Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

PEOPLE v.

ALCOREZA degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence the conclusion that
Automatic Review of a decision of the RTC touching the labia majora or minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.
Facts: ♦ He failed to perform all acts of the execution which should produce the crime of
♦ Ireneo Alcorezo (stepfather) was charged with rape by Estrella Manila (14 yrs. rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance.
old) and 2 counts of statutory rape by Mary Joy Manila (11 yrs. old). 2. WON the accused is guilty of attempted rape? NO
♦ September 21, 1997 – the accused had carnal knowledge of Mary Joy. He ♦ Estrella's account of the incident showed that there was no real and immediate
kissed and embraced her and inserted his penis into her organ. threat to her womanhood up to the time the appellant desisted from
consummating the rape, he could not be found guilty of attempted rape.
♦ September 27, 1997 – the accused again tried to have carnal knowledge of
Mary Joy. When the accused mounted her, his penis touched her organ but he ♦ the prosecution evidence failed to prove that rape, at whatever stage, was
failed to insert it as he heard her 8-year old brother, Benito, arrive. The accused committed
immediately pushed her away and put on his clothing. Benito, however, still saw
Mary Joy naked on the bed. ♦ The acts described by Estrella are insufficient to prove that the appellant
♦ September 28, 1997 – Mary Joy sought the assistance of her sister and intended to have carnal knowledge of Estrella. He did not lie on top of Estrella
revealed her sexual ordeal. With the aid of their grandfather they reported the or even made the motion of removing his underwear. In fact, he kept his clothes
incident to the authorities. on during the entire time that he was in the bedroom. Neither does it appear
♦ Her grandfather also discovered that the accused was also molesting his other that he tried to insert his finger or any object into the genital or anal orifice of
granddaughter, Estrella. Estrella. All that the appellant was able to do was touch her "private parts".
♦ October 18, 1996 – the accused tried to have carnal knowledge of her but he The appellant can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness
failed because he sensed that he might get caught by the mother. 3. WON the allegation of the qualifying circumstance of relationship was proven?
♦ Medico-legal examination revealed that both Mary Joy and Estrella were in a NO
♦ Relationship between the accused and Mary Joy was not established.
non-virgin state. Mary Joy had a healed laceration and abrasion on her hymen
while Estrella's hymen sustained 4 healed lacerations. ♦ Prosecution failed to offer the marriage contract of the appellant and Melita
(mother) which could establish that Mary Joy is the stepdaughter of the
appellant.
Issues: ♦ The Court cannot rely on the disputable presumption that when a man and a
1. WON the accused is guilty of statutory rape? FIRST COUNT – YES, SECOND woman live together as husband and wife, they are presumed to be married.
COUNT - ATTEMPTED Relationship as a qualifying circumstance in rape must not only be alleged
♦ The alleged inconsistency in the testimony of Mary Joy regarding the September clearly. It must also be proven beyond reasonable doubt, just as the crime itself
21, 1997 rape incident is too flimsy and trivial to merit serious consideration.
Indeed, it is not unnatural to find minor discrepancies in the testimony of a rape PEOPLE v. BAILOSIS
victim, especially that of a child. She cannot be expected to remember every
minute detail of her ordeal
♦ His alibi is vague, unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.
♦ Second count of statutory rape – attempted only and not consummated
♦ Her account of what transpired reveals that the appellant failed to insert his
penis in her organ.
♦ Accused failed to consummate the crime of rape as his penis merely touched
her organ.
♦ People vs. Campuhan
o mere touching of the private organ of the victim should be
understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labias
of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis
or pudendum
o Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean
mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush
or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina,
or the mons pubis
o There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed
touched the labias or slid into the female organ and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof for an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape. As the labias are required to be "touched" by the
penis, which are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons
pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch with the penis is to attain some
PEOPLE v. BALBAR varied from case to case, the demarcation line is difficult to pinpoint between
Facts lascivious acts and acts of an amorous lover.”US v Gomez
 Tiburcio Balbar in Aug. 20, 1960( in the information it’s Aug 29) went inside the  The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts and
classroom where teacher, Ester Gonzales was in during school classes. circumstances.
 Without warning after Ester finished writing on the board, Balbar placed his arms  In this case, taking the manner, place and time, the acts as lewd designs can’t be
around her and kissed her on the eye. Ester pushed him away and tried to flee. attributed to the accused. The factual setting of the schoolroom within the
Balbar then brought out his “daga”,(knife) and pursued Ester and embraced her presence of the students and hearing distance of co-teachers rules out the
while holding the daga. They fell on the floor and Ester suffered slight physical purpose of lewd or lustful designs.
injuries. • It may be the he hugged and kissed the girl, but it doesn’t make it
 Two informations were taken from the same incident.: punishable within Art. 336.
One for Direct Assault Upon a Person in Authority: Aug 29, Balbar willfully
unlawfully and feloniously assaulted Ester, a public school teacher in the school bldg The case is remanded but the quashing of the Direct Assault charge is set aside. But the
of Lian, duly qualified and appointed as such and while in the performance of her quashing of the charge of Act of Lasciviousness is affirmed.
official duties. By then and there pulling his dagger and embracing and kissing her,
committed with the aggravating circumstance of committing it inside the school
building during school hours.
One for Acts of Lasciviousness: Aug 29 Balbar with deliberate intent to
satisfy his lust, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit an act of lasciviousness on
the person of Ester, a public school teacher, by placing himself close to her,
embracing and kissing her against her will and by means of force. And as a result,
the Ester fell to the floor, causing her injury, resulting to pain and tenderness on the
right side of the trunk on the posterior surface of the right arm which may require 3-
4 days to heal. Committed with the aggravating circumstance of perpetrated inside
the public school bldg during class hours.
 The accused filed a motion to quash arguing that the Direct Assault charge had no
sufficient cause of action and that it charges two offenses in a single complaint. And
secondly, that the charge of acts of Lasciviousness would place the accused in Double
Jeopardy.
 So even if the Prov. Fiscal disagrees, the lower court quashed the two informations
saying that the Lasciviousness is absorbed in the physical injuries or unjust vexation
(it can’t be direct assault because the element of direct assault is absent in the info).
Since the physical injuries or unjust vexation within the original jurisdiction of the
justice of Peace then the information is quashed(along with the absorbed).
 Then the Government appealed that the main element of direct assault is missing in
the info, which is the knowledge of the accused that the person is in authority. 1

Issue
WON the Lower court made an error in quashing the information for the said
reasons above.YES
 There is no need for the allegation in the info of the knowledge of the accused of the
authority of the teacher.
 She is a teacher inside her classroom during school hours in the performance of her
duty makes the fact known to the accused.
 It doesn’t matter if it wasn’t alleged. Complainant’s status is a matter of law and not
of fact, ignorance of this is no excuse. (art.3 cc)

WON the dismissal of the information for lack of lasciviousness is correct. YES
 The SC agrees with this conclusion, that although some acts lead to more than one
offense, upon examination of the events, it seems that the acts of lasciviousness
does not appear to have been committed.
 “It is somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing what conduct
makes one amendable to Art 3366, which constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct. It is

1
Art 148, RPC, direct assault is committed by any person who without public uprising xxxx shall attack, employ, force, or
seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official
duties. And Art 152 says that teachers, professors and persons who are charged to supervise public or private schools
are person in authority.