This case has been cited 27 times or more.
|
2014-10-08 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The basic element of rape then and now is carnal knowledge of a female. Carnal knowledge is defined simply as "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman,"[16] which explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. In other words, rape is consummated once the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touches the external genitalia of the female.[17] In People v. Campuhan,[18] the Court has defined the extent of "touching" by the penis in rape in the following terms: [T]ouching when applied to rape cases docs 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, as in this case. 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, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. | |||||
|
2013-07-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan[26] that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. As the Court has explained in People v. Bali-balita,[27] the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in People v. Campuhan[27] that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. As the Court has explained in People v. Bali-Balita,[28] the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established. | |||||
|
2012-11-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| It is relevant to mention that carnal knowledge as an element of rape does not require penetration. Carnal knowledge is simply the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman.[12] Indeed, all that is necessary for rape to be consummated, according to People v. Campuhan,[13] is for the penis of the accused to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. Hence, rape is consummated once the penis of the accused touches either labia of the pudendum. | |||||
|
2012-09-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Lupac's argument hews closely to what the Court has stated in People v. Campuhan[20] to the effect that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt of at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female genital organ, which required some degree of penetration beyond the vulva in order to touch the labia majora or the labia minora. | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Nor did the absence of spermatozoa from the genitalia of AAA negate or disprove the rape.[20] The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, not ejaculation.[21] Carnal knowledge is defined as "the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman."[22] This explains why the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act already constitutes consummated rape.[23] People v. Campuhan[24] has aimed to remove any confusion as to the extent of "touching" in rape: [T]ouching 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, as in this case. 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, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In ruling against Ogan's argument, the appellate court correctly turned to jurisprudence that holds that even the slightest penetration of the female organ constitutes carnal knowledge.[32] Where penetration is not fully established, as accused-appellant insists, we have held that consummated rape can still be based on the victim's testimony that she felt pain in the attempt at penetration.[33] People v. Brioso[34] explains that the Court looks for other details in the evidence presented to be convinced that there was a penetration of the labia of the pudendum of the victim. In the instant case, BBB's testimony that she felt pain while Ogan inserted his penis into her sexual organ is corroborated by the medical findings of hymenal lacerations. We are thus convinced that Ogan did not merely commit acts of lasciviousness but was able to consummate the rape of BBB. The totality of the evidence points only to this conclusion. | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.[30] (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2008-12-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant argues that he cannot be held liable for consummated rape following the ruling in People v. Campuhan.[22] For this purpose, he cites the testimony of complainant that "not all" of accused-appellant's organ was inserted into her vagina. | |||||
|
2008-11-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.[30] (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2008-07-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Under Article 6, in relation to Article 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.[15] | |||||
|
2006-02-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| [16] People vs. Campuhan, 385 Phil. 912 (2000). | |||||
|
2003-11-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. [34] | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Neither could we associate the pain in her vagina with consummated carnal knowledge. Several alternative explanations for the pain, such as disease or exertion of varied forms of manipulation,[33] can be reasonably imagined and propounded, besides the essential fact of sexual congress. "Pain" is subjective and so easy to feign unless the specific cause is pinpointed which, in this case, should be an insertion of the penis into the vagina.[34] To insist on this inference of carnal knowledge on the strength solely of "pain" in the vagina effectively emasculates the critical distinction between consummated and attempted rape that we laid down in People v. Campuhan,[35] i.e., the touching of the female organ to constitute consummated rape should be construed in relation to the entry by the penis, however slight, into the labia majora. | |||||
|
2002-05-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the precise degree of culpability of the accused. It must demonstrate in sufficient detail the manner by which the crime was perpetrated. Certainly, the testimony of the victim to the effect that the accused repeatedly poked her vagina and that she felt pain as a consequence thereof, would not be enough to warrant the conclusion that a consummated rape had indeed been committed. The quantum of evidence in criminal cases requires more than that. Prior to Francisco, we ruled in People v. Tolentino[68] that the testimony, "binundul-bundol ang kanyang ari," did not conclusively prove that rape was committed to the exclusion of other offenses and further held that "this testimony is subject to different interpretations and will not lead to the conclusion that [the accused's] intent was to have carnal knowledge of her." No consummated rape took place in People v. Arce[69] on account of the victim's claim that the accused "attempted to touch her vagina with his penis or 'idinidikit yung ari niya.'" In these cases where the victim herself, as Lenie in the instant case, failed to state for the record that there was insertion of the penis into her vagina, rape was deemed not to have been committed. Together with the absolutely non-incriminating medical certificate, which is the only corroborative evidence available, the likelihood for the consummation of rape in the instant case was nil. In People v. Campuhan[70] we held - | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We find merit in the appeal. While it is well-settled that complete penetration of the penis into the vagina is not necessary to convict for consummated rape since the slightest penetration of one into the other will suffice, in People v. Campuhan[22] the Court clarified the legal concept involved in the term "slightest penetration" where we set forth the criterion that there must be sufficient and convincing proof of the penis indeed touching at the very least the labias of the female organ. Campuhan also enunciated the doctrine that mere epidermal contact between the penis and the external layer of the victim's vagina (the stroking or grazing of the male organ upon the female organ or the mons pubis) categorizes the crime as attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. | |||||
