PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
RODRIGO MACASPAC y ISIP CA: AFFIRMED
February 22, 2017 G.R. No. 198954 BERSAMIN, J.
DOCTRINE: When the victim was alerted to the impending lethal attack due to
the preceding heated argument between him and the accused, with the latter
even uttering threats against the former, treachery cannot be appreciated as an
attendant circumstance. When the resolve to commit the crime was immediately
followed its execution, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Hence, the
crime is homicide, not murder.
The case was archived for more than 15 years because Macaspac had gone into
hiding and remained at large until his arrest on July 28, 2004. Upon his
arraignment on August 31, 2004, he pleaded not guilty to the foregoing
information.
FACTS
Around 8:00 in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with
Ricardo Surban, Dionisio Barcomo alias Boy, Jimmy Reyes, and Jebulan on
Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In the course of their drinking, an
argument ensued between .Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated that,
Macaspac uttered to the group: Hintayin nyo ako d'yan, wawalisin ko
kayo, and then left. After around three minutes Macaspac returned wielding a
kitchen knife. He confronted and taunted Jebulan, saying: Ano? Jebulan simply
replied: Tama na. At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the
lower right area of his chest, and ran away. Surban and the others witnessed
the stabbing of Jebulan. The badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the hospital
but was pronounced dead on arrival.
DEFENSE: Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and
Jebulan had scuffled for the possession of the lmife, and that he had then
stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife. However, Macaspac later
on claimed that Jebulan had been stabbed by accident when he fell on the knife.
Macaspac denied being the person with whom Jebulan had the argument, which
he insisted had been between Barcomo and one Danny. According to him, he
tried to pacify their argument, but his effort angered Jebu1an, who drew out the
knife and tried to stab him. He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of Jebulan,
whom he struck with a wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused
Jebulan to fall on the knife, puncturing his chest.9
RTC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder.
ISSUE: WON Macaspac is guilty of the crime of murder.
HELD: NO. only HOMICIDE
The Court sees no misreading by the RTC and the CA of the credibility of the
witnesses and the evidence of the parties. On the contrary, the CA correctly
observed that inconsistencies had rendered Macaspac 's testimony doubtful as
to shatter his credibility. In so saying, we do not shift the burden of proof to
Macaspac but are only stressing that his initial invocation of self-defense, being
in the nature of a forthright admission of committing the killing itself, placed on
him the entire burden of proving such defense by clear and convincing
evidence.
i. SELF-DEFENSE: NONE
Alas, Macaspac did not discharge his burden. It is noteworthy that the CA
rejected his claim of self-defense by highlighting the fact that Jebulan had not
engaged in any unlawful aggression against him. Instead, the CA observed that
Jebulan was already running away from the scene when Macaspac stabbed him.
Self-defense, requires three (3) elements, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself, must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence.
From the testimony of appellant, it is clear that even before he stabbed Jebulan,
the latter was already running away from him. Hence, granting that Jebulan was
initially the aggressor, appellant's testimoriy shows that said unlawful
aggression already ceased when appellant stabbed him. Clearly, appellant's act
of stabbing said victim would no longer be justified as an act of self-defense.
Macaspac's initial claim that he and Jebulan had scuffled for the possession of
the knife, and that he had stabbed Jebulan only after grabbing the knife from
the latter became incompatible with his subsequent statement of only striking
Jebulan with the wooden chair, causing the latter to fall on the knife. The
incompatibility, let alone the implausibility of the recantation, manifested the
lack of credibility of Macaspac as a witness.
Both the RTC17and the CAconcluded that Macaspac had suddenly attacked the
completely unarmed and defenseless Jebulan; and that Macaspac did not
thereby give Jebulan the opportunity to retaliate, or to defend himself, or to
take flight, or to avoid the deadly assault.
ii. TREACHERY: none
Without the Prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of either
treachery or evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for
the killing of Jebulan. The penalty for homicide, based on Article 246 of
the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal.. Accordingly, Macaspac shall suffer
the indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14
years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal.

Two conditions must concur in order for treachery to be appreciated,

namely: one, the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution
of the criminal act which ·give the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and two, said means, methods or forms of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant. Treachery, whenever
alleged in the information and competently and clearly proved, qualifies the
killing and raises it to the category of murder.

Based on the records,. Macaspac did not mount the attack with surprise
because the heated argument between him and the victim and his angry threat
of going back "to sweep them" had sufficiently forewarned the latter of the
impending lethal assault. Nonetheless, the information also alleged the
attendance of evident premeditation. We now determine if the records
sufficiently established this circumstance.1âwphi1

iii. EVIDENT PREMIDITATION: NONE

The requisites for the appreciation of evident premeditation are: (1) the time
when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime;
and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.22

Macaspac 's having suddenly left the group and his utterance of Hintayin n’yo
ako d'yan, wawalisin ko kayo marked the time of his resolve to commit the
crime. His returning to the group with the knife manifested his clinging to his
resolve to inflict lethal harm on the others. The first and second elements of
evident premeditation were thereby established. But it is the essence of this
circumstance that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought
and reflection upon the resolve to carry out the criminal intent during the space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. By quickly returning to the
group with the knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to
reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the
execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime. As such,
the third requisite was absent.
PEOPLE vs JUANITO ENTRAMPAS
March 29, 2017 G.R. No. 212161 LEONEN, J.
Tickler: an 11-year old girl gave birth to a child after she was repeatedly raped
by the common-law husband of her biological mother.
SC: AFFIRMED the conviction for two (2) counts of statutory rape.
FACTS
Entrampas, then 50 years old,4 was a farmer who tilled a rice field half a
kilometer away from their home, and BBB were common-law spouses. AAA,
BBB's daughter from a previous relationship, lived with them. She looked up to
Entrampas as her adoptive father. Sometime in February 2003, at about 5:00
p.m., AAA arrived from school to cook for her family. She was interrupted by
Entrampas and was asked to go to the room upstairs.9 The 11-year old girl
obeyed.
"Once in the room, [Entrampas] forced AAA to lie down on the floor[.]"11 She
was warned by accused-appellant that if she shouted he would kill her. She was
also warned that if she told her mother about what he was about to do, he
would kill them. Entrampas took off the child's panty, undressed himself, and
inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain as he penetrated her. Her
vagina bled. She cried and pleaded him to stop. As he consummated the act, she
noticed a knife on the wall within his reach. She became more fearful. After
satisfying himself, he again warned the child that he would kill her arid her
mother if she informed anyone about the incident.
The incident occurred again a week later in February 2003. Entrampas told
AAA to lie down, penetrated her vagina, and then left her. Over the following
months, Entrampas repeatedly raped AAA, who, out of fear, remained silent.
In July 2003, BBB observed some changes in her daughter's body. AAA's breasts
had swollen, she had lost her appetite, and she was always sleeping. By
September 2003, AAA's belly had become noticeably bigger. She was brought to
the dispensary where her urine test was submitted for analysis. AAA's
pregnancy test yielded positive.
Fearing for her life, AAA refused to reveal the identity of the father of her
child.26 Neighbors suspected that Entrampas got her pregnant. BBB asked
Entrampas, who, according to BBB, admitted that he was the father of AAA's
child.
On September 8, 2003, Entrampas and BBB went to BBB's brother, CCC, "to
confess the crime he had committed against AAA."28 Entrampas allegedly felt
remorseful and told CCC to kill him to avenge AAA. CCC immediately reported
the matter to the police.
On November 3, 2003, AAA gave birth to a baby boy at the North Western Leyte
District Hospital of Calubian, Leyte.
Before the Regional Trial Court, Entrampas was charged with two (2) counts of
qualified rape.
DEFENSE: The defense's sole witness was Entrampas himself. Entrampas
claimed that he could not have raped AAA as he was often in the rice field. He
usually went to the rice field at 5 :00 a.m. and headed home at about 5 :00 p.m.
or 6:00 p.m.
He denied having raped AAA and having visited CCC with BBB. He equally
refuted confessing to CCC that he raped AAA and asking for his forgiveness. He
also contested the alleged inconsistent statements of AAA regarding the time
the first and second rape happened, and whether she was awake or asleep
before the sexual molestation.
RTC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of statutory rape.
CA: AFFIRMED the ruling.
ISSUE: WON Enrampas is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 2 counts of
statutory rape.
HELD
YES
The alleged inconsistencies "are collateral and minor matters which do not at
all touch upon the commission of the crime nor affect [the minor victim]'s
credibility." AAA's inability to recall the precise date and time of the rape is
immaterial as these are not elements of the crime. Moreover, "rape victims are
not expected to cherish in their memories an accurate account of the dates,
number of times[,] and manner they were violated."
Neither do the alleged discrepancies, not being elements of the crime, diminish
the credibility of AAA's declarations. Jurisprudence has consistently given full
weight and credence to a child's testimonies. "Youth and immaturity are badges
of truth and sincerity. " "Leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors,
especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse."
AAA, then only 11 years old, had no reason to concoct lies against petitioner.
Her declarations are generally coherent and intrinsically believable.
Her failures to resist the sexual aggression and to immediately report the
incident to the authorities or to her mother do not undermine her credibility.
The silence of the rape victim does not negate her sexual molestation or make
her charge baseless, untrue, or fabricated. Force and intimidation must be
appreciated in light of the victim's perception and judgment when the assailant
committed the crime.71 In rape perpetrated by close kin, such as the common-
law spouse of the child's mother, actual force or intimidation need not be
employed.
Accused-appellant questioned the Regional Trial Court's appreciation of the age
of the victim at the time of the commission of rape. He claimed that the birth
certificate cast doubt on whether the victim was indeed below 12 years old in
February 2003, when the offense was first committed. According to him, AAA's
birth certificate should be questioned as it was registered late. Absent proof to
the contrary, accused-appellant's objection must be set aside. A public
document such as a birth certificate generally enjoys the presumption of
regularity. Accused-appellant failed to present any evidence to overturn this
legal presumption.
On the two (2) charges of qualified rape, AAA clearly and consistently
communicated how accused-appellant threatened and forced her into having
sexual congress with him. Accused-appellant's acts amounted to statutory rape
through carnal knowledge under Article 266-A(l )(d) of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended:
As to the circumstances qualifying rape, the prosecution established that the
victim was less than 12 years old when the incident happened in February
2003, and that the offender was her guardian. AAA's Certificate of Live Birth
proved her minority. AAA was accused-appellant's foster daughter. AAA and
her mother, who was accused-appellant's former live-in partner, resided with
accused-appellant in his house.
In September 2003, Dr. Bagaporo administered AANs pregnancy test and found
her to be with child. AAA gave birth on November 3, 2003, within nine (9)
months from the date of the first rape in February 2003.Meanwhile, CCC
averred that accused-appellant admitted the crime to him, after which CCC
reported the incident to the barangay captain and then to the police. As against
these details and testimonies, all that accused-appellant offered in defense were
denials and alibis, which jurisprudence has long considered weak and
unreliable.
The Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, properly found
that the testimonies of AAA, BBB, CCC, and Dr. Bagaporo corroborated each
other and supported the physical evidence. There was no showing that the
witnesses for the prosecution had ill motives to testify against accused-
appellant. Their testimonies are, therefore, accorded full faith and credence.
In view of the depravity of the acts committed by accused-appellant against his
11-year old foster daughter, this Court increases the amounts awarded to AAA,
in accordance with jurisprudence:
For qualified rape through carnal knowledge, this Court modifies the award of
civil indemnity from ₱75,000.00 to ₱l00,000.00; moral damages from
₱75,000.00 to ₱l00,000.00; and exemplary damages from ₱30,000.00 to
₱l00,000.00.95
In Criminal Case No. CN-04-457, Juanito Entrampas is SENTENCED to reclusion
perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided for by law. We modify the
award of civil indemnity from ₱75,000.00 to ₱l00,000.00; moral damages from
₱75,000.00 to ₱l00,000.00; and exemplary damages from ₱30,000.00
to ₱l00,000.00,96 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Likewise, in Criminal Case No. CN-04-458, Juanito Entrampas
is SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided
for by law. We modify the award of civil indemnity from ₱75,000.00
to ₱l00,000.00; moral damages from ₱75,000.00 to ₱l00,000.00; and
exemplary damages from ₱30,000.00 to ₱l00,000.00,97without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILPPINES vs JESSIE GABRIEL
March 15, 2017 G.R. No. 213390 DEL CASTILLO, J.
Tickler: 17YO Nursing Sudent
FACTS
"AAA" at the time material to this case is a 17-year old first-year nursing
student at the Colegio de Dagupan and temporarily resides at the boarding
house of appellant in Dagupan City. "AAA" testified that at about 6:00 p.m. of
February 17, 2010, she, with her cousin and co-boarder ''BBB," was inside their
room at the second floor of the said boarding house when appellant suddenly
entered their room and accused them of having stolen items of merchandise
from his store located near the said boarding house. "AAA" and "BBB"
vehemently denied this accusation, but appellant did not believe them. Instead,
appellant directed them to see him in his room at the first floor of the boarding
house to talk about the matter. When "AAA" went inside appellant's room, the
latter renewed his insistence that "AAA" own up to having stolen the
merchandise in question, otherwise he would bring her to the Police Station
and have a theft case against her blottered. He t.1-ien told her to sit on his lap
and began caressing her back. "AAA" demanded that he stop what he was doing
because she did not like it, but he paid no heed to her demand. When "AAA"
stood up to leave, appellant pulled her back, compelled her to sit on his lap
anew, and then proceeded to unhook her bra; MADE HER LIE DOWN; `made her
spread her legs and undressed her in which he inserted his penis inside her
vagina while the AAA was crying; lasted for abou 30 minsA Around thirty (30)
minutes, madam.
Appellant's lecherous assault upon "AAA;' ceased only when his child
knocked on the door and called for him. When he heard his child's
knocking, he released "AAA" from his clutches, told her to get dressed and
leave the room. "AAA" then went to the bathroom to wash and then returned
to her room at the second floor where she continued to cry. "BBB" asked her
why she was crying but she could not tell her of her forcible violation. Later that
evening, "AAA's" aunt, "CCC," and her husband "DDD," together with "BBB's''
mother "EEE" (who was earlier texted by "BBB" to come to the boarding house)
arrived. They confronted appellant about his accusation that "AAA'' and "BBB"
had stolen certain items from his store. It was then that "'AAA" told "CCC"
and "DDD" that she had been raped by appellant. A call was then made to the
city police department which deployed SPO1 Esteban Martinez and PO1 Ramon
Valencerina, Jr. who, upon reaching the boarding house, were informed that
"AAA" had been raped by appellant. These police officers arrested appellant
and brought him to the police station. After this, "AA.A'' submitted herself to
physical examination at the Region 1 Medical Center in that city.
The Medico-Legal Report issued by Dr. Marlene Quiramol moreover
showed tell-tale evidence that "AAA" had indeed been sexually abused, as
there were erythema and fossa navicularis at the external genitalia, as
well as multiple fresh lacerations at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 o'clock positions in
"AAA's" hymen.
DEFENSE: Appellant denied that he raped "AAA". He claimed that on the
morning of February 17, 2010J he noticed that some items of merchandise in
his store were missing and he suspected that "AAA" and '~BBB" were the
culprits; hence, he went to their room to confront them. These two however
denied his accusation, so he confronted them with the pictures of the missing
items which he earlier took in the locker inside the room rented by "AAA" and
"BBB." Appellant nevertheless admitted that on said occasion, he talked with
"AAA" inside his room at the first floor of the boarding house for some 15
minutes, but stressed that after their conversation, "AAA" went outside while
he proceeded to his store.
RTC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, defined and
penalized under Article 266-A (a) of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
Republic Act No. 8353, or the Anti Rape Law of 1997 and is hereby imposed
with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
CA: AFFIRMED
ISSUE: WON Gabriel was guilty of the crime of rape.
HELD
YES.
Appellant, however, casts doubts on the credibility of AAA He contends that
AAA was motivated by revenge because he had accused her of stealing and
insisted that she admit the act. He also assails the credibility of AAA's account of
the rape by pointing out that: AAA offered no resistw1ce; she first claimed that
she did not feel appellant's penis inside her vagina but later abandoned her
claim; x x x she did not tell her boardmate Montanez, "BBB", and her aunt "CCC"
[about the alleged rape] but confided to them, except Montanez, that appellant
was forcing her to admit to the theft; AAA did not immediately reveal the rape In the end, the CA sustained the factual underpinnings of the RTC's verdict,
to the police but first talked to her uncle after which the latter confronted harking back to the well-settled dictum that the trial court is the best assayer
appellant. and evaluator of witnesses and their testimonies, thus:

