More credible

This is perhaps one of the most unique cases on record as it involves a husband and wife found guilty of
rape. As the court here said, sexual relations outside the marriage bond are not a pixyish play for couples
as neither one is allowed to bring in a third person just to satisfy the insatiable lust of the other.
The couple here is Dencio and Nimfa living at a Southern Luzon town in a six meters by eight meters
house with their two children. Nimfa is a reputed healer in their province who has supposedly healed a lot
of people. She performs her healing session in one room of their house.
Among those who got to know of Nimfas healing prowess was Lita whose daughter, Nora is an epileptic.
Worried about the worsening condition of her daughter and relying on the advice of her sister-in-law, Lita
brought Nora to the residence of Nimfa in the nearby town, for healing sessions.
Three days later Lita even invited Nimfa to the 14th birthday celebration of Nora in their residence. After
the celebration, Nimfa persuaded Lita to allow Nora to stay in the house of her mother-in-law in their town
since she only conducts healing sessions in the evening.
After about a week stay in the mother-in-laws house, Nimfa asked Nora who was then cleaning the
house, to go to her house. She told Nora to lie down on the floor of the room where the healing sessions
were conducted. Nora acceded, thinking that she would be treated.
At this juncture, Nimfa called her husband Dencio and told him o maghubo ka na Frightened, Nora
struggled and exerted efforts to resist the invasion on her womanhood, but to no avail because Nimfa
pinned down her hands on the floor and covered her mouth. Dencio thus succeeded in satisfying his lust
and invading the young Noras womanhood. Nimfa even laughed and laughed while watching her
husband consummate the lecherous act in the treatment room. Then Nimfa warned Nora not to divulge
the incident to anybody.
After the ordeal, Nora refused to be treated anymore. She was fetched by her aunt and was continuously
crying inside the passenger jeepney. The next day, she disclosed to her mother Lita what was done to
her. So after medical examination which confirms that there was sexual penetration done on her, Dencio
and Nimfa were charged with the crime of rape.
Nimfa denied the accusation. She testified that it was against human nature to commit rape in broad
daylight and with her children in the house. She claimed that Lita and Nora were just trying to discredit her
for curing the sick and just want to escape from the obligation of paying her services. Dencio on the other
hand testified that on the day of the rape, he was at the elementary school, a walking distance from their
house, meeting with the barangay captain and another neighbor looking at the voters list for the coming
election. Then he went to a repair shop where he worked as a mechanic. Both of these persons
corroborated his story.

But after trial, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) nevertheless found Dencio and Nimfa guilty of rape .The
RTC found that conspiracy existed between the two of them as it relied more on the straightforward
testimony of Nora. Was the RTC correct?
Yes. Noras testimony appears straightforward. She positively identified her ravishers and narrated what
transpired with simplicity and veracity. Well settled is the doctrine that testimonies of child-victims are
given full weight and credit. When a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says, in
effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was really committed.
Both Dencio and Nimfa are guilty of rape because there is conspiracy between them. Conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of an offense and decide to
commit it. The facts and circumstances of this case indicate the existence of conspiracy exists: from the
time Nimfa called Dencio to remove his pants and pinned down Noras hands on the floor up to the time
she was laughing and laughing while her husband is perpetrating the act.
So Dencio and Nimfa should suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Nora, P50,000 as
indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages (People vs. Saban, G.R. 110559, November 24, 1999. 319
SCRA 36).