Professional Documents
Culture Documents
x--------------------------------x
DECISION
The present case involves the crime of rape allegedly committed by Christian
Evangelista “Tatay Ian”, against his minor step-daughter, “AAA”. AAA who was
10 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, testified that On
October 2, 2018, at around 6:00 in the evening, when she was left alone with
her step-father in their house, the accused took advantage of his superiority
over AAA, was able to have carnal knowledge with her against the latter’s will.
Unknown to AAA, the accused’s twin brother Christopher Evangelista was at
their house at the time when the crime was committed. The defense of the
accused was that he was at the kitchen preparing dinner for the three of them
when the alleged rape happened. That it was his twin brother who was at the
sala watching TV, not him. That AAA could not possibly distinguish who
between him and his twin brother could have perpetrated the said crime.
After a careful review of the records and a closer scrutiny of AAA's testimony,
we are not fully convinced that the accused committed the crime. The following
circumstances, would cast doubt as to the conviction of the accused: (1) the
version of AAA's story in her complaint-affidavit differs from her testimony in
court; (2) the medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are
inconclusive as to period when the lacerations were inflicted; and (3) AAA could
not have determined with reasonable certainty that the perpetrator of the crime
was Christian Evangelista and not his twin brother Christopher Evangelista.
1
First, it has often been noted that if there is an inconsistency between the
affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the latter should be given more weight
since affidavits being taken ex parte are usually incomplete and inadequate. 1 In
her complaint-affidavit, AAA stated in paragraph 1(d) that Evangelista placed
himself on top of her, both of them being already undressed, kissed his step
daughter and touched her breasts and inserted his penis into her vagina, at
the same time threatening to kill her if she would shout or tell anybody
afterwards what he was doing to her. However, when AAA testified before the
court, she was doubtful as to whether Evangelista did insert his penis into her
vagina. To wit:
Q: AAA, naalala mo ba ang ginawa sa’yo ni Tatay Ian noong Oct. 2, 2018?
AAA: Opo.
FINDINGS:
2
1) External examination-negative for extra-genital, physical injury — Fairly
nourished child, weighing 25.1 kilos.
2) Internal examination — absence of pubic hair.
3) Hymen-presence of fresh laceration of the hymen at 3:00 to 9:00 o'clock
position in the face of the clock. Presence of slight bleeding.
Conclusion:
Physical (sic) virginity loss.
It was elucidated in the testimony of the accused that AAA and him were not
alone in the house. He said that his twin brother Christopher Evangelista was
2 People v. Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho, G.R. No. 225642-43, January
17, 2018
3 People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 200529, September 19, 2012
3
also in their house who was watching TV in the sala while he prepared dinner.
This was corroborated by other witnesses of the accused. AAA as said in her
testimony as well that she knew that Christian Evangelista has a twin brother
but did not know that he was at their house on October 2, 2018 and that she
cannot determine one from the other every time she sees them. It follows then
that AAA was not confident as to the identity of the accused. There is a clear
want of the 2nd element.
The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be
received with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be
concocted. Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape,
especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge
is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to
conflicting interpretations. While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish
and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should
equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the
law.5
In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.6
5 People v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February 12, 2014
6 Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
7 People v. Felimon Patentes y Zamora, G.R. No. 190178, February 12, 2014
4
Qualified by Art. 266-B paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code as amended on
the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release from custody is hereby
ordered unless they are being held for other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
JUDGE YYY
Presiding Judge