The CA however found appellant's contentions unconvincing. It is highly
improbable that a young, decent woman taking up nursing would concoct a
rape story against a man who is accusing her of a petty crime which she denies.
A woman who claims rape exposes herself to the spectacle of a public trial
where she would recount the sordid details of her ordeal. Thus, it has been
repeatedly ruled 1hat no young and decent woman in her right mind would
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not
motivated solely by her desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her.
Even assuming that AAA did not tenaciously resist the sexual assault[,] that
does not negate rape. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the
light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of
the crime. It is settled that not all victims react the same way.Moreover,
resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove
that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation
employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether
it was more or less irresistible is beside the point. In this case, what is
important is that AAA did not consent to the intercourse. She cried as appellant
ravished her and told her uncle about the rape at the first opportunity.
The trial court gave credence to AAA and her testimony. Since the trial court
had the opportunity to examine her demeanor and conduct on the stand, We do
not find any reason to depart from its findings. Time and time again, it has been
ruled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is
a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique firsthand
opportunity to observe them under examination. SC find no reason to disturb
the CA's above-mentioned findings and conclusion, especially so because in the
case at bench the CA and the RTC have uniformly given short shrift to
appellant's bare denial.
MODIFICATION OF SC: To these postulations by the CA, we give our
unreserved assent. Nonetheless, we have to modify the awards for civil
indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Conformably to this
Court's holding in People v. Jugueta,16 the awards for civil indemnity, moral
damages, and exemplary damages should be upgraded to ₱75,000.00 each. The
CA, however correctly imposed interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum on all monetary awards.

