People v. CampuhanRepublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME
COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. 129433 March 30, 2000PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs.PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y ELLO accused.ELLOSILLO,
J.:On 3 April 1! this Court in People v. Orita 1 finall" did a#a"
#ith frustrated rape $ and allo#ed onl" atte%pted rape and
consu%%ated rape to re%ain in our statute boo&s. 'he instant
case lur&s at the threshold of another e%asculation of the
sta(es of e)ecution of rape b" considerin( al%ost ever" atte%pt at
se)ual violation of a #o%an as consu%%ated rape, that is, if the
contrar" vie# #ere to be adopted. 'he dan(er there is that that
concept %a" send the #ron( si(nal to ever" roa%in( lothario,
#henever the opportunit" bares itself, to better intrude #ith
cli%actic (usto, sans an" restraint, since after all an" atte%pted
fornication #ould be considered consu%%ated rape and punished as
such. A %ere strafin( of the citadel of passion #ould then be
considered a deadl" fait accompli, #hich is absurd.*n Orita #e held
that rape #as consu%%ated fro% the %o%ent the offender had carnal
&no#led(e of the victi% since b" it he attained his ob+ective.
All the ele%ents of the offense #erealread" present and nothin(
%ore #as left for the offender to do, havin( perfor%ed all the acts
necessar" to produce the cri%e and acco%plish it. ,e ruled then
that perfect penetration #as not essential- an" penetration of the
fe%ale or(an b" the %ale or(an, ho#ever sli(ht, #as sufficient. 'he
Court further held that entr" of the labia or lips of the fe%ale
or(an, even #ithout rupture of the h"%en or laceration of the
va(ina, #as sufficient to #arrant conviction for consu%%ated rape.
,e distin(uished consu%%ated rape fro% atte%pted rape #here there
#as no penetration of the fe%ale or(an because not all acts of
e)ecution #ere perfor%ed as the offender %erel" co%%enced the
co%%ission of a felon" directl" b" overt acts. 3 'he inference that
%a" be derived therefro% is that co%plete or full penetration of
the va(ina is not re.uired for rape to be consu%%ated. An"
penetration, in #hatever de(ree, is enou(h to raise the cri%e to
its consu%%ated sta(e.But the Court in Orita clarified the concept
of penetration in rape b" re.uirin( entr" into the labiaor lips of
the fe%ale or(an, even if there be no rupture of the h"%en or
laceration of the va(ina, to #arrant a conviction for consu%%ated
rape. ,hile the entr" of the penis into the lips of the fe%ale
or(an #as considered s"non"%ous #ith %ere touchin( of the e)ternal
(enitalia, e.g., labia %a+ora, labia %inora, etc.,/ the crucial
doctrinal botto% line is that touchin( %ust be ine)tricabl" vie#ed
in li(ht of, in relation to, or as an essential part of, the
process of penile penetration, and not +ust %ere touchin( in the
ordinar" sense. *n other #ords, the touchin( %ust be tac&ed to
the penetration itself. 'he i%portance of the re.uire%ent of
penetration, ho#ever sli(ht, cannot be (ainsaid because #here entr"
into the labia or the lips of the fe%ale (enitalia has not been
established, the cri%e co%%itted a%ounts %erel" to atte%pted
rape.0eril", this should be the indicium of the Court in
deter%inin( #hether rape has been co%%itted either in its atte%pted
or in its consu%%ated sta(e- other#ise, no substantial distinction
#ould e)ist bet#een the t#o, despite the fact that penalt"1#ise,
this distinction, threadbare as it %a" see%, irrevocabl" spells the
difference bet#een life and death for the accused 2 a reclusive
life that is not even perpetua but onl" temporal on one hand, and
the ulti%ate e)ter%ination of life on the other. And, ar(uin( on
another level, if the case at bar cannot be dee%ed atte%pted but
consu%%ated rape, #hat then #ould constitute atte%pted rape3 Must
our field of choice be thus li%ited onl" to consu%%ated rape and
acts of lasciviousness since atte%pted rape #ould no lon(er be
possible in li(ht of the vie# of those #ho disa(ree #ith this
ponencia3On $4 Ma" 14 Pri%o Ca%puhan " Bello #as found (uilt" of
statutor" rape and sentenced b" the court a quo to the e)tre%e
penalt" of death, 5 hence this case before us on auto%atic revie#
under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as a%ended b" RA 465. 6As
%a" be culled fro% the evidence on record, on $5 April 16, at
around / o7cloc& in the afternoon, Ma. Cora8on P. Pa%intuan,
%other of four 9/:1"ear old Cr"sthel Pa%intuan, #ent do#n fro% the
second floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate drin&s
for her t#o 9$: children. At the (round floor she %et Pri%o
Ca%puhan #ho #as then bus" fillin( s%all plastic ba(s #ith #ater to
be fro8en into ice in the free8er located at the second floor.
