This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-04-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| This argument of the accused is wrong and does not exculpate him from the charge of attempted rape. Had there been a hymenal laceration, it would no longer be merely an attempted rape. It would already be indicative that the crime of rape was indeed consummated. As held in People v. Collado: [32] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| According to People v. Collado,[27] the difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness lies in the intent of the perpetrator as deduced from his external acts. The intent referred to is the intent to lie with a woman.[28] Attempted rape is committed when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can only be acts of lasciviousness.[29] Thus, the accused's act of opening the zipper and buttons of AAA's shorts, touching her, and trying to pull her from under the bed manifested lewd designs, not intent to lie with her. The evidence to prove that a definite intent to lie with AAA motivated the accused was plainly wanting, therefore, rendering him guilty only of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 98-2305-MK. | |||||