Beyond reasonable doubt

In criminal cases, there are usually different versions of what happened especially in the case of rape. Sometimes the accused even goes to the extent of saying that he is the hapless victim who has succumbed to the advances and tempting gestures of the woman. In such a case, how will the court determine which version is true? This is answered in this case of Peter.

Peter is the 26 year old son of a lawyer-haciendero, Atty. Peter Calderon, Sr. He was the overseer of his father’s poultry farm although he finished only Grade VI despite being enrolled by his parents in six schools in their province and in Manila. He was even a suspect in a case pending investigation in the Fiscal’s Office for allegedly killing a man.

Working in the poultry farm as a domestic helper was 21 year old Ruth and her older sister Maring whose parents were distant relatives of the Calderons and were also former workers in the farm.

In the morning of one summer day, Ruth was inside the stockroom about 15 meters away from the Office of Atty. Calderon, Sr. when Peter entered therein. What happened inside thereafter led to the filing of rape charge by Ruth against him.

As narrated by Ruth during the trial, Peter suddenly head-locked her with his left arm while covering her mouth with his right hand to prevent her from crying out for help. When she resisted his advances, they fell on the cement floor where they continued grappling. All the while, Peter was urging Ruth to give in by assuring her that he would marry her. But Ruth scratched his face, so Peter bit her hand. As they struggled Ruth kicked Peter in the neck and Peter pulled off and tore her shorts and panty. Then he shed off his trousers and tried to pry Ruth’s thighs apart thus weakening her resistance. As Ruth kept writhing in pain and helpless outrage, Peter repeatedly intruded his manhood and while they were still joined, Maring and another helper, Chona heard Ruth screams, went inside the room to investigate and saw what Peter had done to Ruth. Peter then put on his trousers as Maring chased him with a piece of wood.  Ruth on the other hand rushed out crying to Mrs. Calderon, Peter’s mother to whom she tearfully complained. Mrs Calderon tried to console Ruth and even admitted that Peter was really a naughty boy who is stupid and out of his mind and therefore deserves to be jailed. At this stage, Atty. Calderon arrived and even also told Ruth, who was then already calling the Police, that ‘it is good if you will accuse him so that he will be punished for his foolishness” and “given retribution for his misdeeds.”

When the responding policemen arrived to investigate, they retrieved Ruth’s shorts and panty on the floor of the bodega. Then they brought Ruth to the Police Station where she formally filed her complaint after being examined by the medico legal officer who found contusions and abrasions in different parts of her body, lacerations of her hymen, reddening of the vaginal canal and positive for sperms which showed that she was exposed to recent sexual penetration.

But Peter had an entirely different version of the incident. He claimed that Ruth was a femme fatale a woman of loose morals who had insinuated herself on him and he just succumbed to her temptation. He said that he just entered the bodega after briefly talking with three workers outside including his cousin, Benjo. Then Ruth followed him closed the door, took him in her arms and started fondling the sensitive parts of his body that aroused him and led him to insert his index and middle fingers in her sexual organ. Peter than said that he could not unzip his tight fitting pants and as his groin was pressing upon his shorts, he already had an orgasm. It was at this point when Chona arrived and shouted “Hey what are you doing there?”

His cousin Benjo also testified to corroborate portions of Peter’s version as to who made the advances first. Then Atty Calderon also testified to prove Ruth’s alleged reputation and that he did not hear her screaming. He even insinuated that the Physician himself might have an affair with Ruth while examining her.

After trial however, the Lower Court still convicted Peter for the crime of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. It believed Ruth’s straightforward testimony, neither fumbling nor wavering, without material discrepancies and contradictions and consistent with ordinary human experience.

This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The court said that given his physical build and his moral influence as the son of Ruth’s employer, it is not difficult to believe that he could have easily overpowered Ruth. The SC also said that Ruth acted naturally and decisively after the outrage by reporting immediately to Mrs. Calderon another woman to whom she can share her problems. The inconsistencies in her testimony are merely minor lapses that do not impair the veracity of her narration.

But the most telling proof that Ruth was not lying is the medical report which confirmed practically every detail of her defloration as she narrated it. The report shows lacerations in the hymen, abrasion and reddening of the vaginal canal and her being positive for sperms, proving that Ruth was exposed to recent sexual penetration.

In contrast, the story of Peter looks to be pure concoction and his testimony itself has condemned him as a rapist and a liar. He said he used only his fingers to gratify Ruths’s desire. But considering that sperm was found in Ruth’s sexual organ, he is in effect declaring under oath that by some sexual miracle, it was his fingers that ejaculated. There is enough evidence to overcome the Constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor (People vs. Japitana, Jr., G.R. L-34232, May 25, 1990).

*   *   *

Email: [email protected]