In the Philippines, the critical difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness hinges on the offender’s intent. Attempted rape requires the intent to have carnal knowledge of the victim through force, while acts of lasciviousness do not. This intent must be demonstrated through direct, overt acts, such as positioning oneself to penetrate the victim. Without clear evidence of this intent, the crime may be reduced to acts of lasciviousness. The Supreme Court’s decision in Norberto Cruz v. People clarifies this distinction, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent beyond mere physical contact.

Climbing Over the Line: When Lustful Acts Don’t Amount to Attempted Rape

This case revolves around Norberto Cruz, who was initially convicted of attempted rape for actions against AAA. The prosecution alleged that Cruz removed AAA’s clothing, lay on top of her, and touched her breasts and vagina. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether these acts, without definitive proof of intent to penetrate, constituted attempted rape or merely acts of lasciviousness. The determination of this question significantly impacts the severity of the charges and the corresponding penalties.

The facts presented at trial indicated that on December 21, 1993, AAA, along with BBB, were employed by Norberto Cruz and his wife to sell plastic wares in Bangar, La Union. After a day of sales, the group stayed overnight in tents. According to AAA’s testimony, she was awakened in the early morning hours to find Cruz on top of her, touching her private areas. She resisted, and Cruz was ultimately unsuccessful in his advances. This incident led to charges of attempted rape against AAA and acts of lasciviousness against BBB.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found Cruz guilty of both charges. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction for attempted rape but acquitted him of acts of lasciviousness against BBB due to insufficient evidence, as BBB did not testify. Cruz then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in its assessment of the evidence and in finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He questioned the credibility of AAA and the lack of concrete evidence supporting the charge of attempted rape.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized its role in appeals under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which limits its review to questions of law. Factual findings of lower courts are generally respected, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses. However, the Court found it necessary to clarify the legal distinction between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness based on the presented facts.

The Court referred to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines an attempt as commencing the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, without completing all acts of execution due to some cause other than voluntary desistance. The key question then became: Did Cruz’s actions constitute the necessary overt acts to establish attempted rape? To answer this, the Court examined the prevailing definition of rape at the time of the incident, as outlined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

The Supreme Court underscored that the fundamental element of rape is carnal knowledge, defined as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman.” It is consummated with even the slightest penetration. Therefore, in determining whether an attempt occurred, the focus must be on whether the actions unequivocally demonstrated an intent to achieve such penetration. The Supreme Court distinguished a mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina. The case of People v. Campuhan emphasizes that touching applied to rape cases must indicate that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.

[T]ouching when applied to rape cases docs not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.

In People v. Lizada, the Court further clarified the character of overt acts necessary for an attempted stage of a crime. An overt act is defined as a physical deed indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, going beyond mere planning or preparation. The act must be the ultimate step towards consummation and bear a causal relation to the intended crime. The overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison d’etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. It is necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the “first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made.” The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

Applying these principles to Cruz’s case, the Supreme Court determined that while his actions were undoubtedly lewd and lustful, they did not unequivocally demonstrate an intent to commit rape. The Court noted that Cruz’s acts of climbing on top of AAA, touching her genitalia, and mashing her breasts were “susceptible of double interpretation.” Without clear evidence that Cruz’s penis was in a position to penetrate AAA, the Court could not definitively conclude that his intent was to commit rape. There was no overt act, as it were.

The Court emphasized that the distinction between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness hinges on the intent to lie with the female. In rape, this intent is indispensable, whereas it is not required in acts of lasciviousness. The information stated that the accused removed her panty and underwear and laid on top of said AAA embracing and touching her vagina and breast. Because the intent to commit rape was not apparent in the act described, the SC ruled that the accused did not commit attempted rape.

Consequently, the Supreme Court reclassified Cruz’s crime from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness, which is defined under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of this crime include the commission of any act of lasciviousness or lewdness upon another person, either through force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or is under 12 years of age. Cruz’s actions clearly met these criteria. The penalty for acts of lasciviousness, as prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, is prision correccional. In light of this, the Court adjusted Cruz’s sentence to an indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as the maximum.

The Court also addressed the issue of damages. It affirmed that AAA was entitled to moral damages due to the violation of her chastity and the moral injuries she suffered. Moral damages compensate for pain, suffering, and humiliation experienced by the victim. Given the circumstances, the Court increased the award of moral damages from P20,000 to P30,000 and added a civil indemnity of P20,000. Under Article 2211 of the Civil Code, the courts are vested with the discretion to impose interest as a part of the damages in crimes and quasi-delicts. The moral damages of P20,000.00 shall earn interest of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until full payment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the actions of Norberto Cruz constituted attempted rape or merely acts of lasciviousness, based on the evidence presented regarding his intent.
What is the difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness?	The crucial difference lies in the offender’s intent. Attempted rape requires a clear intent to have carnal knowledge of the victim, while acts of lasciviousness do not.
What evidence is needed to prove attempted rape?	To prove attempted rape, there must be direct, overt acts that unequivocally demonstrate the intent to penetrate the victim, such as positioning oneself for penetration.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that Cruz’s actions constituted acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape, because the prosecution failed to prove his intent to penetrate AAA.
What is the penalty for acts of lasciviousness?	The penalty for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional, with a duration that varies based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Was the victim entitled to damages in this case?	Yes, the victim, AAA, was entitled to moral damages and civil indemnity to compensate for the violation of her chastity and the moral injuries she suffered.
What are “overt acts” in the context of attempted rape?	Overt acts are physical deeds indicating the intention to commit rape, going beyond mere planning or preparation. These acts must have a direct and immediate relationship to the offense.
What does “carnal knowledge” mean in the context of rape?	Carnal knowledge is defined as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman,” and it is consummated with even the slightest penetration.
What factors did the Supreme Court consider in downgrading the charge from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness?	The Supreme Court considered that the overt acts performed by the petitioner did not have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense because there was no showing of his erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Norberto Cruz v. People serves as an important reminder of the necessity of proving intent in cases of attempted rape. It clarifies the distinction between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness, providing a framework for courts to assess the evidence and determine the appropriate charges. This ruling reinforces the principle that while lewd and lustful actions are punishable, they do not automatically equate to attempted rape without clear evidence of an intent to penetrate.

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: Norberto Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014