1.

Acts of Lasciviousness – PP vs Bernabe

Pareja (P) appeals to the SC the decision of the CA which affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC
- Pasay City for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness.

Facts:

RTC:
Information for 2 counts of rape:

A. February, 2004 – P (common law spouse of victim’s mother) committed sexual assault
through “F,T,I” did there and there “W,U,F” mashed her breast and inserted his finger inside
her vagina against her will.
B. December, 2003 – P, through “F,T,I” did there and then “W,U,F” have carnal knowledge
with AAA against her will. (Penis to Anus)

Information for Attempted Rape:

A. March, 2004 – P commenced the commission of the crime of rape by crawling towards her
while she was sleeping, pulling her skirt, but did not perform all the acts of execution which
would have produced the crime of rape because of reason other than his own spontaneous
desistance when AAA’s mother arrived and confronted the accused.

After the March, 2004 incident, AAA’s mother brought her to the barangay where AAA reported that
she was abused many times. They proceeded to the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General
Hospital for medical examination which genital findings show that there is clear evidence of blunt
force/penetrating trauma. RTC acquitted P from the charge of attempted rape, (March 2004 incident)
for failure of prosecution to present AAA’s mother as witness and want of evidence, but convicted him
of the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness in the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents,
respectively.

P attacks the credibility of AAA (as basis for his prosecution) due to inconsistencies.

I: w/n the credibility of AAA is questionable?

H: No. The court held the contention of P untenable in view of the ruling in PP vs Sanchez where the
court give the highest respect to the trial court’s evaluation of testimony considering that it has direct
observation of the witness’ demeanor and in the best position to determine its truthfulness. Second,
absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessment and
conclusion, the reviewing court is bound by its findings and third, the rule is stringently applied if CA
concurred with the RTC. Besides, inconsistencies in rape victim’s testimony are generally expected.
In PP vs. Saludo, the court held that rape is a painful experience which often times is not
remembered in detail. For such offense is not analogous to a person’s achievements or
accomplishments worth remembering or reliving. It is something which causes deep psychological
wounds which 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 can’t be expected to keep and give
an accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying experience she had undergone. The
inconsistencies mentioned by P are trivial.

(The SC affirmed the decision of the CA with modification. P is guilty of 2 counts of Acts of
Lasciviousness. In the December 2003 incident, what he committed was Rape by Sexual Assault
(RSA), however, the charge in the information was Rape by Carnal Knowledge (RCK). P can’t be
found guilty of RSA even if it was proven in the trial because of the material differences between 2
modes of rape. Consequently, to convict him of RSA when he was charged with RCK would violate
his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
Nevertheless, he may be convicted of a lesser crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under the variance
doctrine (Sec 4 and 5 of Rule 120 of Rules of CrimPro). Since the elements of Acts of Lasc were
present in the December 2003 incident and proven on trial, he may be convicted of Acts of Lasc
without violation of his constitutional right because said crime is included in the crime of rape.)