SC ruling shows when rape is consummated

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court explained when the crime of rape through penetration is considered consummated.

The 40-page decision penned by Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguiao affirmed the Valenzuela Regional Trial Court's (RTC) conviction of a man of two counts of rape, which was later upheld by the Court of Appeals. 

However, the SC modified the lower court’s rulings and found the man guilty of only one count of statutory rape and one count of simple rape.

In 2014, the man was charged with two counts of statutory rape over the crime he committed against his live-in partner’s daughter.

The respondent was convicted by the Valenzuela City RTC Branch 172, which ruled that the man’s private organ "only merely touched the labia of the victim."

The high court said 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, in the ruling against the man, highlighted the importance of using “unambiguous language” in the resolution of rape cases.

NOTE TO READERS: The following paragraphs contain graphic information relevant to the story.

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 said. 

It also clarified that “mere touch” of the men’s private 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 prominent pair that forms the folds that cover 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 said.

Applying the clarified threshold in the man’s case, the High Court found that his erect penis touching victim’s vulval cleft categorically shows that “the minimum penile-vaginal contact between the penis and the vulval cleft needed for a finding of consummate rape was present.”

It, however, said that respondent should only be convicted of one charge of statutory rape which occurred when the victim was 10-years-old, while the other charge should be reduced to simple rape, as it happened when the victim 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 said 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 said 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 said in nine-page concurring opinion.

Women’s group Gabriela also 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 said in a statement.

The group emphasized that no matter the nature or specifics, “rape is a violation of a person’s humanity.”

It said that the SC’s ruling bases its arguments purely on anatomy and poses a danger 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 said.

“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/KG, GMA Integrated News