That AAA did not immediately report the rape to the police when they came to
the house but to her uncle enhances rather than weakens her testimony.11 It is
consistent with human experience for a woman to prefer to reveal the assault
on her honor to her kin first rather than to strangers, including the police.

Expounding on the usual reason for the seeming inability of the prosecution to
assemble a number of witnesses to establish a rape case, like the present case,
the CA posited that inasmuch as the crime of rape is essentially committed in
relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually the victim alone who can testify
on the forced sexual intercourse. Therefore, in a prosecution for rape, the
credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important point to
consider. If the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can
justifiably be convicted on the basis of her lone testimony
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUAN RICHARD TIONLOC y MARQUEZ
G.R. No. 212193 DEL CASTILLO, J.
When the evidence fails to establish all the elements of the crime, the verdict
must be one of acquittal of the accused. This basic legal precept applies in this
criminal litigation for rape.
TICKLER: INUMAN, VICTIM IS 24, APPELANT IS 18 AND HE OTHER IS 14;
ACQUITTED
FACTS
"AAA" testified that at around 9:30 p.m. of September 29, 2008, she was having
a drinking session with appellant and Meneses in the house of appellant.
After some time, she felt dizzy so she took a nap. At around 11:00 p.m., she was
roused from her sleep by Meneses who was mounting her and inserting his
penis into her vagina. She felt pain but could only cry in silence for fear that the
knife which they used to cut hotdog and now lying on top of a table nearby
would be used to kill her if she resisted. Meneses left after raping her. While
still feeling dizzy, afraid and shivering, appellant approached her and
asked if he could also have sex with her. When she did not reply appellant
mounted and raped her. Appellant stopped only when she tried to reposition
her body. "AAA" then left appellant's house and immediately returned to the
house she shared with her live-in partner. The following day, "AAA" reported
the incident to the police. She also underwent a medical examination and the
results revealed two lacerations in her hymen.
Defense: Appellant denied raping "AAA." He claimed that on that fateful night,
he was having a drinking session with his cousin, Gerry Tionloc. After a while,
Meneses and "AAA" arrived and joined in their drinking session. Meneses and
"AAA" then went inside his bedroom and continued drinking while he went out
of the house to buy food. When he returned and entered his bedroom, he saw
Meneses and "AAA" having sex. They asked him to leave, so he went to the
kitchen. Meneses then came out of the bedroom followed by "AAA" who was
holding a bottle of "rugby," which she brought home with her. Appellant
contended that nothing more happened that night. Meneses corroborated his
version of the incident.
RTC: GUILTY OF RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
CA: affirmed;
ISSUE: WON Tionloc is guilty of the crime of rape
HELD: NO.
It is apparent that there is a discrepancy in the designation of the crime in the
Information (rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the
RPC) and the recital in the Information (rape through sexual intercourse under
paragraph 1 of the same provision of law). However, this discrepancy does not
violate appellant's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. "[T]he character of the crime is not determined by the
caption or preamble of the Information nor from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate
facts and circumstances in the complaint or information."
Be that as it may, the prosecution had to overcome the presumption of
innocence of appellant by presenting evidence that would establish the
elements of rape by sexual intercourse under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the
RPC, to wit: (1) the offender is a man; (2) the offender had carnal knowledge of
a woman; (3) such act was accomplished by using force, threat or intimidation.
"In rape cases alleged to have been committed by force, threat or intimidation,
it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the element of
voluntariness on the part of the victim be absolutely lacking. The prosecution
must prove that force or intimidation was actually employed by accused upon
his victim to achieve his end. Failure to do so is fatal to its cause."11
Force, as an element of rape, must be sufficient to consummate the purposes
which the accused had in mind. On the other hand, intimidation must produce
fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused,
something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she
is threatened with death if she reports the incident. "Intimidation includes the
moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol.
It this case, the prosecution established that appellant was an 18-year old man
who had sexual intercourse with "AAA," a woman who was 24 years old during
the incident. However, there was no evidence to prove that appellant used
force, threat or intimidation during his sexual congress with "AAA." She
testified that appellant and Meneses are her good friends. Thus, she frequented
the house of appellant. At around 7:00 p.m. of September 29, 2008, she again
went to the house of appellant and chatted with him and Meneses while
drinking liquor. From that time up to about 11 p.m. when she took a nap, there
is no showing that appellant or Meneses forced, threatened or intimidated her.
No allegation whatsoever was made by "AAA" that Meneses or appellant
employed force, threat or intimidation against her. No claim was ever made
that appellant physically overpowered, or used or threatened to use a weapon
against, or uttered threatening words to "AAA." While "AAA" feared for her
life since a knife lying on the table nearby could be utilized to kill her if
she resisted, her fear was a mere product of her own imagination. There
was no evidence that the knife was placed nearby precisely to threaten or
intimidate her. We cannot even ascertain whether said knife can be used as a
weapon or an effective tool to intimidate a person because it was neither
presented nor described in court. These findings are clear from the following
testimony of "AAA:"
Even assuming in the nil possibility that Meneses was able to force or
instill fear in "AAA's" mind, it should be noted that he was already gone
when appellant asked "AAA" for a sexual favor. In other words, the source
of the feigned force, threat or intimidation was no longer present when
appellant casually asked his friend, "AAA," if she "can do it" one more
time. "AAA" did not respond either in the affirmative or in the negative.
Resistance Should be Made Before the Rape is Consummated.
Later on, appellant went on top of "AAA" without saying anything or uttering
threatening words. For her part, "AAA" neither intimated any form of resistance
nor expressed any word of rejection to appellant's advances. It was only when
she felt something painful minutes during their sexual intercourse that
"AAA" tried to move.
Three things are thus clear from the testimony of "AAA:" first, appellant never
employed the slightest force, threat or intimidation against her; second, "AAA"
never gave the slightest hint of rejection when appellant asked her to have sex
with him; and, third, appellant did not act with force since he readily desisted
when "AAA" felt the slightest pain and tried to move during their sexual
congress.
"AAA" could have resisted right from the start. But she did not, and chose not
to utter a word or make any sign of rejection of appellant's sexual advances. It
was only in the middle of their sexual congress when "AAA" tried to move
which can hardly be considered as an unequivocal manifestation of her refusal
or rejection of appellant's sexual advances.
"AAA's" state of"shivering" could not have been produced by force, threat or
intimidation. She insinuates that she fell into that condition after Meneses had
sexual intercourse with her. However, their age gap negates force, threat or
intimidation; he was only 14 while "AAA" was already 24, not to mention that
they were friends. In addition, per "AAA's" own declaration, Meneses and
appellant did not also utter threatening words or perform any act of
intimidation against her.
The fact that "AAA" was tipsy or drunk at that time cannot be held against the
appellant. There is authority to the effect that "where consent is induced by the
administration of drugs or liquor, which incites her passion but does not
deprive her of her will power, the accused is not guilty of rape."18
Here, and as narrated by "AAA" on the witness stand, appellant and Meneses
were her friends. Thus, as usual, she voluntarily went with them to the house of
appellant and chatted with them while drinking liquor for about four hours.
And while "AAA" got dizzy and was "shivering," the prosecution failed to show
that she was completely deprived of her will power.
"AAA's" degree of dizziness or "shivering" was not that grave as she portrays it
to be. "AAA" is used to consuming liquor.19 And if it is true that the gravity of
her "shivering" at that time rendered her immobile such that she could not
move her head to signal her rejection of appellant's indecent proposal or to
whisper to him her refusal, then she would have been likewise unable to stand
up and walk home immediately after the alleged rape.
It has been ruled repeatedly that in criminal litigation, the evidence of the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from
the weakness of the defense. The burden of proof rests on the State. Thus, the
failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of evidence in this case
entitles appellant to an acquittal.
VAN CLIFFORD TORRES y SALERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
January 18, 2017 G.R. No. 206627 LEONEN, J.
TICKLER: ACCUSED HIT THE VICTIM WIH A WET T-SHIRT ON HIS NECK 3X.
FACTS
CCC, AAA's uncle, previously filed a complaint for malicious mischief against
Torres, who allegedly caused damage to CCC's multicab. AAA witnessed the
alleged incident and was brought by CCC to testify during the barangay
conciliation. CCC and AAA were at the barangay hall of Clarin, Bohol waiting for
the conciliation proceedings to begin when they chanced upon Torres who had
just arrived from fishing. CCC's wife, who was also with them at the barangay
hall, persuaded Torres to attend the conciliation proceedings to answer for his
liability. Torres vehemently denied damaging CCC's multicab. In the middle of
the brewing argument, AAA suddenly interjected that Torres damaged CCC's
multicab and accused him of stealing CCC's fish nets. 15
Torres told AAA not to pry in the affairs of adults. He warned AAA that he
would whip him if he did not stop. However, AAA refused to keep silent and
continued to accuse Torres of damaging his uncle's multicab. Infuriated with
AAA's meddling, Torres whipped AAA on the neck using a wet t-shirt. Torres
continued to hit AAA causing the latter to fall down from the stairs. CCC came
to his nephew's defense and punched Torres. They engaged in a fistfight until
they were separated by Barangay Captain Hermilando Miano. Torres hit AAA
with a wet t-shirt three (3) times.
Based on the physical examination conducted by Dr. Vicente Manalo, Jr., AAA
sustained a contusion.
DEFENSE: AAA called Torres' bluff, which further provoked Torres. Torres
attempted to hit AAA but was thwarted by the timely intervention of CCC, who
suddenly attacked him. Torres claimed that CCC filed this case to preempt him
from filing a complaint for physical injuries against CCC. He also claimed that
he tried to settle the matter with CCC and CCC's wife. However, the parties
failed to reach an agreement due to the unreasonable demands of the spouses.
RTC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Other Acts of Child Abuse under
Section 10, paragraph A of Republic Act No. 7610 and applying in his favor the
beneficial provisions of The Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby imposed
the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS, the maximum
period of prision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision
mayor as maximum. The Court credits Van Clifford Torres y Salera his
preventive imprisonment in the service of his penalty pursuant to Art. 29 [of]
the Revised Penal Code as Amended.
CA:AFFIRMED
ISSUES: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on
a judgment premised on a misapprehension of facts; and (2) whether the Court
of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction despite the failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.37
HELD:
SC affirmed petitioner's conviction. The act of whipping a child three (3)
times in the neck with a wet t-shirt constitutes child abuse.
Assuming, without admitting, that petitioner did whip AAA, petitioner argues
that it should not be considered as child abuse because the law requires intent
to abuse. Petitioner maintains that he whipped AAA merely to discipline and
restrain the child "from further intensifying the situation." He also maintains
that his act was justified because AAA harassed and vexed him. 5 Thus,
petitioner claims that there could not have been any intent to abuse on his part.
We reject petitioner's contention that his act of whipping AAA is not child abuse
but merely slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. The victim,
AAA, was a child when the incident occurred. Therefore, AAA is entitled to
protection under Republic Act No. 7610.
Under Section 3(b) of the Republic Act No. 7610, child abuse is defined, thus:
Section 3. Definition of Terms.
….
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the
child which includes any of the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and
emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting
in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death. (Emphasis supplied)
10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts
therein. The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child
cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child
because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is different from
the former acts.

