Rape is done in the confines of seclusion. Invariably, only one witness, the victim herself, points the accusatory finger at the accused. And despite a single witness, the accused gets convicted. This is because of the credibility of the victim.
The accused, on the other hand, denies having forced himself upon the victim. Usually, he sets up the sweetheart defense and alleges consensuality. Both parties are lovers who engaged in the act willingly. And yet even with this, courts are not convinced. Again, this all boils down to the victim’s credibility. For as long as she testifies consistently and credibly, there is no way the accused goes scot-free.
Take a look at People of the Philippines v. XXX (GR 218087, promulgated 6 July 2021). Here the Highest Court made an extensive discussion on credibility of the victim. XXX got the penalty for raping AAA. In November 2000, XXX surreptitiously entered the room of AAA and at knife-point had carnal knowledge of her. This he did on two separate occasions within the same month. After each consummation, XXX warned AAA not to tell a soul. Months passed when XXX’s acts resulted in AAA’s pregnancy. This led to AAA’s disclosure to her mother about the acts and the father of the child she bore in her womb. Turns out that XXX is the uncle by affinity of AAA, who is the daughter of the sister of XXX’s wife.
During trial, both parties as expected, had dissimilar versions. The prosecution showed that XXX robbed AAA of her purity at knifepoint. Accused, on the other hand, alleged the sweetheart defense. After presentation of a number of witnesses testifying on peripheral circumstances from both sides, the court decreed XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
The matter was brought up to the Supreme Court. After painstakingly reviewing the entire records, it made this observation.
“(A) conviction for rape may be made even on the testimony of the victim herself, as long as such testimony is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. In fact, the victim’s testimony is the most important factor to prove that the felony has been committed…”
“Jurisprudence holds that inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do not impair her credibility. However, for said inconsistencies to be dismissed so as to give full credence to the alleged victim, they must be minor, trivial and as far as practicable, few and far between. Here, this Court finds the discrepancies in AAA’s testimony to be too substantial to be ignored, thereby impairing her credibility as witness. First, AAA repeatedly contradicted herself as to how XXX could have gained access to her house as well as her room… Second, assuming arguendo that XXX was able to access AAA’s house, the latter’s flip-flopping testimony as to the actual acts of rape has made said testimony suspicious and dubitable…
In the instant case, the conduct of AAA appears contrary to the natural reaction of an outraged woman and robbed of her honor.
“The evidence on record points to the likelihood that AAA and XXX were in a secret, scandalous affair, and this continued even in the months following the alleged rape incidents… The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. The value of a witness’s testimony — AAA in this case — should be compatible with human knowledge, observation, and common experience, such that whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. In the instant case, the conduct of AAA appears contrary to the natural reaction of an outraged woman and robbed of her honor…
“We find it unusual and contrary to human experience for AAA to continue hanging out, joyfully screaming, and laughing with her alleged tormentor. If anything, AAA’s behavior supports XXX’s assertion that their sexual relations were consensual.” XXX is acquitted.
The facts and quoted provisions are from the case cited above.