ASTER CARRILLOS DEFENSE FOR RAPE CHARGES Can Bianca, the mother file a criminal complaint of rape and

attempted rape? The answer is yes. Under the Old Anti Rape Law, the victim or her parents, grandparents or guardian must file a complaint if the victim was a minor. Under the RA8353 or the Anti-Rape Law as Amended, the adjudication of the case may pursue even without any complaint by the victim. Under these two laws, if it is for the purpose of filing a verified complaint, then the answer is yes. PREFACE: To be charged of the crime of rape is in itself a derogation to the reputation of the accused. While everyone is allowed by law to file rape charges against anyone, no one shall be convicted of it, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt. To be convicted such crime and to suffer reclusion perpetua is a stunning penalty. It is the ruin of a life. Thus in the statements of Honorable Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago (Secondary Source) in her privilege speech during the impeachment trial, she emphasized that the Constitution should be viewed not as a sacred grant of state powers but rather as a written limitation of the powers of the state. It follows therefore that if there is doubt as to any criminal case, it should always be decided in favor of the accused. It may be unfair to the victim if the accused is acquitted when the latter actually committed the crime, but it would be the highest peak of injustice to convict the accused, when the crime is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and when he may turn out to be innocent at the end of the day. It is a well settled principle embraced in our Bill of Rights, particularly in Art III Sec 14(2) of the Constitution that the accused shall, inter alia, be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Hence in all criminal cases, the burden of proof is in the prosecution and not in the defense. The prosecution, in order to successfully convict the accused, must rely on the credibility and sufficiency of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense (Atty. Theodore Te among others; Secondary Source) Speaking arguendo that in a criminal case both the prosecution and the defense presented equal quantum of evidence, still the case should be dismissed in lieu of the well settled principle that the Constitution must be construed in favor of the accused and against the state (Chapter 1 of Political Law Book of Justice Cruz) and the Rule of Lenity in statutory construction (Chapter 5 of Statutory Construction Book, Atty. Funa). There is no way therefore, how a complaint that is relentlessly prosecuted yet so meagerly substantiated, just like the case at bar, can convict our client. THE ACTUAL CASE: Can the case prosper? If by prosper we mean that the accused is likely to be convicted, then the answer is no. The Revised Penal Code Art 266-A provides that rape is committed 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 otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d) When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. The prosecution only alleged that the accused had carnal knowledge of Bernadette by threatening her. Hence, the other three circumstances are held insignificant and need not be defended. In People V. Felipe Padilla the court ruled: In deciding rape cases, this Court has been guided by three principles, to wit: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. An accused in a rape case may be convicted even on the sole testimony of the victim, but such testimony must be credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The only evidence that the prosecution presented is the testimony of Bernadette herself. Applying the court ruling in People V. Felipe Padilla, the testimony of Bernadette before it becomes material should satisfy ALL the four requirements, viz: 1) It should be credible; 2) It should natural; 3) It should be convincing; 4) It should be consistent with human nature; and, 5) It should be consistent with the normal course of things. Bernadettes testimony is not consistent with human nature. If she was indee d raped, then she should have at manifested signs of trauma. It is bizarre and strikingly out of the ordinary how she was able to hide all the manifestations of having been raped specially to her mother. Her mother should have noticed way ahead of time if something is different with her daughter. Therefore it is only either her testimony is a complete lie, or Benigno had sex with her but she liked and permitted it. Her testimony cannot be given full credence, thus it becomes insufficient to convict the defendant. In People V. Daganta, the court acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to present material details. Following this court ruling in light of the stare decisis principle, Benigno should also be acquitted because the prosecution only alleged that Bernadette was threatened and raped without further substantiating this allegation.

In People V. Joseph Fabito the court stated: In our jurisdiction accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The freedom of the accused is forfeited only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. This, of course, requires the most careful scrutiny of the evidence for the State, both oral and documentary, independent of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Every circumstance favoring the accuseds innocence must be duly taken into account. The proof against the accused must survive the test of reason. Strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge the burden, then it is not only the accuseds right to be freed; it is, even more, the courts constitutional duty to acquit him. Thus, the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Bernardo and its sole reliance to the testimony of Bernadette, with the possibility of it being fabricated, only links to one rightful decision of this court and that is acquittal.