PEOPLE v. PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO

FACTS:

In April 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in People v. Orita, declaring that only attempted rape and consummated rape would be recognized under the law, removing the crime of frustrated rape. The present case questions whether every attempt at sexual violation should be treated as consummated rape. The Court clarified in Orita that rape is deemed consummated once the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of the extent of penetration. However, the Court established the requirement of entry into the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupturing the hymen or lacerating the vagina, in order to secure a conviction for consummated rape. Any touching must be considered in relation to the process of penile penetration.

On May 27, 1997, Primo Campuhan was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to death. The incident took place on April 25, 1996, when Ma. Corazon Pamintuan, the mother of the victim, witnessed Primo forcing his penis into her daughter's vagina. Despite no evident sign of injury from the physical examination, Primo continued to maintain his innocence.

Primo argued that the accusation was a scheme concocted by Crysthel's mother, who allegedly held ill will towards him for refusing to run an errand for her. According to Primo, Crysthel was actually in a playful mood and had wanted to ride on his back when suddenly she pulled him down, causing them both to fall on the floor. It was at this moment that Corazon walked in and saw them in this position. She became hysterical, slapped Primo, and accused him of raping her child. Primo, feeling angry but restraining himself from retaliating when he realized Corazon was a woman, was then confronted by Vicente, Corazon's brother, who punched him and threatened to kill him. Primo fled to the house of Conrado Plata, but Vicente pursued him there. Primo pleaded for a chance to explain, maintaining his innocence. When Primo saw Vicente holding a piece of lead pipe, he raised his hands and turned his back to avoid being struck. It was at this point that relatives and neighbors intervened and persuaded Vicente to take Primo to the barangay hall instead of causing further harm.

Despite Primo's unwavering assertion of his innocence, the trial court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death. The court also ordered him to pay the victim P50,000.00 for moral damages, P25,000.00 for exemplary damages, and costs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the act of touching the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.

  2. Whether there was sufficient and convincing proof that the accused's penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ.

  3. Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove that the accused achieved penetration of the victim's vagina however slight.

  4. Whether the prosecution failed to establish how the witness could have seen the sexual contact, thus casting doubt on the credibility of her account.

  5. Whether the accused's behavior after being discovered by the witness is inconsistent with normal behavior or reaction.

  6. Whether the testimony of the four-year-old victim concerning the penetration is sufficient evidence to conclude that rape was consummated.

  7. Whether the medical findings support the conclusion that rape was consummated or attempted.

  8. Whether the accused should be punished for attempted rape instead.

  9. Whether the accused should be convicted of attempted rape instead of statutory rape.

  10. What is the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the accused.

RULING:

  1. The act of touching the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.

  2. To constitute consummated rape, there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the accused's penis touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.

  3. The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the accused achieved penetration of the victim's vagina however slight.

  4. The prosecution failed to demonstrate how the witness was able to see the sexual contact, thus casting doubt on her credibility. Without proper demonstration, the claim cannot inspire belief, and the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.

  5. The accused's behavior after being discovered by the witness is inconsistent with normal behavior or reaction, as it is unlikely for him to persist in satisfying his lust despite knowing he had been discovered. This raises doubt regarding the accused's intentions and actions.

  6. The testimony of the four-year-old victim denying penetration should be given due consideration as she may not have understood the distinction between touching and penetration. It would be improper to interpret her testimony as evidence of sexual entry.

  7. The medical findings did not establish the presence of physical injuries or sexual contact. The absence of complete penetration of the hymen does not negate the possibility of contact, but there was no medical basis to conclude that sexual contact occurred.

  8. Based on the elements of attempted rape and the lack of evidence of consummated rape, the accused should be punished for attempted rape, which carries a lower penalty.

  9. The accused is convicted of attempted rape instead of statutory rape.

  10. The accused is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years four (4) months and ten (10) days of prision mayor medium as minimum, to fourteen (14) years ten (10) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal medium as maximum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient in the offense of statutory rape. The mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to establish carnal knowledge.

  • Consummated rape requires sufficient and convincing proof that the accused's penis touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.

  • 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.

  • The level of penetration necessary to constitute consummated rape is not limited to the mere touching of the female organ but may include the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum or the bombardment of the drawbridge.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused achieved penetration of the victim's vagina, however slight.

  • The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish the credibility of witnesses and the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused, in accordance with the constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

  • In cases of sexual offenses, the testimony of child victims must be received with due consideration, but only what appears to be true should be considered.

  • Medical findings should complement testimonial evidence in cases of rape. The absence of physical injuries or medical evidence of sexual contact raises doubt regarding the consummation of rape.

  • Attempted rape occurs when the offender commences the commission of rape but does not perform all the acts of execution. The penalty for attempted rape is two degrees lower than consummated rape.

  • The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable penalty for the offense charged. (Doctrine of Degrees of Criminal Participation)

  • The range of the penalty for attempted rape is reclusion temporal, which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. (Doctrine of Penalties)

  • In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum penalty to be imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree. (Doctrine of Indeterminate Sentence Law)