Clear and convincing

Under a new law, rape may now be committed not only by having sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent or against her will but also by sexually abusing her. This is explained and illustrated in the case of Nimfa.

Nimfa is a young lady employed in a company located at a city down south. Working in the same company is Rody who became her boyfriend. One evening after office hours, Nimfa and Rody went out on a date and relax first before going home. As expected the date lasted longer as it eventually led to love making and ended up until past midnight.

On the way home at about 1:30 a.m., Nimfa and Rody waited for a ride in a waiting shed along a major road which was sufficiently illuminated by street lights. A few minutes later, they were approached and held up at knife point by two men. One of the holduppers threatened and robbed Rody of his wristwatch, bracelet and bag containing his sunglasses ID and uniform.

Meanwhile the other holdupper dragged Nimfa some 100 meters away from Rody and the other robber. This man then covered Nimfa’s mouth with his right hand, while poking the left side of her torso with a knife in his left hand. Then the man kissed Nimfa at the neck and touched her breasts for about five minutes. And with threats of stabbing her if she would not allow him to insert his fingers into her vagina, Nimfa had to give in to his demand.

During Nimfa’s excruciating ordeal, two Barangay Tanods happened to be patrolling the area. So Nimfa sought their assistance and pursued the robber who tried to escape with Nimfa’s bag containing her bracelet, earrings, ring and wallet. The Tanods pursued and caught the two robbers who were later on identified themselves as Max and Cardo.

After the medical examination and preliminary investigation, Max was charged with the crime of robbery with rape for poking a hunting knife at Nimfa and by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there take, steal and carry away one bag containing her belongings worth P2,130 while at the same time and on the occasion thereof sexually abuse her by kissing her ears, touching her breast and inserting his finger into her vagina without her consent and against her will.

On the other hand Cardo was also charged with the crime of robbery by poking a hunting knife at Rody and by means of violence and intimidation take, steal and carry away his personal belongings worth P2,500 with deliberate intent to gain to the damage and prejudice of the owner thereof.

The two cases were jointly tried by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) where Nimfa, Rody, the medical doctor and one of the barangay tanod testified in a straightforward, spontaneous and direct manner devoid of inconsistency, reiterating the events as narrated above.

For his defense, Max declared that he was only identified by Nimfa and an angry mob of locals, shouting “hold-up, hold up” as the assailant while he was walking along the dimly lit road who attacked him until he was knocked unconscious until he recovered and found himself at the police station being interrogated about a robbery that happened. Cardo on the other hand testified that while he was acquainted with Max who was his fellow painter, he was not with Max that evening but at his sister’s house where he was approached by two barangay tanod and brought to the police station where he was interrogated and tortured by a police officer when he denied participation to the crime.

After trial however, the RTC gave more weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and declared Max guilty of robbery with rape, punishable under Article 294 (2) of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment of 14 years eight months and a day as minimum up to 40 years as maximum and to pay  P2,130 as civil indemnity and P50,000  moral damages. Cardo on the other hand was also found guilty of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment of four years and two months minimum to seven years maximum and to pay Rody P2,500 civil indemnity and P20,000 moral damages.

This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) where both accused appealed their cases. It only modified the sentence of Cardo by increasing the maximum period to eight years.

Max and Cardo still appealed the CA decision to the Supreme Court. Both argued that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt because Nimfa and Rody was unable to identify them due to poor lighting condition at the time of the incident. On the part of Max he also contended that doubts were created on the reliability of the medical report showing that the assault inflicted considerable and visible injury to the victim’s vagina because of   Nimfa’s admission that she had sexual intercourse with Rody that evening.

But the SC still confirmed the decision of the CA finding Max guilty of robbery with rape and Cardo guilty of robbery. The SC said that the fully functioning street lights sufficiently illuminated the area and allowed Nimfa and Rody to see the features of Max and Cardo. With respect to the rape accusation against Max, the SC said that the clear and convincing testimony of Nimfa positively declaring that Max inserted her finger into her vagina sufficiently established the commission of the offense. Her admission that she had sexual intercourse is insufficient to negate such clear and convincing testimony. A medical report is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. It is only an evidence of the injuries sustained by Nimfa from the sexual assault.  Even without the report rape may still be established. In fact the absence of genital injury does not at all mean that a victim was not sexually assaulted.

So both Max and Cardo are really guilty as charged. The prison term of Cardo should be modified to four years and two months minimum up to six years, one month and 11 days maximum. He is also sentenced to pay Rody P2,500 actual damages and P20,000 moral damages. On the other hand the prison sentence of Max is upheld and he should also pay Nimfa P2,130 actual damages; P75,000 as civil indemnity P75,000 each as moral and exemplary damages (People vs. Batuhan and Lacturan, G.R. 219830, August 3, 2016).

Email: [email protected]