G.R. No. 142740 ; August 6, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO TAMPOS Y AGUSTIN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Roberto Tampos, was charged with statutory rape for allegedly having carnal knowledge of six-year-old Happylen Ortega on February 18, 1999, in Davao City. The prosecution presented the victim, who testified that Tampos carried her to a dark area, forced her to lie down, removed her pants, and placed his erect penis on her vagina. She clarified that there was contact but no full penetration. Supporting witnesses included the victim’s mother, who confirmed her age, a security guard who apprehended Tampos at the scene, and a bystander who reported the incident. Dr. Samuel Cruz, who medically examined the victim, found her hymen intact and its orifice too small to allow complete penetration without injury, but his semenology test was positive for spermatozoa.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Tampos of statutory rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, Tampos argued that the medical findings negated carnal knowledge, as defined by complete penetration of the female organ, and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant can be validly convicted of statutory rape despite the medical finding of an intact hymen, indicating lack of complete penetration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the offense. The Court explained that for statutory rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, carnal knowledge requires proof of the “penetration of the female organ by the male organ,” however slight. The victim’s credible testimony, corroborated by witnesses and the presence of spermatozoa, established that there was contact and an attempt at penetration. However, the medical evidence conclusively showed the hymen was intact, precluding a finding of even slight penetration. Therefore, the element of carnal knowledge for rape was not proven.
Nonetheless, the Court held that the facts constituted acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The accused-appellant’s acts of undressing the child and placing his penis on her vagina, given her tender age, indisputably constituted child abuse through lascivious conduct. Since the information alleged facts that necessarily included acts of lasciviousness, a conviction for this lesser offense was legally permissible. The Court modified the penalty accordingly, applying the provisions of R.A. No. 7610 .