|
2001-12-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Like accused-appellant, Candelaria Dimalata said that Lucita filed the case against accused-appellant because they had a dispute concerning lands owned by Lucita and accused-appellant's wife.[16] | |||||
|
2001-09-06 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| To prove rape, it is necessary to establish that the penis touched the labia of the pudendum of the victim. Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina or mons pubis. 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, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. But in the absence of any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.[13] | |||||
|
2001-08-14 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| The Medico-Legal Report of Dr. Umil stated that "hymen reduced to carunculae, myrtiformis" which in layman's term means that "no laceration was found on the hymen".[20] It is settled that laceration is not an element of the crime of rape.[21] The absence of lacerations does not negate rape.[22] The presence of lacerations in the victim's vagina is not necessary to prove rape; neither is a broken hymen an essential element of the crime.[23] It has been held that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is irrelevant in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape.[24] Moreover, hymenal lacerations after sexual congress normally occurs on women who have had no prior sexual experience. The victim is a married woman with a husband and two (2) children. It is doctrinally settled that full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia or labia of the female organ by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.[25] | |||||
|
2001-04-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code[41] provides that rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or intimidation. Under Art. 6, in relation to the aforementioned article, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.[42] All the elements of attempted rape are present in this case. If petitioner was not able to consummate the crime, it was because of the resistance made by Eloisa and the timely arrival of his son. | |||||
|
2001-03-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| WITNESS: Yes, your honor. In People v. Campuhan[21] we held that 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 her mons pubis, as in this case. 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, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. But in the absence of any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. | |||||
|
2001-03-12 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Q: So you maintained that it was his penis that was inserted on your vagina? A: Yes, sir.[22] It is well-settled that where the accused tried to insert his penis into his victim's vagina, that was all that was necessary to commit consummated rape.[23] Full penetration of the victim's genital organ is not required in order to sustain a conviction for rape.[24] In fact, so long as there was an attempt to insert, even without rupture of the hymen,[25] rape is considered to have already been consummated. In this case, undoubtedly, there is no issue as to whether or not there was insertion or penetration which calls for a fine distinction between mere brushing or "epidermal contact" and actual touching or sliding into the female organ as enunciated in the case of People vs. Campuhan.[26] | |||||
|
2001-03-01 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In according significance to the word "touched," it would be instructive to revisit our ruling in People v. Campuhan[15] where we said - | |||||
|
2001-02-23 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| The mere fact that the medical examination of the victim showed that there was no laceration of her hymen does not necessarily mean that she was not raped by accused-appellant. The legal significance of rape is different from its meaning as understood by laymen. As borne by jurisprudence, any degree of penetration, however slight, of the female organ by the male organ consummates the said crime. Perfect penetration is not essential in the crime of rape.[34] Thus, the mere touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum already constitutes rape. In People vs. Campuhan,[35] the Court discussed the anatomic description of the female organ in relation to the degree of touching of the labia required so as to constitute the consummated stage of rape. The Court said:The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs that are visible in the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after puberty, and instantly visible within the surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and the inner surface. The skin of the outer convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while the inner surface is a skin which does not have any hair but has many sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia majora is the labia minora. Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching of the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. We have carefully examined the records of this case and we hold that the evidence of the prosecution clearly established that accused-appellant's organ touched the labia majora of the victim's pudendum. Although accused-appellant's organ failed to fully penetrate the victim's vagina, there is no doubt that it (accused-appellant's sexual organ) touched her labia majora. Complainant testified on direct examination, thus: | |||||
|
2000-10-18 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| however, twice she denied that penetration occurred.[15] On re-direct examination she reiterated that he was not able to insert his private part into hers because she felt pain.[16] In fact, subsequently, she reiterated that the organ of the accused did not penetrate hers.[17] Thus, although in her direct examination she asserted that his penis penetrated her vagina, she repeatedly and steadfastly denied any penetration of her organ in subsequent proceedings. Thus, in People v. Campuhan,[18] this Court clarified that the touching of the female organ to constitute consummated rape should be construed in relation to the entry by the penis into the labia majora. It is not mere touching in the | |||||
|
2000-09-15 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Thus, in the case of People vs. Campuhan,[9] this Court stated:"We have said often enough that in concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary; the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood here 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 the pudendum." | |||||