In Adelmo Perez y Agustin vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness, emphasizing that attempted rape requires the commencement of penetration. The Court ruled that while Adelmo Perez committed detestable acts against the complainant, these did not constitute attempted rape because there was no evidence of attempted penetration. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Perez guilty of acts of lasciviousness instead of attempted rape, highlighting the necessity of proving attempted penetration to secure a conviction for the latter crime. This distinction is crucial in Philippine jurisprudence, affecting how sexual assault cases are charged and prosecuted.

When is an Assault More Than Just Lewd? Delving into the Nuances of Attempted Rape

The case of Adelmo Perez began with an information filed against him for attempted rape, alleging that he had commenced the commission of rape upon Julita Tria by means of force and intimidation. The prosecution presented testimonies from Julita, her mother Eufemia Tria, and Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-Asuncion, who conducted the medical examination. Eufemia testified that she saw Perez on top of Julita with her skirt raised, kissing her neck while his buttocks moved in an up and down motion. Julita recounted how Perez embraced her, held her breasts, kissed her lips and neck, and touched her sexual organ. Dr. Asuncion testified that the slight physical injuries sustained by Julita could have been caused by attempted rape.

In contrast, the defense presented Junar Perez, a ten-year-old honor pupil, and Adelmo Perez himself. Junar testified that he saw Julita and Adelmo conversing while seated on a bench near the door. Adelmo claimed that he was in Julita’s house upon her invitation and that their acts were consensual, involving embracing, kissing, and touching. After the trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Adelmo Perez of attempted rape, sentencing him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction, leading Adelmo to appeal to the Supreme Court, questioning whether the crime committed was attempted rape or merely acts of lasciviousness and challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

The Supreme Court addressed the issues by examining the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented. The Court acknowledged the trial court’s finding that the prosecution witnesses were more credible, noting that Julita’s and her mother’s accounts were clear, spontaneous, and natural. It was also noted that Julita would not have shouted, “Inay” if she liked and consented to what her uncle was doing to her.” The Court also stated that the intact hymen of Julita also disproves the accused’s declaration that they were “getting intimate.” However, a closer examination of the evidence revealed that the acts committed by Perez did not satisfy the elements of attempted rape.

The Court referred to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines an attempt as occurring when an offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution due to some cause other than their own spontaneous desistance. In the context of rape, **penetration** is an essential act of execution. According to the Court, for there to be attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim. Here is the definition of the law:

Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony.

Based on Julita’s testimony, while Adelmo had engaged in numerous lewd acts, there was no evidence that he had attempted to penetrate her. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the crime committed was not attempted rape but rather **acts of lasciviousness** which are defined as lewd and immoral acts. The elements of acts of lasciviousness include: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done by using force and intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. The Court found all these elements present in Adelmo’s actions.

The Court cited the case of *People vs. Caingat*, which confirmed that acts of lasciviousness is included in rape. The Court then elaborated on the elements constituting acts of lasciviousness:

Petitioner’s acts of lying on top of the complainant, embracing and kissing her, mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ, while admittedly obscene and detestable acts, do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing that petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the complainant’s sexual organ. Rather, these acts constitute acts of lasciviousness. The elements of said crime are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force and intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.

Although Adelmo was charged with attempted rape, the Court ruled that he could be convicted of acts of lasciviousness since the latter crime is included in the former. The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional. Given that no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were alleged or proven, the Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law and sentenced Adelmo to a penalty ranging from 6 months of arresto mayor to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional. This decision underscores the importance of proving each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and highlights the distinction between different yet related offenses.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether the acts committed by Adelmo Perez constituted attempted rape or merely acts of lasciviousness, focusing on the requirement of attempted penetration for a rape charge.
What is the legal definition of attempted rape in the Philippines?	Attempted rape, under Philippine law, requires that the offender commences the act of penetrating his sexual organ into the vagina of the victim, but the penetration is not completed due to reasons other than the offender’s spontaneous desistance.
What are acts of lasciviousness?	Acts of lasciviousness are lewd or immoral acts committed against another person using force, intimidation, or when the victim is unable to give consent, which do not involve attempted penetration.
What evidence did the prosecution present?	The prosecution presented testimonies from the victim, her mother, and a medical doctor who examined the victim, detailing the acts of force and the physical injuries sustained.
What was the defense’s argument?	The defense argued that the acts were consensual and that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to prove attempted rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
How did the Supreme Court modify the lower court’s decision?	The Supreme Court modified the decision by finding Adelmo Perez guilty of acts of lasciviousness instead of attempted rape, emphasizing that the evidence did not establish an attempted penetration.
What is the penalty for acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code?	The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional, which ranges from six months to six years of imprisonment, depending on the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Can a person charged with attempted rape be convicted of acts of lasciviousness?	Yes, a person charged with attempted rape can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness if the evidence supports the elements of the latter crime, as acts of lasciviousness is deemed included in rape.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Adelmo Perez serves as an important reminder of the specific elements required to prove different crimes under the Revised Penal Code. The ruling highlights the necessity of presenting clear and convincing evidence to establish each element beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving sexual offenses. This distinction affects the prosecution’s strategy in similar cases, emphasizing the need to focus on the specific acts committed and their соответствие to the elements of the crime charged.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ADELMO PEREZ Y AGUSTIN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 143838, May 09, 2002