Conflicting stories

In rape cases, the evidence effectively boils down to the complainant’s word against the denial of the accused. It is virtually a case of “she says, he says” as there are no other witnesses to the actual happening. In such cases, how will the court determine the credibility of the conflicting testimonies? May the guilt of an accused be established on the sole testimony of the complainant? These are the issues raised in this case of Cherry.

Cherry is a 17-year-old first year nursing student residing in a boarding house owned and operated by Gardo. One of her co-boarders occupying the same room in the second floor was her cousin Millie. Gardo also resides in same boarding house occupying a room in the first floor beside his merchandise store where there are always plenty of people.

One evening at about 6 p.m., Gardo suddenly entered the room of Cherry and Millie and accused them of having stolen some items of merchandise from his store. The cousins vehemently denied the accusation but Gardo did not believe them. Instead he directed them to see him in his room to talk about the matter. When Cherry went into Gardo’s room an incident occurred therein that eventually led to the filing of the rape charges against Gardo.

Cherry testified that Gardo insisted and asked her to admit having stolen the merchandise in question otherwise he would bring her to the Police Station to blotter a theft case against her. Then Gardo told her to sit on his lap and began caressing her back. Cherry said that she asked Gardo to stop what he was doing because she did not like it, but he paid no heed to her demand. So Cherry stood up to leave but Gardo pulled her back, compelled her to sit on his lap and proceeded to unhook her bra, made her lie down, spread her legs, removed her T-shirt and pajama and succeeded in satisfying his lust while she continued to cry.

Gardo’s lecherous assault upon Cherry ceased only after 30 minutes when his child knocked on the door and called for him. Gardo then released Cherry from his clutches, told her to get dressed and leave the room. So Cherry went to the bathroom to wash and then returned to her room upstairs still crying. Millie saw her crying and asked her why but she could not tell Millie about the rape. Millie then texted her mother Linda to come to the boarding house, so later that evening Linda came together with Cherry’s aunt Marta and her husband Delfin to confront Gardo about his accusation that Cherry and Millie stole certain items from his store. It was then that Cherry finally told her Aunt Marta and Uncle Delfin that she had been raped by Gardo while crying profusely. So they reported the matter to the police and after the medical examination on Cherry showing that she had been sexually assaulted, the necessary charges for rape was filed against Gardo.

For his part, Gardo merely denied the rape and claimed that he just confronted Cherry and Millie inside their room about the stolen items in his store which he photographed that morning. Then after the confrontation Cherry came to his room and they talked for about 15 minutes and after the conversation Cherry went outside while he proceeded to his store.

After trial however, the Regional Trial Court still convicted Gardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 8353 or the Anti Rape law, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Both courts relied more on the positive, simple, candid, straightforward and specific testimony of Cherry which are consistent on material points and corroborated by the physical evidence of fresh hymenal lacerations, rather than on the bare denial of Gardo. The courts ruled that it is highly improbable that a young decent woman taking up nursing would conceive a rape story against a man who is accusing her of a petty crime which she denies. 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 in a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by her desire to obtain justice for the wrong done to her.

The Supreme Court also affirmed these rulings of the RTC and the CA. The SC said that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime. It upheld as a matter of course the trial court’s assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses because of its direct, immediate and first hand opportunity to observe the deportment of the witnesses as they testify in open court. Gardo’s bare denial cannot prevail over Cherry’s direct, positive and categorical assertion that rings with truth. Denial is inherently a weak defense, being negative and self serving. It cannot prevail over affirmative allegations of the victim and her categorical and positive identification of the accused as her assailant (People vs. Gabriel, G.R. 213390, March 15, 2017).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]