People of the Philippines vs EFREN AGAO y ANONUEVO
GR 248049
Facts:
Efren Anonuevo was charged with two counts of statutory r*pe. First one happened on July 2010 (victim was 10 years old) while the second incident happened sometime on January 2012 (victim was 13 years old), both at Valenzuela City.
AAA recalled that while she was sleeping, she woke up to find appellant touching her breasts and vagina and later on trying to insert his penis into her vagina. She said that she both felt and saw appellant's penis hard against her, as the appellant kept trying to insert it into her vagina, thereafter managing to introduce the same into the outer fold, also called the labia majora of AAA's vagina. He wasn’t able to fully penetrate since she was fighting back.
The accused continued to molest her on January 2012. AAA testified that what happened was similar to the incident in 2010. He was still unable to penetrate. She continued to not tell anyone despite the abuse fearing humiliation. It was only after two years after the incident that she had the muster to tell her aunt about what happened. AAA told her father about it and both of them went to the police station.
RTC found Efren guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of statutory r*pe. He appealed. The CA affirmed RTC’s conviction. It held that on the matter of ascribing credibility to the testimony of a witness, the valuations of the RTC are given utmost respect because it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and its findings may only be disturbed on appeal, upon a showing that the RTC overlooked material facts which, if considered, would alter its decision.
It further echoed the RTC's ruling that the absence of vaginal laceration was immaterial, for neither full penetration of the vaginal orifice nor the rupture of the hymen was necessary, given that mere introduction of the male organ to the labia of the victim's genitalia already consummates the crime of r*pe.
Issue:
whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC decision which found appellant guilty of two counts of r*pe through sexual intercourse as defined under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 and Article 266-B of the RPC as amended by R.A. 8353 in conjunction with R.A. 7610.
Ruling:
No. The Court has reviewed the records of this case and finds no reason to overturn the verdict of guilt handed down by the RTC and affirmed by the CA, but finds it proper to modify the finding of two counts of Statutory R*pe, the second one being only Simple R*pe.
The court recalibrated the stages of attempted and consummated r*pe to provide the courts with categorical factual basis to find that the gravest assault on the victim's body, integrity and dignity has already been consummated, and not merely attempted.
In this court’ earlier decisions, where it considered r*pe to have been consummated despite the fact that the attacker's penis merely touched the external portions of the vagina, were within the situational context of "the presence of the existence of an erectile penis capable of full penetration.
In March 2001, the Court, in People v. Francisco (Francisco) attempted to reconcile the two alternative minimum genital contacts by clarifying that they are one and the same, in that for the penis to even merely touch the labia majora or the labia minora of the vagina, the penis would have already attained some level of penetration of the female organ.
However, the cases that followed thereafter would vacillate between "mere touch" on the one hand, and "slightest penetration" on the other, so that the clear minimum genital contact of the penis touching the labia majora of the vagina was confounded.
The Court now finds that the following differing rulings or appreciations of description of genital contact are more borne out of an unclear and often confounded operative definition of the threshold of genital contact that is required, than failure on the part of these minor victims to testify to the same.
There is lack of clarity and consistency in the operative definition of the minimum genital contact which, as we have seen in the jurisprudential arc. This can easily be resolvable by informing jurisprudence of the exact anatomical situs of the pertinent body parts referred to in settled jurisprudence, which, unlike other inexact matters that surround a r*pe testimony, are as inarguable as they are true.
Guided by the anatomical description, the Court now reiterates, even as it clarifies, that r*pe of a female victim by a male person through penile penetration reaches the consummated stage as soon as the penis penetrates the cleft of the labia majora, also known as the vulval or pudendal cleft, 109 or the fleshy outer lip of the vulva, in even the slightest degree. Simply put, mere introduction, however slight, into the cleft of the labia majora by a penis that is capable of penetration, regardless of whether such penile penetration is thereafter fully achieved, consummates the crime of r*pe.
For as long as the prosecutorial evidence is able to establish that the penis of the accused penetrated the vulval cleft or the cleft of the labia majora (i.e., the cleft of the fleshy outer lip of the victim's vagina), however slight the introduction may be, the commission of r*pe already crossed the threshold of the attempted stage and into its consummation.
The Court marks the ages of nine years old and below as the age range when the "repeated touching" test is to be applied since, according to medical literature, particularly the mainly referenced Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, the first sign of puberty in girls occurs between 10 to 11 years old.
