithstanding that his guilt has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt
2. TC gravely erred in convicting Pareja based solely on the prosecution witness testimony.

3. Private complainants actuations after the incident negate the possibility that she was raped.
THIRD: Credibility of witnesses
When the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented before this Court, we follow certain guidelines that
have overtime been established in jurisprudence. In People v. Sanchez, 20 we enumerated them as follows:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTCs evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses,
considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its
vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTCs assessments and
conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower courts findings, particularly when no
significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been
overlooked or disregarded.
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. (Citations omitted.)
The recognized rule in this jurisdiction is that the "assessment of the credibility of witnesses is a domain
best left to the trial court judge because of his unique opportunity to observe their deportment and
demeanor on the witness stand; a vantage point denied appellate courts-and when his findings have been
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, these are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court." 21 While
there are recognized exceptions to the rule, this Court has found no substantial reason to overturn the
identical conclusions of the trial and appellate courts on the matter of AAAs credibility.
Besides, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in a rape victims testimony are generally expected. 22 As this
Court stated in People v. Saludo23:
Rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. For such an offense is not
analogous to a persons achievement or accomplishment as to be worth recalling or reliving; rather, it is
something which causes deep psychological wounds and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her
psyche for life and which her conscious and subconscious mind would opt to forget. Thus, a rape victim
cannot be expected to mechanically keep and then give an accurate account of the traumatic and
horrifying experience she had undergone. (Citation omitted.)
Since human memory is fickle and prone to the stresses of emotions, accuracy in a testimonial account
has never been used as a standard in testing the credibility of a witness. 24 The inconsistencies mentioned
by Pareja are trivial and non-consequential matters that merely caused AAA confusion when she was
being questioned. The inconsistency regarding the year of the December incident is not even a matter

pertaining to AAAs ordeal.25 The date and time of the commission of the crime of rape becomes
important only when it creates serious doubt as to the commission of the rape itself or the sufficiency of
the evidence for purposes of conviction. In other words, the "date of the commission of the rape becomes
relevant only when the accuracy and truthfulness of the complainants narration practically hinge on the
date of the commission of the crime."26 Moreover, the date of the commission of the rape is not an
essential element of the crime.27
Furthermore, settled is the rule that the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to produce
a conviction, if the same appears to be trustworthy and reliable. If credible and convincing,
that alone would be sufficient to convict the accused. No law or rule requires the
corroboration of the testimony of a single witness in a rape case.32
One may also suppose that growing children sleep more soundly than grown-ups and are not easily
awakened by adult exertions and suspirations in the night. There is no merit in appellants contention that
there can be no rape in a room where other people are present. There is no rule that rape can be
committed only in seclusion. We have repeatedly declared that "lust is no respecter of time and place,"
and rape can be committed in even the unlikeliest of places.
DEMEANOR OF AAA AS A RAPE VICTIM
A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the
victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the fact that
no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that
failure of the victim to shout or seek help do not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that
the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission
by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or
common law spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence. 38 In this case, AAAs lack
of resistance was brought about by her fear that Pareja would make good on his threat to kill her if she
ever spoke of the incident.
AAAs conduct, i.e., acting like nothing happened, after being sexually abused by Pareja is also not
enough to discredit her. Victims of a crime as heinous as rape, cannot be expected to act within reason or
in accordance with societys expectations. It is unreasonable to demand a standard rational reaction to an
irrational experience, especially from a young victim. One cannot be expected to act as usual in an
unfamiliar situation as it is impossible to predict the workings of a human mind placed under emotional
stress. Moreover, it is wrong to say that there is a standard reaction or behavior among victims of the
crime of rape since each of them had to cope with different circumstances. 39

Likewise, AAAs delay in reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and
does not affect the veracity of her charges. It should be remembered that Pareja threatened to kill her if
she told anyone of the incidents. In People v. Ogarte, 40 we explained why a rape victims deferral in
reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of the accusation, to wit:
The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or to
report the matter to the authorities does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually
molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in
prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain
or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal
their shame to the world or risk the offenders making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims
In People v. Perez,43 this Court aptly held:
This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve
full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a
public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of
tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious
as rape if what she claims is not true.
RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT v. RAPE THROUGH CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal
knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during trial.
This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape; thus,
the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict Pareja of
rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge, would be to
violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
Variance Doctrine
May be convicted of a lesser crime, e.g. acts of lasciviousness
Faulty and defective Information
A faulty and defective Information, such as that in Criminal Case No. 04-1556-CFM, does not render full
justice to the State, the offended party, and even the offender. Thus, the public prosecutor should always
see to it that the Information is accurate and appropriate.

TIBONG v. PEOPLE
(GR 191000;
SEPTEMBER 15,
2010)

Convicted of attempted rape.

While rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature, they are fundamentally different.
For in rape, thereis the intent to lie with a woman, whereas in acts of lasciviousness, this element is
absent.
Ironically, during the defenses cross examination of AAA, the existence of petitioners overt acts showing
his intent to lie with her was put to light.
Petitioners acts, as narrated by AAA, far from being mere obscene or lewd, indisputably show that he
intended to have, and was bent on consummating, carnal knowledge of AAA.