REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH 9

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- Criminal Case No. 123445

For: Rape (Art. 266-A
CHRISTIAN EVANGELISTA paragraph. 1(d) Qualified by
Art. 266-B paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code as
amended)
accused

x--------------------------------x

DECISION
The present case involves the crime of rape allegedly committed by Christian
Evangelista “Tatay Ian”, against his minor step-daughter, “AAA”. AAA who was
10 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, testified that On October
2, 2018, at around 6:00 in the evening, when she was left alone with her step-
father in their house, the accused took advantage of his superiority over AAA,
was able to have carnal knowledge with her against the latter’s will. Unknown to
AAA, the accused’s twin brother Christopher Evangelista was at their house at
the time when the crime was committed. The defense of the accused was that he
was at the kitchen preparing dinner for the three of them when the alleged rape
happened. That it was his twin brother who was at the sala watching TV, not
him. That AAA could not possibly distinguish who between him and his twin
brother could have perpetrated the said crime.

After a careful review of the records and a closer scrutiny of AAA's testimony, we
are not fully convinced that the accused committed the crime. The following
circumstances, would cast doubt as to the conviction of the accused: (1) the
version of AAA's story in her complaint-affidavit differs from her testimony in
court; (2) the medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are
inconclusive as to period when the lacerations were inflicted; and (3) AAA could
not have determined with reasonable certainty that the perpetrator of the crime
was Christian Evangelista and not his twin brother Christopher Evangelista.

1
First, it has often been noted that if there is an inconsistency between the
affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given more weight
since affidavits being taken ex parte are usually incomplete and inadequate.1 In
her complaint-affidavit, AAA stated in paragraph 1(d) that Evangelista placed
himself on top of her, both of them being already undressed, kissed his step
daughter and touched her breasts and inserted his penis into her vagina, at the
same time threatening to kill her if she would shout or tell anybody afterwards
what he was doing to her. However, when AAA testified before the court, she was
doubtful as to whether Evangelista did insert his penis into her vagina. To wit:

Q: AAA, naalala mo ba ang ginawa sa’yo ni Tatay Ian noong Oct. 2, 2018?
AAA: Opo.

Q: Pwede mo bang ikwento ang nangyari?

AAA: Nung naglalaro po ako sa labas ng bahay namin, bigla po niya akong
tinawag para kumain daw. Pero pag pasok ko po nakahubad na siya tapos
pinalapit niya ako sakanya tapos maghubad din daw ako.

Q: Pagkatapos no’n, may nangyari pa ba?

AAA: Opo. Naghubad po ako, pinahawak po niya ang totoy niya sa akin at sabay
halik at hipo po sa akin.

Q: Ipinasok ba niya ang totoy niya sa pepe mo?

AAA: Opo.

Q: Paano mo nasabi na napasok niya ito?

AAA: (did not answer)

Q: Sige, ganito na lang, sumakit ba ang pepe mo pagkatapos niya ipasok

ang totoy niya sa iyo?
AAA: Hindi po. (Emphasis supplied)

Second, the physical examination which AAA underwent on October 6, 2018,

which was 4 days after the incident, disclosed lack of external signs of physical
trauma. An examination of AAA’s Initial Medico-Legal Report, reveals the
following:

FINDINGS:

1
People v. Manigo, 725 Phil. 324, 333 (2014)

2
 1) External examination-negative for extra-genital, physical injury — Fairly
nourished child, weighing 25.1 kilos.
2) Internal examination — absence of pubic hair.
3) Hymen-presence of fresh laceration of the hymen at 3:00 to 9:00 o'clock
position in the face of the clock. Presence of slight bleeding.
Conclusion:
Physical (sic) virginity loss.

A medico-legal's findings are at most corroborative because they are mere

opinions that can only infer possibilities and not absolute necessities. In the
same way, a medico-legal's findings can raise serious doubt as to the credibility
of the alleged rape victim.2 The Court cannot deny the existence of fresh
lacerations in AAA’s genitalia. However, the prosecution failed to prove the
certainty as to the approximate time when the lacerations were inflicted. The
medico legal officer testified that she herself cannot denote the exact date when
the lacerations were inflicted. It follows that there is a slight possibility that the
accused was not the perpetrator of the crime.

There exists no credible and competent evidence to show carnal knowledge in

this case. No one, save perhaps AAA’s mother, saw whatever it is the accused
did to her. The fresh laceration of AAA's hymen and the fact that she had lost
her virginity do not at once support a conclusion that they were caused by the
accused.

Third, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution

carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of
the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the
complainant.3

Proving the identity of the accused as the malefactor is the prosecution's primary
responsibility. The identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the
prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for
even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no
conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt4

2
People v. Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho, G.R. No. 225642-43, January
17, 2018
3
People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 200529, September 19, 2012
4
People v. Caliso, 675 Phil. 742, 752 (2011)

3
It was elucidated in the testimony of the accused that AAA and him were not
alone in the house. He said that his twin brother Christopher Evangelista was
also in their house who was watching TV in the sala while he prepared dinner.
This was corroborated by other witnesses of the accused. AAA as said in her
testimony as well that she knew that Christian Evangelista has a twin brother
but did not know that he was at their house on October 2, 2018 and that she
cannot determine one from the other every time she sees them. It follows then
that AAA was not confident as to the identity of the accused. There is a clear
want of the 2nd element.

The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be
received with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted. Courts
should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape, especially where
the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated
and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting
interpretations. While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and
humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should
equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the
law.5

In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean
such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.6

A conviction in a criminal case must be supported by proof beyond reasonable

doubt, which means a moral certainty that the accused is guilty; the burden of
proof rests upon the prosecution.7 In the case at bar, the prosecution has failed
to discharge its burden of establishing with moral certainty the truthfulness of
the charge that appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will.

The numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of private complainant have

created reasonable doubt in Our mind. In view of the foregoing considerations,
the presumption of innocence in favor of appellant must be upheld considering
that the evidence brought forth in trial falls short of the quantum of proof to
support a conviction.

5
People v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February 12, 2014
6
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
7
People v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February 12, 2014

4
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Accused, Christian Evangelista is
hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of rape under Art. 266-A paragraph. 1(d)
Qualified by Art. 266-B paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended on
the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release from custody is hereby
ordered unless they are being held for other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.

JUDGE YYY
Presiding Judge