PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SALVINO SUMINGWA G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Acts
of Lasciviousness; Rape; Attempted Rape; Unjust Vexation
FACTS:
FACTS:
Sometime in 1999, appellant showed his
desire to touch the victim. He fondled the victim’s breast. On the following
month thereafter, appellant removed the garments of the victim and fondle his
penis until it ejaculated. Another incident was on August 2000, wherein the
appellant grabbed and lie her down and went top of her and then rubbed her
penis into her vaginal orifice, and partially inserted his penis into her
vagina. The acts of the appellant continued wherein he would successfully
rubbed his organ to her genitalia without penetration. This time, the victim
confided to her bestfriend.
On December 20, 2000, when the victim and her bestfriend were doing their school work, appellant grabbed the victim, pulled her inside the house and kissed her on the lips.
The last incident occurred inside the comfort room of their house on May 27, 2001. When the victim entered, appellant pulled down her short pants and panty, unzipped his trousers, brought out his penis, then repeatedly rubbed it on her vagina while they were in a standing position.
The victim decided to report the sexual abuses to her grandmother who forthwith brought her to the National Bureau of Investigation where she was examined by the medico-legal officer. It was found during the examination that there were no extragenital physical injuries on the victim’s body but there were old, healed, and incomplete hymenal lacerations.
Appellant denied all the accusations against him and stated an alibi in his defense.
ISSUE:
On December 20, 2000, when the victim and her bestfriend were doing their school work, appellant grabbed the victim, pulled her inside the house and kissed her on the lips.
The last incident occurred inside the comfort room of their house on May 27, 2001. When the victim entered, appellant pulled down her short pants and panty, unzipped his trousers, brought out his penis, then repeatedly rubbed it on her vagina while they were in a standing position.
The victim decided to report the sexual abuses to her grandmother who forthwith brought her to the National Bureau of Investigation where she was examined by the medico-legal officer. It was found during the examination that there were no extragenital physical injuries on the victim’s body but there were old, healed, and incomplete hymenal lacerations.
Appellant denied all the accusations against him and stated an alibi in his defense.
ISSUE:
Is the appellant guilty of the
abovementioned cases?
RULING:
In her direct testimony, the victim
stated that appellant removed her short pants and panty, went on top of her and
rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice. She resisted by crossing her legs
but her effort was not enough to prevent appellant from pulling her leg and
eventually inserting his penis into her vagina. Clearly, there was penetration.RULING:
It is noteworthy that appellant pulled victim’s leg, so that he could insert his penis into her vagina. This adequately shows that appellant employed force in order to accomplish his purpose. Moreover, in rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former’s moral ascendancy and influence over the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires, and no further proof need be shown to prove lack of the victim’s consent to her own defilement.
While appellant’s conviction was primarily based on the prosecution’s testimonial evidence, the same was corroborated by physical evidence consisting of the medical findings of the medico-legal officer that there were hymenal lacerations. When a rape victim’s account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.
Aside from the fact of commission of rape, the prosecution likewise established that appellant is the biological father of the victim and that the latter was then fifteen (15) 42 years old. Thus, the CA aptly convicted him of qualified rape, defined and penalized by Article 266-B of the RPC.
In Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654, although appellant was charged with qualified rape allegedly committed on the second week of November 2000 and May 27, 2001, he should be convicted with Acts of Lasciviousness committed against a child under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. The testified that in November 2000, while she and appellant were inside the bedroom, he went on top of her and rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice until he ejaculated. She likewise stated in open court that on May 27, 2001, while inside their comfort room, appellant rubbed his penis against her vagina while they were in a standing position. In both instances, there was no penetration, or even an attempt to insert his penis into her vagina.
The aforesaid acts of the appellant are covered by the definitions of "sexual abuse" and "lascivious conduct" under Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases promulgated to implement the provisions of R.A. 7610.
Appellant’s acts of embracing, dragging and kissing the in front of her friend annoyed the victim. The filing of the case against appellant proved that the victim was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of appellant.
The appellant is guilty of the following: qualified rape, acts of lasciviousness and unjust vexation.