People v. Dizon y Verdan

 

People v. Dizon y Verdan

G.R. No. 251573

March 29, 2023

FACTS:

                The Court resolves to dismiss the ordinary appeal for failure of accused-appellant Dennis Dizon y Verdan (accused-appellant) to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in its decision which affirmed the Judgment of the RTC, finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of statutory rape.

HELD:

                Yes. Carnal knowledge, as an element of Rape under Art. 266-A(1) RPC, is not synonymous with sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense. In People v. Mendoza y Gaspar, in objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The clarified in People v. Campuhan that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act touches either labia of the pudendum. As explained in People v. Bali-Balita, the touching that constitutes rape does not mean mere epidermal contact, or stroking or grazing of organs, or a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, but rather the erect penis touching the labias or sliding into the female genitalia. Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently and convincingly established.

                In the case at bar, there is no dispute that there was no full penile penetration of the victim’s vagina as narrated by private complainant herself. However, it is also undisputed that the accused-appellant’s erect penis touched the victim’s labia majora. The same is also the finding in the case of People v. Baguion. Thus, the Court sees no reason to reverse the conviction of the accused-appellant of Statutory Rape.