Unbelievable testimony

In the crime of rape, the accused sometimes uses the “sweetheart defense” in which he claims that he and the victim are sweethearts and therefore the sexual intercourse between them is consensual. This case also explains the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and the proper wording of the Information in order to sustain a conviction for such crime. Also explained here is what must be alleged in the information in case the crime of rape is punishable by death under RA 7659, particularly the age of the victim and her relation to the accused by affinity or consanguinity within the third degree. This is the case of Mandy.

Mandy is the younger brother of Sergio who resides in the Visayas with his daughter, Nina, where Mandy decided to live for a year. One time, he saw Nina going to a well near their house to take a bath. Mandy grabbed her and forcibly dragged her at knife point to the highway where they boarded a truck bound for another town. Nina had to go with Mandy out of fear, especially because the latter continuously poked the knife at her under cover of his jacket. In the other town, they stayed at the house of his sister Betty, but Nina was not aware that Betty is her aunt. Nina tried to escape but was caught by Mandy, who severely beat her until she lost consciousness.

Suspecting that Betty would report what happened to the police, Mandy took Nina to his nephew, Bernie, Nina’s first cousin. Considering that Nina and Bernie had not met before, Mandy was able to pass her off as his wife. A week later at around midnight, Mandy, armed with a blade, sexually assaulted Nina. After satisfying his lust, Mandy even touched Nina’s private part causing her to scream and cry for help. Bernie could not do anything to assist her when he awakened. Then Mandy struck Nina with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious. Much later, he brought her to the house of another aunt, Celia.

Celia immediately noticed Nina’s weak and pale condition and offered her medicine. She was able to stop Mandy from pouring boiling water on Nina to finish her off. After four days, Nina sufficiently recovered from her injuries and while Mandy was sleeping, Celia accompanied her to the police, where she reported her ordeal. After being examined by the medico-legal officer, a charge of forcible abduction with rape was filed against Mandy, who was arrested.

In his defense, Mandy admitted having sexual relations with Nina, but insisted that it was consensual because they were lovers and had been engaging in sexual intercourse for more than three months. He also claimed that they lived together as husband and wife after Nina revealed to him that she was not Sergio’s daughter. Mandy also admitted that he had a pending rape case but denied fleeing and hiding in Sergio’s house to escape arrest.

The trial court, however, found Mandy’s version of the incident preposterous and his defense untenable. So the court found him guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the extreme penalty of death.

On automatic revenue, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision despite Mandy’s contention that Nina’s testimony is unbelievable due to several inconsistencies between her affidavit and her testimony. The court said that these discrepancies do not necessarily impair the credibility of the testimony because affidavits are generally taken ex parte and are often inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. Noteworthy here is that the affidavit and testimony of Nina in open court are consistent on the fact that Mandy raped her under threats of a knife after abducting her by force, beating and maltreating her repeatedly thus instilling fear in her, then dragged her to a vacant house where he raped her one night.

The trial court’s assessment of Nina’s credibility is entitled to great weight as her testimony was given in a clear, straightforward and convincing manner.

The sweetheart defense is not acceptable as there is no showing of mementos, love letters, notes, pictures or any concrete proof of a romantic relationship. Besides, it is contrary to human experience that a naïve rural lass like Nina, barely 19 years old, would willingly consent to be her uncle’s paramour. If they were sweethearts, Mandy would not have maltreated Nina repeatedly.

However, while abduction has been duly proven because the victim was forcibly taken by Mandy at knifepoint and, by threats and intimidation, brought to various towns, moved by lewd designs, he cannot be convicted of this complex crime because the Information failed to allege “lewd designs.”

So the crime of rape absorbs the crime of forcible abduction and Mandy is guilty of simple rape only. The death penalty cannot be imposed on him pursuant to Section 11. (1) R.A. 7659, because Nina was already more than 18 years of age and the Information did not allege that he and Mandy were relatives within the third degree of affinity or consanguinity, which is a qualifying circumstance. So the sentence of Mandy should only be reclusion perpetua (People vs. Sabredo, G.R 126114, May 11, 2000).