Pri%o #as a helper of Conrado Plata ;r., brother of Cora8on. As
Cora8on #as bus" preparin( the drin&s, she heard one of her
dau(hters cr", e %aintained his innocence andassailed the char(e as
a %ere sche%e of Cr"sthel7s %other #ho alle(edl" harbored ill #ill
a(ainsthi% for his refusal to run an errand for her.
>e asserted that in truth Cr"sthel #as in a pla"in( %ood and
#anted to ride on his bac& #hen she suddenl" pulled hi% do#n
causin( both of the% to fall do#n on the floor. *t #as in this
fallen position that Cora8on chanced upon the% and beca%e
h"sterical. Cora8on slapped hi% and accused hi% of rapin( her
child. >e (ot %ad but restrained hi%self fro% hittin( bac&
#hen he reali8ed she #as a #o%an. Cora8on called for help fro% her
brothers to stop hi% as he ran do#n fro% the second floor.0icente,
Cora8on7s brother, ti%el" responded to her call for help and
accosted Pri%o. 0icente punched hi% and threatened to &ill hi%.
Apon hearin( the threat, Pri%o i%%ediatel" ran to#ardsthe house of
Conrado Plata but 0icente follo#ed hi% there. Pri%o pleaded for a
chance to e)plain as he reasoned out that the accusation #as not
true. But 0icente &ic&ed hi% instead. ,hen Pri%o sa#
0icente holdin( a piece of lead pipe, Pri%o raised his hands and
turned his bac& to avoid the blo#. At this %o%ent, the
relatives and nei(hbors of 0icente prevailed upon hi% to ta&e
Pri%o to the baran(a" hall instead, and not to %aul or possibl"
&ill hi%.Althou(h Pri%o Ca%puhan insisted on his innocence, the
trial court on $4 Ma" 14 found hi% (uilt" of statutor" rape,
sentenced hi% to the e)tre%e penalt" of death, and ordered hi% to
pa" his victi% P5!,!!!.!! for %oral da%a(es, P$5,!!!.!! for
e)e%plar" da%a(es, and the costs.'he accused Pri%o Ca%puhan
seriousl" assails the credibilit" of Ma. Cora8on Pa%intuan. >e
ar(ues that her narration should not be (iven an" #ei(ht or
credence since it #as punctured #ith i%plausible state%ents and
i%probabilities so inconsistent #ith hu%an nature and e)perience.
>eclai%s that it #as trul" inconceivable for hi% to co%%it the
rape considerin( that Cr"sthel7s "oun(er sister #as also in the
roo% pla"in( #hile Cora8on #as +ust do#nstairs preparin( Milo
drin&s for her dau(hters. 'heir presence alone as possible
e"e#itnesses and the fact that the episode happened #ithin the
fa%il" co%pound #here a call for assistance could easil" be heard
and responded to, #ould have been enou(h to deter hi% fro%
co%%ittin( the cri%e. Besides, thedoor of the roo% #as #ide open
for an"bod" to see #hat could be ta&in( place inside. Pri%o
insists that it #as al%ost inconceivable that Cora8on could (ive
such a vivid description of the alle(ed se)ual contact #hen fro%
#here she stood she could not have possibl" seen the alle(ed
touchin( of the se)ual or(ans of the accused and his victi%. >e
asserts that the absence of an" e)ternal si(ns of ph"sical in+uries
or of penetration of Cr"sthel7s private parts %ore than bolsters
his innocence.*n convictin( the accused, the trial court relied
.uite heavil" on the testi%on" of Cora8on that she sa# Pri%o #ith
his short pants do#n to his &nees &neelin( before Cr"sthel
#hose pa+a%as and pant" #ere supposedl" o#ever, such lo(ical
conclusion #as deduced in the li(ht of evidence presented that
accused1appellant %ade deter%ined atte%pts to penetrate and insert
his penis into the victi%7s va(ina and even en(a(ed her in forepla"
b"insertin( his fin(er into her (enitalia. 'he sa%e inference
cannot be %ade in the instant case because of the variance in the
factual %ilieu.$3 Becisions findin( the accused (uilt" of
consu%%ated rape even if the attac&er7s penis %erel" touched
the fe%ale e)ternal (enitalia #ere %ade in the conte)t of the
presence of an erect penis capable of full penetration, failin( in
#hich there can be no consu%%ated rape 9People v. Be la PeIa, see
Note 11:.$/ .ee Note 16, p. $1.$5 0bid.$6 People v. 0illa%a"or,
H.R. Nos. 4/4/146, 1? ;ul" 11, 1 @CRA /4$- People v. Palicte, H.R.
No. 1!1!??, $4 ;anuar" 1/, $$ @CRA 5/3- People v. @anche8, H.R.
Nos. ?/!$1!/, 16 Nove%ber 15, $5! @CRA 1/- People v. Habris, H.R.
No. 116$$1, $1 ;ul" 16, $5? @CRA 663- People v. Caba"ron, H.R. No.
1!$!1?, $1 Au(ust 14, $4? @CRA 4?.$4 DC ,ill "ou tell the Court,
#hat do "ou %ean b" this No. 1. conclusion appearin( in E)hibit
