FACTS:

Norberto was convicted of attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness based on the testimonies of AAA and BBB. AAA testified that Norberto climbed on top of her and touched her inappropriately, while BBB witnessed Norberto touching the private parts of AAA. The incidents were reported to the police, and Norberto was confronted and subsequently charged. Norberto claimed it was impossible for him to commit the crimes due to the presence of many people in the area. The RTC found Norberto guilty of attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness, which was affirmed by the CA. Norberto appealed, arguing that the CA erred in giving credence to the testimony of AAA and in convicting him without sufficient evidence.

The petitioner, Norberto, was charged with attempted rape by AAA. AAA alleged that the petitioner entered her room, undressed her, and touched her genitalia and breasts. AAA claimed that they struggled for nearly an hour but she was able to resist. Norberto challenged AAA's credibility, arguing that her testimony was inconsistent and inconceivable. He questioned how he could undress her without waking her up, and cast doubt on the duration of their struggle. Norberto also pointed out that AAA and her mother demanded a settlement amount, threatening to file a case against him if he did not comply. The Court emphasized that it only reviews questions of law in appeals and defers to the trial court's credibility assessments. The petitioner's arguments regarding AAA's credibility were considered questions of fact outside the scope of the appeal. The Court then examined whether the petitioner's actions constituted attempted rape and emphasized that an attempt occurs when the offender commences the commission of a felony but does not complete all the acts necessary for its accomplishment. In this case, the petitioner climbed on top of AAA and touched her with the intent to have forcible sexual intercourse, but was not successful due to AAA's resistance.

ISSUES:

I. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony of the alleged victim.

II. Whether the accused can be convicted despite the prosecution's alleged failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

RULING:

I. The Court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court and the CA regarding the credibility of the victim's testimony, noting that such determinations are given the highest respect since the trial court is in the best position to observe the demeanor and manner of testifying of witnesses.

II. The Court found that the actions of the petitioner did not constitute attempted rape but rather acts of lasciviousness. The petitioner's acts were equivocal and did not directly infer an intent to commit rape without further detailed manifestations of such intent. Therefore, he was guilty of acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape.

PRINCIPLES:

1. Credibility of Witnesses - The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses is given the highest respect and is generally not disturbed on appeal when affirmed by the CA.

2. Rule on Review of Findings of Fact - Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court reviews only questions of law and does not review findings of fact by the CA.

3. Attempted Rape - For attempted rape, the offender must have commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and must show a clear intent to lie with the female, specifically through acts directly connected to rape.

4. Acts of Lasciviousness - Intent to lie with the female is not necessary in acts of lasciviousness; it suffices that lewdness or lascivious intent is present.

5. Consummated Rape - The slightest penetration of the female genitalia by the penis constitutes consummated rape.

6. Moral and Civil Damages - Moral damages and civil indemnity are awarded to the victim in acts of lasciviousness, and these amounts are subject to interest from the finality of the decision until full payment.