As can be gleaned from this provision, a person who commits an act that
debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a
human being, whether habitual or not, can be held liable for violation of
Republic Act No. 7610.
Although it is true that not every instance of laying of hands on the child
constitutes child abuse, petitioner's intention to debase, degrade, and demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child can be inferred from the manner in
which he committed the act complained of.
Petitioner's act of whipping AAA on the neck with a wet t-shirt is an act that
debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child. It is a
form of cruelty. Being smacked several times in a public place is a humiliating
and traumatizing experience for all persons regardless of age. Petitioner, as an
adult, should have exercised restraint and self-control rather than retaliate
against a 14-year-old child.

To note, petitioner used a wet t-shirt to whip the child not just once but three
(3) times. Common sense and human experience would suggest that hitting a
sensitive body part, such as the neck, with a wet t-shirt would cause an extreme
amount of pain, especially so if it was done several times. There is also reason
to believe that petitioner used excessive force. Otherwise, AAA would not have
fallen down the stairs at the third strike. AAA would likewise not have
sustained a contusion.

Indeed, if the only intention of petitioner were to discipline AAA and f stop him
from interfering, he could have resorted to other less violent means. Instead of
reprimanding AAA or walking away, petitioner chose to hit the latter.

We find petitioner liable for other acts of child abuse under Article VI,
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, which provides that "a person who
shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development .
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period."

