Justice Quisumbing, Second Division, People v. Berico [G.R. No. 117691. March 1, 2000]

Rape is consummated when the penis touches, no matter how slightly, the victim's sexual organ. Full or complete penetration is not necessary. In this case, we affirm appellant's conviction, because the victim credibly testified that the appellant's organ "touched" hers, and the medical report showed lacerations in her hymen and abrasions in her external genitalia.

The gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years of age. It is well-settled that complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not necessary to consummate rape. What is essential is that there be penetration of the sexual organ, no matter how slight.8 [People v. Soan, 243 SCRA 627, April 21, 1995, per Puno, J.; People v. Castro, 196 SCRA 679, May 6, 1991; People v. Bacalzo, 195 SCRA 557, March 22, 1991; People v. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657, May 29, 1991; People v. Genores, 193 SCRA 263, January 24, 1991.] The Court in People v. Bacani9 [181 SCRA 393, January 24, 1990.] elucidated thus:

"The law may now be considered as settled that complete, or total penetration of complainant's private organ is not necessary to consummate the crime of rape. The slightest penetration will suffice. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential for the offense of consummated rape. It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum. Therefore, it is unnecessary to show to what extent penetration of the woman's body has been made. It is adequate if the woman's body is entered."10 [See also People v. Ayo, 305 SCRA 543, March 30, 1999; People v. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470, December 5, 1997; People v. dela Pena, 276 SCRA 558, July 31, 1997.]

That sexual intercourse had not been complete was apparent from the testimony of the complainant herself, who admitted that the penis of the accused had not entered her vagina. However, she maintained that it touched her organ. We thus agree with the trial court's affirmation of the victim's declaration.

Justice Panganiban, Third Division, People v. Dedace [G.R. No. 132551. March 22, 2000]

There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that accused-appellant has had carnal knowledge of the victim. In rape cases, the courts are guided by the long-standing rule that penetration is not essential for conviction of the culprit.8 [People vs. Faigano, 254 SCRA 10.] Mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused’s penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape,9 [People vs. Echegaray, 257 SCRA 561.] and the fact that her hymen is still intact does not negate its commission.10 [People vs. Palicte, 229 SCRA 543; People vs. Abella, 228 SCRA 662; People vs. Ligotan, 262 SCRA 602.] Physical evidence indicates that there has been erythema or redness in the vaginal opening of the victim. An entry into the vaginal orifice, however slight, consummates the offense.

Justice Vitug, En Banc, People v. Barredo [G.R. No. 133832. March 28, 2000]

 Admittedly, rape under the first paragraph of Art. 33516 [Now Art. 266-A, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997), which took effect on October 22, 1997.] of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is consummated when there is penetration, no matter how slight, of the victim’s genitalia17 [People v. Sanchez, 250 SCRA 14 (1995); People v. Borja, 267 SCRA 370 (1997); People v. Evangelista, 282 SCRA 37 (1997); People v. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432 (1998).] under any of the circumstances enumerated therein.18 [(a) Through force, threat or intimidation; (b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.]

En Banc, Justice Buena, People v. Nava, Jr.,  [G.R. No. 130509-12. June 19, 2000]

What Melina told Orosco, i.e., that "there is somebody who wanted to abuse (her)," should be read in context. She saw and talked to Orosco immediately upon coming out of the toilet, still reeling from the blows she had received from accused-appellant. She was obviously in shock. What really mattered to her then, after she was saved by the timely arrival of Orosco, was her belief that accused-appellant had not completely succeeded in abusing her. Not familiar with the law, complainant could not have known that the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis constitutes carnal knowledge.19 [People v. Clopino, 290 SCRA 432 (1998); People v. Castromero, 280 SCRA 421 (1997); People vs. Baculi, 246 SCRA 756 (1995)]

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELRANIE MARTINEZ y DIGAL, accused-appellant,  [G.R. No. 130606. February 15, 2000]

In the crime of rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant’s private part is not necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entrance or at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is proved. The mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the victim’s genitalia and not the full penetration of the complainant’s private part consummates the crime.17 People v. Cura, 240 SCRA 234, 242 (1995).17 More importantly, it has been ruled in People v. San Juan18 270 SCRA 693, 709 (1997).18 that in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the successful prosecution of the crime, as her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused thereof.

En Banc, Justice Ynares-Santiago, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOEL SANDOVAL, accused-appellant [G.R. Nos. 132625-31. December 18, 2000]

The victim has been consistent and positive in her testimony that LITO inserted his penis in her vagina and felt pain in the process. LITO has not successfully controverted this testimony. JOANNA’s testimony that she had her panty on was not inconsistent with her testimony that LITO inserted his penis into her vagina. The fact that the victim was wearing a panty when the sexual assault was committed did not negate penetration.

Further, the fact of penetration, though incomplete, was collaborated by the testimony of the examining physician that there was a congestion or redness on the vaginal area of the victim which could have been caused by a fully erected penis.10 [TSN, 30 May 1995, 4.]]

As for the intact hymen, such finding has no bearing on the fact of carnal knowledge. We have held that to sustain a conviction for rape, full penetration of the female genital organ is not required since mere entry by the penis into the lips of the said organ -- even without rupture or laceration of the hymen -- is sufficient. Thus, a finding that the victim’s hymen is intact does not negate a finding that rape was committed.11 [People v. Gagto, 253 SCRA 455, 464 [1996].]

CJ Davide, First Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LITO BAYGAR y ESCOBAR, accused-appellant. A [G.R. No. 132238. November 17, 1999]

Clearly, the essential requisite of carnal knowledge has been adequately established. When the physician’s finding of penetration is corroborated by the testimony of the victim that the appellant’s private part touched her vagina, it is sufficient to establish the essential requisite of carnal knowledge.19 [People vs. De la Peña, 276 SCRA 558 (1997), citing People vs. Castillo, 197 SCRA 657 (1991).] Statutory rape as defined in Art. 335, par. (3), of the Revised Penal Code is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under twelve (12) years of age. The penetration, no matter how slight, or mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum constitutes carnal knowledge.20 [Ibid.]

 Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SOTERO GARIGADI, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 110111. October 26, 1999]

In any case, even if his organ merely touched the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina, this already constitutes rape since the complete penetration of the penis into the female organ is not necessary.48 [People vs. Peurtollano, G. R. No. 122423, 17 June 1999, p. 10; People vs. Quiñanola, G. R. No. 126148, 5 May 1999, p. 23; People vs. Almaden, G. R. No. 112088, 25 March 1999, p. 8.] The mere introduction of the penis into the aperture of the female organ, thereby touching the labia of the pudendum, already consummates the crime of rape.49 [People vs. Silvano, G. R. 127356, 29 June 1999, p. 9; People vs. Ablog, G. R. No. 124005, 28 June 1999, p. 8.] Since the labia is the outer lip of the genital organ,50 [People vs. Ayo, G. R. No. 123540, 30 March 1999, p. 12.] accused-appellant's act of repeatedly placing his organ in the "hole" of Crisselle's vagina was rape.

Per Curiam, En Banc, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO BALGOS, Alias "Lupog," accused-appellant,  [G.R. No. 126115. January 26, 2000]