View full case

ADELMO PEREZ Y AGUSTIN v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Adelmo Perez y Agustin, was charged with attempted rape based on an information filed against him with the Regional Trial Court. The incident allegedly took place on April 14, 1988, in Morong, Bataan. The information stated that the petitioner forcefully and unlawfully tried to rape Julita Tria y Balagao. The specific acts alleged were that the petitioner entered Julita's room without permission, embraced and kissed her on the neck, held and mashed her breast, compelled her to lie down, kissed her lips and neck, touched her sex organ, and tried to remove her panties. However, the petitioner did not succeed in his attempt because Julita resisted and her mother arrived at the scene. The petitioner pleaded not guilty during his arraignment.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Eufemia Tria (Julita's mother), Julita Tria (the complainant), and Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-Asuncion. Eufemia testified that she saw the petitioner on top of Julita, kissing her neck, while Julita was fighting back and struggling. She found the petitioner hiding under the bamboo bed and brought him to his parents' house. Julita testified that the petitioner approached her from behind, embraced her, held her breasts, positioned himself on top of her, kissed her lips and neck, and touched her private part. She called for her mother, and her mother found the petitioner under the bed. Julita also mentioned a previous incident where the petitioner assaulted her. Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-Asuncion testified about the injuries sustained by Julita and stated that they could have been caused by attempted rape.

The defense presented the testimony of Junar Perez, a 10-year-old witness, who mentioned that he saw Julita and the petitioner conversing near the house. The petitioner himself testified that he went to Julita's house as she invited him, they embraced and kissed, he touched her breast, and they laid down on the bamboo bed. He hid under the bed when he sensed someone entering the house, upon Julita's advice.

The trial court found the petitioner guilty of attempted rape and sentenced him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, leading the petitioner to appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioner raises the issues of whether the crime committed was attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness, and whether the prosecution presented sufficient proof to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Was the crime committed by the petitioner attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness?

  2. Did the prosecution present the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt?

  3. Whether the acts committed by the petitioner constitute attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.

RULING:

  1. The crime committed by the petitioner was acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. The court found that there was no showing that the petitioner's sexual organ had touched the complainant's vagina or any part of her body. The testimony of the complainant revealed that the petitioner laid her down on a wooden bed, placed himself on top of her, and kissed her on her lips and neck. The court emphasized that penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony of rape. In this case, there was no evidence of penetration.

  2. The Supreme Court held that the acts committed by the petitioner constitute acts of lasciviousness rather than attempted rape. While the petitioner's actions were detestable and obscene, there was no evidence showing that he actually commenced to force his penis into the complainant's sexual organ. Therefore, the petitioner can be convicted for acts of lasciviousness.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of credibility of witnesses is usually within the domain of the trial court, which is in the best position to observe their demeanor and movements.

  • In a criminal case, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but fails to perform all the acts of execution needed for the felony to be completed.

  • Penetration is an essential act of execution for the crime of rape.

  • The absence of penetration distinguishes acts of lasciviousness from attempted rape.

  • The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) it is done through the use of force and intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.

  • The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional. In this case, the penalty imposed is from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months in its medium period.

  • The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in this case, with the maximum term being the penalty imposed and the minimum term being within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense, which is arresto mayor or 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.