People v. Pareja, G.R. No.

188979, September 5, 2012

FACTS

AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place
on three (3) different dates. At the time of the commission of the aforementioned crimes, AAA was
living with her mother and with the accused Bernabe Pareja who, by then, was cohabiting with her
mother, together with three (3) of their children.

The first incident took place in December 2003. AAA’s mother was not in the house and was with her
relatives in Laguna. Taking advantage of the situation, Pareja, while AAA was asleep, placed himself
on top of her. Then, Pareja, who was already naked, begun to undress AAA. Pareja then started to
suck the breasts of AAA. Not satisfied, Pareja likewise inserted his penis into AAA’s anus. Because of
the excruciating pain that she felt, AAA immediately stood up and rushed outside of their house. AAA
never told anyone about the December 2003 incident for fear that Pareja might kill her. Pareja
threatened to kill AAA in the event that she would expose the incident to anyone. AAA further
narrated that the incident had happened more than once. According to AAA, in February 2004, she had
again been molested by Pareja. Under the same circumstances, with her mother not around while she
and her half-siblings were asleep, Pareja again laid on top of her and started to suck her breasts. But this
time, Pareja caressed her and held her vagina and inserted his finger in it.

With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004, it was AAA’s mother who saw Pareja in the act of
lifting the skirt of her daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Outraged, AAA’s mother immediately
brought AAA to the barangay officers to report the said incident. AAA then narrated to the barangay
officials that she had been sexually abused by Pareja many times. On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged
with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape. RTC: Acquitted Pareja from the charge of
attempted rape but convicted him of the CRIMES OF RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS In the
December 2003 and February 2004 incidents, respectively.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court seriously erred in convicting the accused of the crimes charged
notwithstanding that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that under the new provision of Republic Act No. 8353, rape can be
committed in two ways:

1. Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as “organ rape” or
“penile rape.” The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must
be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Article 266-A paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault, also called “instrument or object rape,” or
“gender-free rape.” It must be attended by any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a)
to (d) of paragraph 1.

AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003, inserted his penis into her anus.
While she may not have been certain about the details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive
that Pareja had anal sex with her in December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by
sexual assault. In other words, her testimony on this account was, as the Court of Appeals found, clear,
positive, and probable.

However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal
knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during
trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of rape;
thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to convict
Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal knowledge,
would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person who shall commit any act of
lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the
preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional.

The elements of the crime of act of lasciviousness are as follows:

(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;

(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation; or

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and

(3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.

Thus, even though the crime charged against Pareja was for rape through carnal knowledge, he can be
convicted of the crime of acts of lasciviousness without violating any of his constitutional rights because
said crime is included in the crime of rape.

People v. Buttiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011

FACTS

This case involves a man who had sexual intercourse with a woman who, although 29 years of age, was a
mental retardate with the mentality of a six- to seven-year old.

In the evening of October 7, 1998, AAA, then a 29-year-old mental retardate, was invited by Charlie
Butiong, her long-time neighbor, to go over to his house because he would give her something. AAA
obliged. He locked the door as soon as she had stepped inside his house, and then took off his shorts
and her shorts. He led her to the sofa where he had carnal knowledge of her.

When AAA reached home, she immediately told her older sister about what happened. Her sister
brought AAA to the police station and later on to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where AAA
underwent a medico-legal examination. The result revealed that AAA’s hymen was intact but
“distensible and its orifice wide (2.5 cm. in diameter) as to allow complete penetration by an average-
sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury.”

The doctor who examined AAA noticed the latter’s disorientation and incoherence, so the former
endorsed her to the NBI Psychiatric Section for evaluation. AAA also underwent a series of psychological
tests at the National Mental Hospital with results showed that she has a mild level of mental
retardation, and that her mental age is that of a child aged from six to seven years.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape.

RULING

Yes. Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or intimidation, that is, against the will of the
female. It is also committed without force or intimidation when carnal knowledge of a female is alleged
and shown to be without her consent.

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides that rape is
committed –

By a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

Through force, threat or intimidation;

When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.

Carnal knowledge of a mental retardate is rape under paragraph 1 of the above Article because a mental
retardate is not capable of giving her consent to a sexual act. Proof of force or intimidation is not
necessary, it being sufficient for the State to establish, one, the sexual congress between the accused
and the victim, and, two, the mental retardation of the victim. Rape of a mental retardate falls under
paragraph 1,b because the provision refers to a rape of a female “deprived of reason,” a phrase that
refers to mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation.
People v. Dayo, G.R No. L-27859, December 1, 1927