Cracks in the story

As a rule in rape cases, the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim suffices since only the victim and the assailant are usually involved. But the testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with the experience of mankind and in conformity with common knowledge. This is explained in this case of Nimfa, the alleged rape victim.

Nimfa was an 8 year old Grade I pupil and niece of Dina who was the common law spouse of Mando the alleged rapist. When the rape happened, Nimfa still went to school in the afternoon without reporting the incident since Mando allegedly threatened to kill her if she told anybody what happened to her. But the following day Nimfa already got the guts to confide to her mother what happened to her despite the threats to her life. Her mother told her sister Dina about it who in turn revealed it to her grandmother. But her grandmother refused to believe her claim so they just forgot about it.

After a lull of more than two years however, her Tita Dina revealed the incident to the Barangay Captain who reported it to the police. So a complaint for rape was filed against Mando after Nimfa was examined by a physician who found “healed incomplete hymenal lacerations that could have been caused by a sharp object or a male sex organ.” After the preliminary investigation by the Municipal Trial Court a Complaint or Information for rape was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Mando.

The Information charged that Mando “willfully, feloniously and unlawfully removed Nimfa’s short pants, then he removed his long maong pants and brief, placed himself on top of her and kissed her, pointed a knife at her and warned her not to tell anyone for he would kill her if she did.

Nimfa testified in court. According to her, one morning about two years ago her uncle Mando summoned her while she was playing “sayasaya” with two friends near his house. Obliging, she approached Mando in his house who then closed the door and carried her to the mezzanine. Once inside, Mando took off her short pants and panties, undressed her, “put himself on top of me and then successfully raped me” after which “I felt pain.” Then he “threatened me not to tell somebody because if I will tell somebody he will kill me.”

Relying on the above story of Nimfa and the testimony of the physician who examined Nimfa two years after the alleged rape, the RTC convicted Mando of the crime of rape despite his alibi which was corroborated by another witness that he was in Manila when the alleged rape happened and went back to his place only about a year thereafter. Was the RTC correct?

No. Nimfa’s narrative is tainted with ambiguity and deficiency on vital points. The stark outline of her testimony is so simplistic that it leaves much to be desired and omits those expectedly required. The prosecution did not even bother to elicit from Nimfa how she was “successfully raped” by Mando. In the four corners of her testimony, no kissing was disclosed to have happened and no knife was mentioned at all contrary to what appears in the Information. Her testimony on these key aspects contains gaps that allow the crevices of reasonable doubt to creep in.

Moreover, Nimfa claimed to have reported the rape to her mother the day after it happened notwithstanding the threat to her life. Oddly enough it took more than two years before such alleged rape was reported to the police and the victim examined by a physician. The prosecution offered no reasonable or justifiable explanation for the delay nor presented her Tita or the Barangay Captain who reported the rape to the police to shed light on this crucial matter. This unexplained delay therefore affects Nimfa’s credibility. Mando’s alibi that he was in Manila and returned only after about a year, while weak and not enough to exculpate him, at least indicate that every opportunity was available to Nimfa and her family to bring the matter to the attention of the authorities. It is not thus farfetched to consider the delay an indication that the complaint was made in a desire other than to bring the culprit to justice.

Since the prosecution failed to present its case with clarity and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion, the presumption of innocence of the accused be sustained. So Mando should be acquitted of the crime of rape (People vs. Jampas, G.R. 177766, July 12, 2009).

*      *      *

Email us at: [email protected].