In Edmisael C. Lutap v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between acts of lasciviousness and attempted rape when a minor is involved. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Lutap guilty of acts of lasciviousness instead of attempted rape. This decision highlights the necessity of proving intent and the specific elements of each crime, particularly in cases involving sexual abuse of children, emphasizing the importance of protecting minors while ensuring accurate application of the law.

When a Touch Crosses the Line: Distinguishing Lewd Acts from Sexual Assault

This case began with an accusation of rape against Edmisael C. Lutap for allegedly inserting his finger into the vagina of a six-year-old girl, AAA. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Lutap of rape. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision to attempted rape, finding insufficient evidence of penetration. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Lutap appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether his actions constituted attempted rape at all. The central legal question revolved around whether the act of touching a minor’s genitalia, without actual insertion, could be considered attempted rape or a lesser offense.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while there was indeed malicious touching of AAA’s sexual organ, there was no definitive evidence to support the claim that Lutap inserted his finger inside AAA’s vagina. It is crucial to distinguish between merely touching a female’s sexual organ and actual penetration, as penetration is a necessary element for rape. The Court leaned on the testimonies of AAA and her brother, BBB, which, while consistent on the touching, lacked clarity on the insertion aspect. Citing People v. Mendoza, the Supreme Court reiterated that for rape by sexual assault (with fingers as the assaulting object) to prosper, there should be evidence of at least the slightest penetration, not merely a brush or graze. This principle underscores the importance of the distinction between an external touch and actual intrusion into the genital orifice.

“The touching of a female’s sexual organ, standing alone, is not equivalent to rape, not even an attempted one. With regard to penile rape, People v. Campuhan explains:

xxx Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does 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. xxx”

Building on this principle, the Court analyzed whether the act of touching, by itself, could constitute attempted rape. The Court referenced Cruz v. People to explain that attempted rape requires overt acts demonstrating the intent to lie with the female, and these acts should have a causal relation to rape. Simply put, to be convicted of attempted rape, the State must prove that the offender’s actions, if completed without interruption, would result in rape. In this case, Lutap’s act of touching AAA’s vagina, which was covered by clothing, did not convincingly demonstrate an intent to insert his finger inside her sexual organ or to have carnal knowledge of her.

Instead, the Supreme Court found that Lutap’s actions constituted acts of lasciviousness. According to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), acts of lasciviousness involve committing lewd or indecent acts upon another person. These acts are characterized by moral impurity and wantonness. In this case, all the elements of acts of lasciviousness were present. Furthermore, considering AAA’s age of six years at the time of the incident, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) becomes applicable. This provision addresses sexual abuse of children and prescribes penalties for those who commit lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse.

“Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

xxxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the [victim] is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; xxx”

The Court, citing Quimvel v. People, clarified that Section 5(b) covers instances where a child engages in lascivious conduct due to coercion, intimidation, or influence. Here, AAA, being a young child, trusted Lutap, who frequented her home as her father’s friend. This trust indicated that Lutap exerted influence over her, leading her to indulge in the lascivious conduct. Therefore, the Court concluded that Lutap should be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 of R.A. 7610. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), the Supreme Court modified the prison term and ordered Lutap to pay moral damages, exemplary damages, a fine, and civil indemnity to AAA.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the act of touching a minor’s genitalia without penetration constitutes attempted rape or the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness. The Supreme Court needed to clarify the boundaries between these offenses.
What did the Regional Trial Court initially decide?	The Regional Trial Court initially found Edmisael Lutap guilty of rape. They gave full credit to the testimonies of the victim and her brother, who stated that Lutap inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina.
How did the Court of Appeals modify the RTC’s decision?	The Court of Appeals modified the decision to attempted rape, stating that there was no actual insertion of Lutap’s finger into the victim’s vagina. They based this on their assessment that there was only a slight touch.
What was the Supreme Court’s final ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and found Lutap guilty of acts of lasciviousness. The Court reasoned that while Lutap touched the victim’s genitalia, there was no evidence of penetration, a necessary element for rape or attempted rape.
What is the legal definition of acts of lasciviousness in the Philippines?	Acts of lasciviousness are defined under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code as lewd or indecent acts committed upon another person. These acts must involve moral impurity and wantonness to be considered acts of lasciviousness.
What is Republic Act No. 7610 and how does it relate to this case?	Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, provides penalties for sexual abuse of children. Section 5(b) is particularly relevant as it addresses lascivious conduct with a child exploited or subject to sexual abuse.
What are the penalties for acts of lasciviousness when the victim is under 12 years of age?	When the victim is under 12 years of age, the penalty for acts of lasciviousness is reclusion temporal in its medium period. The Supreme Court applied this penalty, along with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to Lutap’s case.
What is the Indeterminate Sentence Law and how was it applied in this case?	The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) requires courts to impose a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the ISL by setting Lutap’s sentence to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal as maximum.
What damages was Lutap ordered to pay to the victim?	Lutap was ordered to pay the victim moral damages, exemplary damages, and a fine of PhP15,000.00 each, and civil indemnity in the amount of PhP20,000.00. The Supreme Court also ordered him to pay interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision.

The Lutap v. People case underscores the importance of distinguishing between different forms of sexual offenses, particularly when minors are involved. It provides clear guidance on the elements required to prove acts of lasciviousness versus attempted rape. This ruling serves as a crucial reference for legal practitioners and law enforcement in prosecuting and adjudicating cases involving sexual abuse and exploitation of children, ensuring that justice is served while protecting the rights and welfare of the victims.

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: EDMISAEL C. LUTAP, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 204061, February 05, 2018