In Araneta: [Article VI, Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610] punishes not
only those enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also
four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and
(d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The
Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately
defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts
are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the child's
development. . . . [An] accused can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUVY D. AMARELA AND JUNARD G. RACHO
G.R. No. 225642-43 MARTIRES, J.
SUMMARY: [AAA] has testified in a straightforward manner during her direct
examination and remained steadfast in her cross-examination that Amarela
sexually abused her on February 10, 2009, and [Racho] abused her five hours
later. The first rape incident took place in the daycare center. She was pulled by
Amarela while she was on her way to the comfort room located at the back of
the x x x cooperative building. Private complainant, full of mud and wet, with
dress tom, took refuge at the house of her boyfriend and sought for help. Her
boyfriend's father took her to the house of the in-laws of her cousin. [AAA], who
was still wet and muddy, begged the mother-in-law of her cousin that she be
taken to the house of her aunt. While the in-laws of her cousin helped her by
having escorted her to her aunt's house, it turned out however, that [Racho] her
escort had another plan in mind. [Racho] sexually abused [AAA], who had no
more strength to fight him.
TICKLER: RAPED TWICE BY DIFFERENT ACCUSED ON DIFFERENT
OCCASSIONS IN ONE NIGHT.
FACTS
[AAA], single, housekeeper and a resident of [XXX], Calinan, Davao City. On
February 10, 2009, at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, she was watching a
beauty contest with her aunt at Maligatong, Baguio District, Calinan, Davao City.
The contest was being held at a basketball court where a make-shift stage was
put up. The only lights available were those coming from the vehicles around.
She had the urge to urinate so she went to the comfort room beside the building
of the Maligatong Cooperative near the basketball court. Between the
cooperative building and the basketball court were several trees. She was not
able to reach the comfort room because [ Amarela] was already waiting for her
along the way. Amarela suddenly pulled her towards the day care center. She
was shocked and was no match to the strength of Amarela who pulled her
under the stage of the day care center. He punched her in the abdomen which
rendered her weak. Then Amarela undressed her. She tried to resist him but he
was stronger. He boxed her upper thigh and she felt numb. He placed himself
on top of her and inserted his penis inside her vagina and made a push and pull
movement. She shouted for help and then three men came to her rescue [so]
Amarela fled.
The three (3) persons brought her to a hut. But they closed the hut and had bad
intentions with her. So she fled and hid in a neighboring house. When she saw
that the persons were no longer around, she proceeded on her way home. She
went to the house of Godo Dumandan who brought her first to the Racho
residence because Dumandan thought her aunt was not at home. Dumandan
stayed behind So Neneng Racho asked her son [Racho] to bring her to her
aunt's house instead.
[AAA] then said that [Racho] brought her to a shanty along the way against her
will. She was told to lie down. When she refused, [Racho] boxed her abdomen
and she felt sick. She resisted by kicking him but he succeeded in undressing
her. He, then, undressed himself and placed himself on top of [AAA]. [Racho]
then inserted his penis into [AAA]'s vagina. After consummating the act,
[Racho] left her. So [AAA] went home alone.
When she reached home, her parents were already asleep. She went inside her
room and cried. The following morning, she decided to leave home. Her mother
was surprised at her decision until eventually, [AAA] told her mother about
what happened to her. She told her [eldest] brother first who got very angry.
They reported the matter to the police and eventually [ Amarela] and [Racho]
were arrested.
For the defense, Amarela testified for himself denying that he had anything to
do with what happened with AAA:
Defense of Amarela: attended the fiesta; met AAA and asked him if he knew
Eric Dumandan; saw Eric passed by and tld him that AAA was looking for him
and then he left.; had a drinking spree with his friend and fell down from the
bench afer he felt dizzy. So Sanchez brought him to the house of his elder
brother Joey in Tawan-tawan. He did not know what happened next because he
slept and woke up at six o'clock in the morning.
Defense of Racho: confirmed that he went with AAA to bring her home but
also denied raping her: alleged that AAA did not want to be brought to her
aunt's house because she knows the latter would just scold her. Instead, she
wanted to be conveyed to their house at Ventura. Since Ventura was far, Racho
did not go with her and instead went back home; told that he cannot commit
rape because his hand is impaired while showing a long scar on his left arm
which was allegedly a result of a hacking incident.
RTC:BOTH ARE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE
CA: AFFIRMED
ISSUE: WON the accuseds are guilty of rape.
HELD:
The "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our jurisprudence sometime in
1960. It is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit
that they have been abused unless that abuse had actually happened. This is
due to their natural instinct to protect their honor. We cannot believe that the
offended party would have positively stated that intercourse took place unless
it did actually take place.
This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the factual setting
back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be
reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to
the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We,
should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's
dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a
strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her
rights.
In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of rape
without gender bias or cultural misconception. It is important to weed out
these unnecessary notions because an accused may be convicted solely on the
testimony of the victim, provided of course, that the testimony is credible,
natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course
of things. Thus, in order for us to affirm a conviction for rape, we must believe
beyond reasonable doubt the version of events narrated by the victim.
We follow certain guidelines when the issue of credibility of witnesses is
presented before us, to wit:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the R TC' s evaluation of the
testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly
observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the
trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the
RTC's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by
the lower court's findings, particularly when no significant facts and
circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been
overlooked or disregarded.
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the
RTC.
After a careful review of the records and a closer scrutiny of AAA's testimony,
reasonable doubt lingers as we are not fully convinced that AAA was telling the
truth. The following circumstances, particularly, would cast doubt as to the
credibility of her testimony: (1) the version of AAA's story appearing in her
affidavit-complaint differs materially from her testimony in court; (2) AAA
could not have easily identified Amarela because the crime scene was dark and
she only saw him for the first time; (3) her testimony lacks material details on
how she was brought under the stage against her will; and (4) the medical
findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are inconclusive of any signs
of forced entry.
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. We
usually brush aside these inconsistencies since they are trivial and do not
impair the credibility of the rape victim. In this case, however, the version in
AAA's affidavit-complaint is remotely different from her court testimony. At the
first instance, AAA claims that she was pulled away from the vicinity of the
stage; later, in court, she says that she was on her way to the rest room when
she was grabbed. By this alone, we are hesitant to believe AAA's retraction
because it goes into whether it was even possible for Amarela to abduct AAA
against her will.
If we were to take into account AAA's initial claim that Amarela pulled her away
from the vicinity of the stage, people facing the stage would easily notice that a
man was holding a woman against her will. Thus, AAA's version that she was on
her way to the rest room, instead of being pulled away from the crowd
watching the beauty contest, would make it seem that nobody would notice if
AAA was being taken away against her will. If indeed AAA was on her way to
the rest room when she was grabbed by Amarela, why does her sworn
statement reflect another story that differs from her court testimony? To our
mind, AAA's testimony could have been concocted to just make her story
believable rather than sticking to her original story that Amarela introduced
himself and pulled her away from the stage. We cannot say that this
