Rape Case More Difficult For the Accused Though Innocent To Disprove

The mere filing of a Rape Case against an individual especially a prominent personality is in essence the easiest way to ruin one's reputation. Though presumed innocent until proved otherwise, most accused especially the well-known or the famous character suffers a lot from ridicule and from being judged by people in the community, even before a final judgment from a court of justice is released just because of irresponsible airing and presentations in any television networks or other media coverage resulting in trial by publicity.

The presumption of innocence unless proven beyond reasonable doubt is based on the principle of justice designed to prevent conviction of the innocent. The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in a number of cases that, proof must survive the test of reasons. The conviction must be based on moral certainty, for it is better to acquit a guilty person rather than convict an innocent man. (Source: People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 60 and People vs. Vasques, et.al. G.R. No. 102366, October 3, 1997)

How hard is it therefore for an innocent accused to disprove that he did not commit the crime of rape against an individual?

It is my opinion that it is very hard indeed. Pursuant to Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 8353 which took effect on October 22, 1997, Rape is committed – 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present; 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another's person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Under the law, the crime of rape can now be committed by a male or a female. The imposable penalty for rape is from reclusion perpetua to death which in effect, is non-bailable. Quite stiff a penalty, enough to make an accused, though innocent fear for his liberty.

Atty. Leonor D. Boado, in her book entitled, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law, state, "Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy, not generally attempted except in dark or deserted and secluded places away from prying eyes, and the crime usually commences solely upon the word of the offended woman herself and conviction invariably turns upon her credibility, as the People's single witness of the actual occurrence."

Considering the new law on rape, even a man himself can now be considered a complainant or an offended party in the crime of rape.

The testimony of the offended party most often is the only one available to prove directly the commission of rape; corroboration by other eyewitnesses is seldom available. In fact, the presence of such eyewitnesses would, in certain cases, place a serious doubt as to the possibility of its commission. The testimony, however, must be conclusive, logical and probable. (Source: People vs. Landicho, C.S., 43 O.G.3767)

However, it is a fact that if the complainant is a persuasive liar, sort of convincing even with his false testimony, as it is of public knowledge also, that there are even professional witnesses, in the sense, that they are earning huge amounts as paid witnesses wherein they can make a person believe a "false" statement/testimony, as "true", there is indeed a great possibility that an innocent accused be convicted just because he cannot rebut the allegations/accusations of a liar complainant/witness on reasons that the only available defense for him is denial or alibi which is considered by law as the weakest defense.

In a number of cases (Souces: People vs. Cudira, 3 C.A. Rep. 93; People vs. Villapana, 101 SCRA 72; People vs. Aldana, 175 SCRA 135), the Supreme Court ruled that, three principles should guide an appellate court in reviewing the evidence adduced in the prosecution for the crime of rape, namely:
1. That an accusation for rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent to disprove;
2. That in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
3. That the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of the evidence for the defense.

As a matter of fact and procedure, the crime of rape can easily be fabricated or concocted and the task of taking on the issue of credibility is a function properly lodged with the trial court, whose findings are entitled to great weight and accorded the highest respect by the reviewing courts, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked. Thus, a problem may arise which will put an accused at a great disadvantage if the trial court will tend to be bias, especially if in the trial court's area of jurisdiction the accuser/complainant is being backed up by a powerful person or influential group for obvious reasons.

With a convincing recital of concocted factual circumstances by a liar complainant/accuser/witness, foremost the only available defense for an appellant is denial and alibi, to which denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit credibility. Under the rules, it is a negative self-serving assertion that has no weight in law if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

The rule is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirement of time and place must be strictly met. It is, therefore, incumbent upon accused-appellant to prove with clear and convincing evidence that at the time of the commission of the offense charged, he was in a place other than the situs criminis or immediate vicinity thereof, such that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime charged.

With these facts, there seem to be a remote chance for an accused of the crime of rape to defend himself from prosecution in the trial courts. Hence, appellate courts should be very careful in reviewing conviction on rape cases elevated from the trial courts especially if it involves prominent personalities. The accuser's background should be carefully scrutinized so as to know the real motive for filing a rape case against a presumed innocent accused, in order to protect not only the rights of the complainant but also that of the accused.

Back To Top