The Court takes judicial notice that in these cases, due to the underdeveloped genitalia of child victims in the pre-puberty age, an attempt of the penis to penetrate will already be likely indicative, at the very least, of the penis' introduction to the vulval cleft of the victim's vagina, with penetration considered made if it were not for the natural resistance of the victim's organ due to biological immaturity.
Descriptive words and phrases used by child victims to depict the assault, including "binundul-bundol ang kanyang ari,", "poked," and "idinidikit ang ari” were not explicit or specific enough to assess the nature of the penile contact.
The case at bar offers the Court the opportunity to clarify, streamline, and reconcile the diverging cases, as well as revisit the prevailing principles with respect to appreciating testimonies of child witnesses in the prosecution of r*pe cases, to the extent that the fairness of the trial is gauged not only in reference to the rights of the accused but also the rights of the minor victims.
A longitudinal psychological study on children in the courtroom even surmised that in responding to lawyer's questions on the witness stand, child witnesses rarely asked for clarification and often attempted to answer questions which they actually deemed ambiguous or without sense. This observed reluctance of child witnesses bears squarely upon the probative weight of their accounts. It is therefore, only consistent with due process for both the complainant and the accused that, in the prosecution of r*pe, where the crucible of proof closes in on the testimony of the victim, the evaluation and appreciation of the accuracy of the primary testimony should be properly informed of the limitations of the child thrust at its center.
Another important difficulty that arises when communicating with young children is not their capacity to recall an event but their insufficient verbal skills to relate the memory. This becomes even more problematic when gathering information in a forensic context. Children's testimonies are also prone to improper questioning, which bear directly on their credibility, and often result in unreliable descriptions of abuse.
Certainly, the courts do not ask of children the use of technical terms such as labia minora or majora, mans pubis, pudendum and the like. This would be a nuanced error in the casting of the premise, and is not what the instant recalibration proceeds from. Instead, it is acknowledged that although in black letter, the courts supposedly afford a level of leniency in favor of children when they testify on the witness stand, this accommodation seems to be, as far as the oscillating jurisprudence shows, not wholly and consistently translated to all actual court cases that call for it.
The Court also clarifies that when there is no touching by the penis of the vulva! cleft of the victim's genitalia in a case of r*pe through penile penetration, there can be no finding of consummated · r*pe but only attempted r*pe or acts of lasciviousness, as the case may be, with the distinctions determinable based on various indications that may reveal either the absence or presence of intent to lie" on the part of the accused, which include the presence of an erect penis.
Proceeding from this clarification, and to help decrease the trauma which the r*pe victims experience during testimonies, those that have been correctly described during the deliberations as aggravated by the usual pummeling of probing, pointed and hostile questions from the defense, this clarification of the anatomical threshold in the instant case hopes to spare the victims, especially the minors, the harrowing task of recounting the smallest, most profoundly humiliating details of the attack beyond what is needed. With this clarification, both the prosecution and the courts will have a floor anatomical threshold, the establishment of which is all that is needed to factually confirm for the Court the consummation of this kind of r*pe.
the unclear definition has, considering the diverging cases, resulted in instances where the accused was meted a significantly lighter penalty (i.e., penalty for attempted r*pe) than the heavier penalty which the act as committed should have incurred (i.e., penalty for consummated r*pe). It goes without saying, therefore, that the difference in the lengths of period of incarceration is considerable and, insofar as borderline cases of attempted vis-a-vis consummated r*pe of minors are concerned, appears to be too high a cost to be paid for unclear definitions of the genital contact that distinguish between the two stages of commission.
Applying these parameters in the case at bar:
AAA answered in court that he was not able to fully penetrate her vagina. Using a female doll, she pointed the center part where his penis was at that time. She pointed at the pelvic area.
In the brief excerpt of AAA's testimony, the crucial facts of the appellant's erect penis and its touching of her vulval cleft (i.e., "sa may gitna," "sa may hiwa ") were established categorically and beyond doubt, and sufficiently established that the minimum penile-vaginal contact between the penis and the vulval cleft to enable a finding of consummated r*pe was, in fact, obtained.
The CA erred in appreciating both r*pe as statutory. Only the first incident should be charged as statutory in nature since at that time AAA was 10 while the second incident happened when AAA was already 13 years old.
The accused is guilty of 1 count of statutory r*pe and one count 0f simple r*pe.