Credibility is key

Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark, or deserted and secluded places, away from prying eyes

A case should always be proven by evidence. Testimonial evidence is vital. It is paramount that witnesses are credible. This is of utmost importance, especially in rape.

“Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark, or deserted and secluded places, away from prying eyes. Hence it is that a prosecution for the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended woman herself, and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility as the people’s single witness of the actual occurrence. It consequently behooves the court to exercise the greatest degree of care and caution in the consideration and analysis of her testimony, and no conviction should be handed down except only if it appears that her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion.”

In this case, the offended party testified that on 20 November 1985, she was awakened by the weight of a man who stayed on top of her. She was then sleeping in her house, with her two young children also asleep. Her husband was still out at work. The man started kissing her. She tried to scream, but the accused put his hand on her mouth. She testified that the man lifted her blouse and touched her chest. She pushed him away by his right shoulder but he held her hands down and pinned her to the floor. When she could no longer offer any resistance, the accused lifted her skirt and removed her undergarment. Upon doing so, he was able to consummate his lust on her. He left afterwards and threatened her not to tell a soul. Otherwise, harm would befall her. She mustered courage to disclose the hideous act to her husband the next day, which obviously enraged the latter. Then she reported the incident to the authorities six days later.

In his defense, the accused had an alibi. He said that he was nowhere near much less, inside the house of the offended party on the night she testified on. Rather he was in another place, about three kilometers away, fetching the husband of the offended party. With such a weak defense, the trial court tipped the scales of justice in favor of the offended party.

The Supreme Court was tasked to review the case. It made observations different from the trial court’s, hence making the following pronouncement.

“The rule of course, is that findings and conclusions of trial courts, which have the opportunity to directly observe the demeanor of the witnesses and analyze the evidence at first hand, should be accorded great respect and should not generally be disturbed on appeal. The exception is when it appears that the Trial Court has ignored or failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of such weight and substance as to place in grave doubt the validity of its findings and conclusions. The case at bar is comprehended in the exception and on this account must terminate in the appellant’s absolution”

A story such as this does not inspire belief of the commission of a felony. Rather, it indicates either that the sexual encounter did not occur at all, or that it was consented to by the woman after some initial reluctance.

“There is in the first place the improbability inhering in Ruby’s account of her violation. It is plain from the evidence that Alfredo Nunez was unarmed. He carried no instrument of violence of any kind. He uttered no threats against Ruby or her children, who were sleeping beside her. Yet she would have the Court believe that the accused, without weapons or threats, had rendered her unable to resist his lustful aggression by first covering her mouth with one hand and holding one of her breasts, then flinging her hands to the ground, and pinning her knees with his thighs. She had thereby become so helpless that the appellant was able to remove her panties and satisfy his perverse desires. And all the while that the accused was preparing to carry out his lustful intent, the only physical resistance she offered was to push him back by his right shoulder, and to mumble the word ‘traitor.’ She did not try to slap him, scratch his face, hit him, box him, kick him, get away from under him. After her first attempt, she made no further effort to shout or scream; nor did she seek to wake the children lying beside her. It was only after the appellant allegedly satisfied himself that he uttered a vague threat of some harm that would befall her if she should tell her husband of the happening.”

“A story such as this does not inspire belief of the commission of a felony. Rather, it indicates either that the sexual encounter did not occur at all, or that it was consented to by the woman after some initial reluctance… There are in this case, as earlier pointed out, ‘facts of substance and value, militating against an affirmation of the findings of guilt,’ and this proscribes the imposition of any criminal sanction of the accused, ‘particularly when the evidentiary rule is recalled that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not be received with precipitate credulity, and when the conviction depends at any vital point on her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion.”

The takeaway. If incredible, not convictable.

The facts and ruling are from People v Alfredo Nunez (GR 79316 promulgated on 10 April 1992).