In a landmark choice, the Supreme Court defined when the crime of rape by means of penetration is taken into account consummated.
The 40-page choice penned by Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguiao affirmed the Valenzuela Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) conviction of Efren Agao of two counts of rape, which was later upheld by the Court of Appeals.
However, the SC modified the decrease courtroom’s rulings and located Agao responsible of just one rely of statutory rape and one rely of straightforward rape.
In 2014, Agao was charged with two counts of statutory rape over the crime he dedicated towards his live-in accomplice’s daughter.
The respondent was convicted by the Valenzuela City RTC Branch 172, which dominated that Agao’s personal organ “only merely touched the labia of the victim.”
The excessive courtroom stated the crime of rape was “nevertheless consummated following the 2014 case of People v. Besmonte, which held that carnal knowledge, as an element of rape, does not require full penetration of the female organ.”
The SC, within the ruling towards Agao, highlighted the significance of utilizing “unambiguous language” within the decision of rape instances.
Conclusion
“The Court then concluded that mere introduction, however slight, into the cleft of the labia majora by a penis that is capable of penetration, regardless of whether such penile penetration is thereafter fully achieved, consummates the crime of rape,” it stated.
It additionally clarified that “mere touch” of the lads’s personal organ on the labia majora “legally contemplates not mere surface touch or skin contact, but the slightest penetration of the vulval or pudendal cleft, however minimum in degree.”
The United States National Library of Medicine defines labia majora as a distinguished pair that varieties the folds that cowl the labia minora, clitoris, vulva vestibule, vestibular bulbs, Bartholin’s glands, Skene’s glands, urethra, and the vaginal opening.
“The Court stressed that such clarification is necessary, as otherwise any nature and degree of touch of a penis of the female genitalia can be considered consummated rape, effectively resulting in all sexual assaults involving a penis and the vulva to only either be acts of lasciviousness or consummated rape, with no gradation of the attempted stage in between,” it stated.
Applying the clarified threshold within the Agao’s case, the High Court discovered that Agao’s erect penis touching sufferer’s vulval cleft categorically exhibits that “the minimum penile-vaginal contact between the penis and the vulval cleft needed for a finding of consummate rape was present.”
It, nonetheless, stated that respondent ought to solely be convicted of 1 cost of statutory rape which occurred when the sufferer was 10-years-old, whereas the opposite cost needs to be diminished to easy rape, because it occurred when the sufferer was 13-years-old.
Dissent
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen expressed his dissent, saying that “rape is no longer a crime against chastity but now a crime against the dignity of a human being.”
“Regretfully, the discussion regarding the anatomy of the vagina and its relation to penetration reverses the established progressive doctrine, downplays the crime of rape, and makes invisible the sordid violation of the dignity of the victim,” Leonen stated in a 12-page dissenting and concurring opinion.
“Rape is a crime because it is a violation of a person’s consent to intimacy and sexual relations. Rape is a crime because it is a violation of a person’s human dignity. No amount of anatomical discourse should ever erase the heinousness of this crime,” he added.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo stated he agreed with the ponencia of Caguioa, commending his efforts “at enriching jurisprudence.”
“The ponencia sets a fine line between consummated and attempted rape based on a visual presentation and biologically accurate description of what constitutes the slightest penile contact to better guide the bench in resolving such cases,” Gesmundo stated in nine-page concurring opinion.
Women’s group Gabriela additionally slammed the SC ruling, saying that it “seems to favor more the perpetrators more than the victims.”
“While providing greater protection for the accused, it potentially provides an even more agonizing prospect for victims who now will have to face the torment of debates over millimeters” Gabriela stated in a press release.
The group emphasised that regardless of the character or specifics, “rape is a violation of a person’s humanity.”
It stated that the SC’s ruling bases its arguments purely on anatomy and poses a hazard for rape victims.
“There are plenty of women who either do not possess vaginas as in the case of transgender women, women with undeveloped genitals, intersex women, and many more who may face the realities of sexual violence but who clearly would have the sentence for their perpetrators reduced to sexual assault,” it stated.
“The Supreme Court’s decision reeks of the complete inability to grasp what makes rape a heinous crime: not an offense on ‘honor’ or ‘sanctity’ of a vagina, but an offense on consent of the woman as a human being—something that no amount of overdetailing on the nature of the act based on body parts and crass anatomy will ever capture,” it added.—LDF, GMA Integrated News
Source: www.gmanetwork.com
