Facts:
Judge Pacuribot was charged with rape and acts of lasciviousness by Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca.
Ms. Tan was deceived twice by Judge Pacuribot when he offered to take her to the bus terminal but instead brought her to a motel where he ravished her. Not contented, he rented a room in the house of Ms. Tan wherein he would order Miss Tan to go to his room when her husband was not around. Further, Judge Pacuribot during office hours would also request Miss Tan’s presence in his chamber where respondent would sexually harass her even in the presence of another person.
Ms. Villafranca was also deceived by the said Judge when he made her believe that they were going to go out for dinner but instead brought her in a motel in Butuan City where he ravished her and took a nude picture of her. The respondent used such picture to blackmail Ms. Villafranca and would threaten her that in the event she would refuse to submit to his lustful desires, he would send the picture to her family. After the incident, the respondent would order her to bring food at his rented room and would subsequently rape her. Furthermore, the respondent ordered the complainant to send sweet text messages and write love letters and greeting cards to him and even ordered her to file an annulment case against her husband.
Both charges were denied by Judge Pacuribot. Moreover, He claimed that delay in the filing of the charges against him casted doubt to the truthfulness of their claim and that if they were truly raped by him why did they not refuse at all but instead continued to submit themselves to him. He alleged that the charges imputed against him were complainants’ tool of revenge.
Issues:
1. Whether denial can prevail over positive testimony of the witness.
2. Whether the delay in the filing of the charges against him casted doubts to the truthfulness of their claim.
3. Whether the repeated sexual harassments and violence inside Judge Pacuribot’s chamber was improbable.
4. Whether inconsistencies of the witness’ testimony affects the credibility of the witness.
5. Whether absence of physical resistance from the victims negates the commission of the crime of rape.
Ruling:
1. Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial, like
alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence, which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings the truth on one hand, and bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail.
2. As held in People vs. Espino delay in the commission of rape is not an indication of
fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender’s making good on his threats. This is understandable, considering the inbred modesty of Filipinas and their aversion to the public disclosure of matters affecting their honor.
Delay in the filing of charges does not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses. The Supreme Court has deemed delay justified when there is fear of reprisal, social, humiliation, familial considerations and economic reasons.
3. Judge Pacuribot’s defense of improbability cannot be accepted. As held in People v. Lavador,
wherein the rapist argued that rape was impossible due to the presence of the victim’s son on her side, the Supreme Court said that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed even in places where people congregate: in parks, along the roadside, within the school premises, inside the house where there are several occupants and even in the same room where other members of the family are sleeping.
4. Minor and trivial discrepancies which might have been caused by the natural fickleness of
memory, even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken the credibility of the witness, for they shake off the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. As held in Simbajon v. Esteban the Supreme Court said that No married woman would cry sexual assault, subject herself and her family to public scrutiny and humiliation, and strain her marriage in order to perpetuate a falsehood.
5. In the case of People v. Fernandez the Supreme Court held that physical resistance need not
be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attackers because of fear. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. The use of a weapon, by itself, is strongly suggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim with a gun is sufficient to bring her into submission. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment