Uncorroborated but believable

Rape is invariably committed with no eyewitnesses around. So the only available evidence for the prosecution is usually the lone testimony of the victim herself. But usually also, the accused has a different story about the alleged incident. Hence, the judge trying the case will have to decide which of the discordant and irreconcilable declarations is believable. But, how does the judge determine who among them is telling the truth? What does the judge use to find out which of the contrasting testimonies is true and credible?  Will the lone and uncorroborated testimony of the victim be enough to warrant a conviction? This case of Myrna answers these questions.

Myrna is a frail woman weighing barely 100 pounds, 45 years of age, and married to Mando who is working abroad as an overseas contract worker (OFW). She and their three children, David, Boboy and Erika, are residing in a remote barangay near a forested area. Living beside them just about five meters away is Ramon, still single and staying with his mother, Marta. Apparently, Ramon got interested at Myrna considering the proximity of their residences.

One time, at about 8:30 in the morning, Myrna ventured alone in the forest in order to gather firewood with her bolo. While ascending a hilly portion along the pathway, Ramon approached Myrna, took hold of her right arm, twisted it and wrested away her bolo. Then he poked the tip of the bolo on Myrna’s neck and threatened to kill her as he gave vent to his bestial desire and succeeded in raping Myrna after a protracted struggle. Thereafter, Ramon dragged Myrna away from the pathwalk and into the woods where he raped Myrna again due to his unsatiated lust. When he was through, Ramon dragged Myrna farther into the forest where he strangled her and inflicted hack wounds on her face and then left, believing that he succeeded in killing her. But Myrna did not die and regained consciousness until she was found by her children lying on the ground, bleeding profusely on the face with exposed brain tissues. Myrna then told her son David that she was raped and hacked by Ramon.

And so after Myrna was taken and promptly treated at the provincial hospital, and after proper medical examination showing that she was really raped, Ramon was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with two crimes of rape committed with the use of deadly weapon; and frustrated murder committed with treachery and evident premeditation. Myrna testified on what happened as above enumerated. Also presented were David and the attending physician who attested to the results of the medical report.

Ramon on the other hand denied the charges and said that on said day when he went to get the firewood he gathered, he saw Myrna taking away said firewood. And when he prevented her from getting the firewood, he said that Myrna tried to hack him with her bolo. So as they grappled for its possession, the bolo hit Myrna’s head thus prompting him to go home believing that Myrna had died. Ramon also denied the rape by presenting another doctor who likewise examined the victim and found no spermatozoa and no lacerations in her private parts.

But the trial court was not persuaded by Ramon’s defense and relied more on the testimony of Myrna. It found Ramon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape with the use of deadly weapon, aggravated by mutilation and sentenced him to suffer two death penalties. Ramon was also found guilty of frustrated murder and sentenced to imprisonment of 8 years and 20 days to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days.

On automatic review by the Supreme Court (SC), Ramon contended that the RTC erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution and in disregarding his story regarding the rape and frustrated murder.

But the SC still ruled that Ramon is guilty. The SC said that it has to defer to the trial court’s assessment and evaluation of the contradictory statements of the witnesses, because the trial judge has the opportunity to directly and intimately observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the probative value, strength or weakness of their testimonies. Telltale marks of honesty or fabrication, truth or concoction, reality or imagination, can be seen by the trial court from the meaningful pause or spontaneous reply, the angry or subdued denial, the forthright stare or elusive eyes, the sudden pallor or flush of the face and all the deportment and peculiar outward behavior of the witnesses as elicited from their response to both direct and cross-examination.

In this case, the court said that Myrna’s testimony is plain and unswerving. The Trial Court could not have erred in giving credence to it even if it is uncorroborated testimony because it is credible enough to warrant a conviction. Otherwise there would rarely be convictions in rape cases which are invariably committed with no eye-witnesses around. Neither can mere denial and basically self serving testimony of the defense prevail over the positive testimony of the victim. The absence of sperm in the private parts of the victim is likewise not a good defense.

Thus Ramon is really guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two charges. But the penalty imposed for each count of rape must be reduced to reclusion perpetua because the use of deadly weapon to inflict the wounds is only a means to commit the crime of frustrated murder and should not be considered as an aggravating circumstance which would raise the penalty to death (People vs Borce, G.R. 124131, April 22, 1998).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]