inconsistency is simply a minor detail because it casts some doubt as to
whether AAA was telling the truth - that she was abducted against her will
before she was raped.
Although we cannot acquit Amarela solely based on an inconsistency, this
instance already puts AAA's credibility in question..
Second, we also find it dubious how AAA was able to identify Amarela
considering that the whole incident allegedly happened in a dark place. In fact,
she had testified that the place was not illuminated and that she did not see
Amarela's face. From AAA's testimony, we are unsure whether she was able to
see Amarela given the lighting conditions in the crime scene. In her re-direct
examination, AAA clarified that she identified Amarela while she was being
pulled to the day care center. Even so, the prosecution failed to clarify as
to how she was able to do so when, according to AAA herself, the way to the day
care center was dark and covered by trees. Thus, leaving this material detail
unexplained, we again draw reservations from AAA's testimony.
Third, her claim that she was forcibly brought under a makeshift stage, stripped
naked, and then raped seems unrealistic and beyond human experience.
From this, AAA would like us to believe that Amarela was able to undress
himself and AAA, and place himself on top of her while under a 2- feet high
makeshift stage. It is physically impossible for two human beings to move freely
under a stage, much more when the other person is trying to resist sexual
advances. Moreover, AAA failed to mention how exactly Amarela pulled her to
the makeshift stage without any sign of struggle or resistance. If indeed she was
being held against her will, AAA could have easily called for help or simply run
away.
Fourth, the challenge to AAA's credibility is further supported by the medical
findings of the medico-legal officer. The medico-legal certificate dated 12
February 2009 would reflect that AAA had no pertinent physical findings/or
physical injuries.
A medico-legal's findings are at most corroborative because they are mere
opinions that can only infer possibilities and not absolute necessities. A medico-
legal, who did not witness the actual incident, cannot testify on what exactly
happened as his testimony would not be based on personal knowledge or
derived from his own perception. Consequently, a medico-legal's testimony
cannot establish a certain fact as it can only suggest what most likely happened.
In the same way, a medico-legal's findings can raise serious doubt as to the
credibility of the alleged rape victim. Based on the testimony of the medico-
legal officer who conducted the medical examination on AAA, she diagnosed
that the ano-genital findings were caused by a blunt force or penetrating
trauma.
These findings were supported by an earlier study that described patterns of
genital injury resulting from sexual abuse.
However, in a similar study comparing injuries from consensual and non-
consensual intercourse, the authors discovered that the statistical results of the
locations of vaginal laceration are almost the same. Their findings suggest that
the injuries are similar after consensual and non-consensual intercourse.
From all this, we observe that a specific location of a vaginal laceration cannot
distinguish consensual from non-consensual sex. Rather, other factors should
be considered (such as, the frequency of lacerations and whether they are
located in different positions) to determine whether the sexual act was
consensual or not. If the frequency of lacerations is located in different areas of
the vaginal orifice, then it would be a good indicator that there was sexual
abuse. On the other hand, if the lacerations are found in a specific area, it could
indicate forced rape, but could also suggest consensual intercourse.
In the instant case, the lacerations were found only at the 9 o'clock and 3
o'clock positions of the hymen. Considering the locality of these lacerations, we
cannot completely rule out the probability that AAA voluntarily had sex that
night. Moreover, the absence of bruises on AAA's thighs-when she said she was
punched there twice-reinforces the theory that AAA may have had consensual
intercourse.
Although Amarela or Racho did not raise consensual intercourse as a defense,
We must bear in mind that the burden of proof is never shifted and the
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. Whether the
accused's defense has merit is entirely irrelevant in a criminal case. It is
fundamental that the prosecution's case cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.41
As to Racho's case, we note that AAA testified only once for both criminal
cases.1âwphi1 This means that both Amarela and Racho were convicted based
on her lone testimony. When we rely on the testimony of the private
complainant in rape cases, we require that her testimony be entirely credible,
trustworthy, and realistic. For when certain parts would seem unbelievable,
especially when it concerns one of the elements of the crime, the victim's
testimony as a whole does not pass the test of credibility. Since we doubt AAA's
account on how she was raped by Amarela, we have to consider her testimony
against Racho under the same light.
In her testimony, AAA claimed that Racho was instructed to bring her to her
aunt's house, but instead forced her to go inside a house along the way. While
inside the house, Racho supposedly boxed AAA's abdomen, undressed himself,
placed himself on top of AAA, and inserted his penis into AAA's vagina.
Afterwards, Racho got dressed and left AAA to go home by herself.42
We find it odd that AAA was not brought to the police right after she arrived at
Godo Dumandan's house to seek help. Instead, she was brought to the Racho
residence where she told Neneng Racho what happened. Again, instead of
reporting the incident to the police, AAA insisted that she be brought to her
aunt's house nearby. This is way beyond human experience. If AAA had already
told other people what happened, there was no reason for her not to report the
incident to the proper authorities.
Faced with AAA's doubtful narration before she went home alone, we are
inclined to believe Racho's version that they parted ways when AAA insisted
that she wanted to go home. To begin with, Racho did not even want to bring
AAA to her aunt's house nearby.43 If he had the intention to have sex with AAA,
Racho would not have declined her mother's instruction. To add, Racho said he
left AAA by herself because he did not want to bring AAA to her house since this
was in another town from her aunt's house.44 His reason for leaving AAA to go
home alone is supported by the fact that he was able to immediately come
home right after he left with AAA. Unlike AAA's testimony, the version offered
by Racho is corroborated by the testimony of his mother.
certainty on each element essential to constitute the offense and on the
responsibility of the offender.46 Thus, the prosecution has the primordial duty
to present its case with clarity and persuasion, to the end that conviction
becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.47
The prosecution in this case miserably failed to present a clear story of what
transpired. Whether AAA's ill-fated story is true or not, by seeking relief for an
alleged crime, the prosecution must do its part to convince the court that the
accused is guilty. Prosecutors are given ample resources of the government to
present a logical and realistic account of every alleged crime, and they should,
to the best of their ability, present a detailed story to get a conviction. But here
we cannot ascertain what happened based on the lone testimony of AAA. It
should have been the prosecution's duty to properly evaluate the evidence if it
had enough to convict Amarela or Racho.
Henceforth, we are constrained to reverse the R TC and the CA rulings due to
the presence of lingering doubts which are inconsistent with the requirement
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt as quantum of evidence to convict an accused
in a criminal case. Amarela and Racho are entitled to an acquittal, as a matter of
right, because the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

Undeniably, the defenses of denial and alibi are commonly raised in rape cases.
Nevertheless, we have dismissed such defenses for being inherently weak, self-
serving, and, more often than not, uncorroborated. To recall, Racho did not
deny that he accompanied AAA to her aunt's house, but he said he left her when
AAA insisted that she wanted to go home. Racho's mother corroborated this
part of the story. To our mind, if the denial and alibi are readily available, Racho
could have easily raised these defenses and denied that AAA ever came to the
house. His mother could have likewise covered up this story, but she did not
and confirmed that Racho was with AAA that night. If indeed Racho raped AAA
that night, the best defense available for him was alibi which he thought he did
not have to raise, given that he was telling the truth when he left AAA by herself
to go home. To our mind, these are badges of truth which persuade us that
Racho might be telling the truth.

In the end, what needs to be stressed here is that a conviction in a criminal case
must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty that
the accused is guilty.45 Absolute guarantee of guilt is not demanded by the law
to convict a person of a criminal charge but there must, at least, be moral