Stages of Execution

Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs. Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666; People v. Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People v. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559; People v. Rabadan, et at., 53 Phil. 694; United States v. Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed.“Of course, We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in the case of People v. Erinia, 50 Phil. 998 (1927) where We found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the oUended party. However, it appears that this is a “stray” decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our subsequent decisions. Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632 (dated September 12, 1960) and Republic Act No. 4111 (dated March 29, 1965) which provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of death when rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. We are of the opinion that this particular provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Erinia case, supra, might have prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the amendments introduced by said laws.”

“In concluding that there is conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the victim, the trial court relied on the testimony of Dr. Zamora when he “categorically declared that the findings in the vulva does not give a concrete disclosure of penetration. As a matter of fact, he tossed back to the offended party the answer as to whether or not there actually was penetration.” (p. 53, Rob) Furthermore, the trial court stated (p 57, Rob):

x x It cannot be insensible to the findings in the medical certificate (Exhibit “A”) as interpreted by Dr. Reinerio Zamora and the equivocal declaration of the latter of uncertainty whether there was penetration or not. It is true, and the Court is not oblivious, that conviction for rape could proceed from the uncorroborated testimony of the offended party and that a medical certificate is not necessary (People v. Royeras, People v. Orteza, 6 SCRA 109, 113). But the citations the people relied upon cannot be applicable to the instant case. The testimony of the offended party is at variance with the medical certificate. As such, a very disturbing doubt has surfaced in the mind of the court. It should be stressed that in cases of rape where there Is a positive testimony and medical certificate, both should in all respect, compilment each other, for otherwise to rely on the testimony alone in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate, would be productive of mischievous results.”

“There alleged variance between the testimony of the victim and the medical certificate that the vulva was erythematous (which means marked by abnormal redness of the skin due to capillary congestion, as in inflammation) and tender. It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim. He merely testified that there was uncertainty whether or not there was penetration. Anent this testimony, the victim positively testified that there was penetration, even if only partially (pp. 302, 304, t.s.n., May 23, 1984):

“Q Was the penis inserted on the vagina?
“A It entered but only a portion of it.” x x x
“Q What do you mean when you said comply, or what act do you referred (sic) to, when you said comply?
“A I inserted his penis into my vagina.
“Q And was it inserted?
“A Yes, only a little.”

The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim’s testimony if credible (People v. Tabago G.R. No. 69778, November 8, 1988, 167 SCRA 65; People v. Aragona, G.R. No. L-43752, September 19, 1985, 138 SCRA 569; People v. Taduyo, G.R. Nos. L.3792829, September 29, 1987, 154 SCRA 349). Moreover, Dr. Zamora’s testimony is merely corroborative and is an indispensable element in the prosecution of this case” (People v.Alfonso, supra).

Attempted Rape

Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female’s organ (People vs. Tayabas, 62 Phil. 559; People vs. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil., 694; United States vs. Garcia, 9 Phil. 443).

Where the accused seized the complaining witness and attempted to throw her to the ground under circumstances showing a purpose to ravish her forcibly, but desisted by reason of the strenuous resistance which she offered, and also because of the approach of persons attracted by her scream, the offense is attempted rape (United States vs. Estrada, 24 Phil. 401. With the use of force and despite the woman’s resistance, the accused lifted the hem of her skirt, embraced, hugged and kissed her, desisting only when she screamed and stood up, attempted rape is committed (People vs. Ching Suy Siong, et al., 96 Phil. 975).

Consummated Rape

In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and from that moment all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated (People vs. Orita, supra).

For the consummation of the crime of rape, it is not essential that there be complete penetration of the female organ. Neither is it essential that there be rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina. It is sufficient if the labia be penetrated (People vs. Oscar 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980). Perfect penetration is not essential (People vs. Orita, supra). The slightest penetration of the pudenda is quite sufficient (People vs. Rosell, 191 SCRA 679).

“To prove a charge of rape, it is not necessary to prove a rupture of the hymen; nor is it necessary to show that there was a laceration of the vagina which usually results from first time copulation, espeeiahly with young girls (People vs. Lomibao, 55 Phil. 616). Neither is complete penetration necessary. In view of the tender age of the victim, penetration may indeed be impossible”. (People vs. Erinia, supra) Absence of spermatozoa in the vagina or thereabouts does not negate the commission of rape (People vs. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571). Presence of marks or signs of physical violence or injuries on the victim’s body is not necessary for rape to be committed (People vs. Feliciano, 195 SCRA 19; People vs. Arenas, 198 SCRA 172), and the fact that the victim remained a virgin does not negate rape either (People vs. Castro, 196 SCRA 679).