Princess ito ay totoong kasong nangyari at nagdecide na dito ang Supreme Court na hindi guilty yung accused sa Rape

case na isnampa sa kanya.Pero noong una kasi nahatulan nan g guilty yung accused na acquit lang sya matapos i-appeal ang case. Kung gagawa kayo ng kwento/script ito pagbasehan mo.

I ! "#$ K%&# ! #$ 'IK I(" #" #"$S"(P" #$ K"S! #$ R"P&

Jicelyn Lansap, a 15-year old high school student, was boarding in the house of one Fausto Morales in the poblacion together with her cousins Susan and Adea Bansil !he "ersion of the prosecution is that before proceeding to the boarding house of Jicelyn Lansap, the accused, an ice crea# "endor, first went to the residence of $onalyn %astera at around three forty-fi"e in the #orning and surreptitiously entered $onalyn&s bedroo# where she was sleeping 'e fanned her face with his hand(erchief and then lifted her bodily fro# the floor 'e was about to ta(e her out of the roo# when she suddenly wo(e up and screa#ed for help thus pro#pting her father to respond i##ediately by switching on the lights As a conse)uence, the accused had to drop $onalyn on the floor and run out of the house !he prosecution would see# to infer that fro# the house of $onalyn where he failed in his alleged atte#pt to defile her, the accused ne*t went to the boarding house of Jicelyn so#e fifty #eters away According to Jicelyn, she and her cousins went to bed at about eight o&cloc( in the e"ening of +5 Septe#ber 1,,- !hen at around fi"e-thirty the following #orning, she was awa(ened by appellant who was already strangling her She shouted for help so that he i##ediately ran away She felt pain all o"er her body, #ore particularly in her pri"ate part, and disco"ered that she was no longer wearing her s(irt and underwear !o her consternation, she found herself in the "acant house of a certain .ado Andor So she lost no ti#e loo(ing for her way ho#e /pon reaching her boarding house, she narrated her harrowing e*perience to her cousins who in turn related the incident to her #other At eight o&cloc( that #orning, Jicelyn and her #other went to the hospital where she was e*a#ined by .r Marcela $e#egio who found Jicelyn with 0Labia Ma1ora and Minora still coaptated and with sign of e*ternal struggle contusion, abrasion all o"er face around nec( scratch #ar(s on both #edial surface of thigh "ul"a swollen presence of fresh hy#enal laceration at si* o&cloc( 2e3*a#ination for the presence of sper#ato4a was positi"e physical "irginity lost 0 1 5n the sa#e day, $onalyn&s father and Jicelyn reported the incidents to the police authorities Both $onalyn and Jicelyn identified the accused as their attac(er in the police line-up on +6 Septe#ber and 6 5ctober 1,,-, respecti"ely, and then filed their for#al co#plaints against hi#

I ! #"("# "#$ K%&# ! #$ SI#"(P")"# #$ K"S! #$ R"P&

5n his part, appellant see(s sanctuary in the alco"e of denial and alibi 'e clai#s that at nine o&cloc( in the e"ening of +5 Septe#ber 1,,-, he was already asleep with his wife and

children 'e wo(e up at si* o&cloc( the following #orning 'e was "ery tired that night because he was "ending ice crea# in thepoblacion the whole day 7n his appeal, appellant i#putes error to the trial court in con"icting hi# on the basis of an identification which was #ade without the assistance of counsel and according credence to the story of Jicelyn, which he considers fantastic, thereby denying his constitutional right to be presu#ed innocent until pro"ed guilty beyond reasonable doubt Appellant argues that it was during his detention, when he was not assisted by counsel, that he was identified by Jicelyn !hus he in"o(es People v Hassan + where this 8ourt affir#ed the right of an accused to counsel at all stages of the proceedings, the #ost crucial of which is his identification, and denial thereof entitles hi# to ac)uittal

I ! #"("# "#$ dahilan kung bakit na acquit yung accused.

A careful dissection of the testi#ony of Jicelyn herself indubitably shows that she has no reliable basis for pointing to the accused as the person who raped her She says that his face was co"ered9 that he had long hair9 that while the person who raped her had high nose :matangos; his nose is 1ust 0(ata#ta#an09 that she did not ha"e the opportunity to obser"e the height of the rapist9 and, that the only e"idence of se*ual intercourse is the result of the #edical e*a#ination Appellant argues that the 0contusion, abrasion all o"er the face, around the nec(, presence of scratch #ar(s on both #edial surface of thigh0 1- did not necessarily indicate resistance on her part, contending further that it is a #atter of 1udicial notice that passionate (issing and petting could nor#ally produce 0in1uries 0 According to hi#, Jicelyn herself disclosed that she had a suitor for who# she had 0feelings of affection,0 thus concluding that she #ay ha"e sub#itted herself to hi# A rule of long standing in this 1urisdiction, re"erence to which re#ains undi#inished to this day, is that the 8ourt will not interfere with the 1udg#ent of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of opposing witnesses unless there appears in the record so#e fact or substance of weight and influence which has been o"erloo(ed or the significance of which has been #isinterpreted !his is due to the fact that the trial court is in a better position to weigh conflicting testi#onies, ha"ing heard the witnesses the#sel"es and obser"ed their deport#ent and #anner of testifying 11 !here are indeed reasons to de"iate fro# the general rule <e ha"e e*a#ined carefully the entire transcript of stenographic notes and we do not hesitate to conclude that the e*ception to the rule #ust be applied !here was no positive identification of 5rlando Frago by Jicelyn 'er testi#ony on direct e*a#ination supports this conclusion <hile she would #a(e it appear that she was able to positi"ely identify the accused, her account of the incident pro"ed otherwise !here see#s to be no )uestion that, on the part of the %astera sisters, they #ay ha"e recogni4ed appellant positi"ely because their roo# was lighted with a wic(=gas la#p 1+ and he was not wearing anything on his face 1> !hey identified hi# on +6 Septe#ber 1,,-, 1? whereas Jicelyn pointed hi# out only on 6 5ctober 1,,- 15 !he possibility that Jicelyn had conferred with the %astera sisters

regarding the identity of the accused before she testified is not re#ote because they were neighbors 1@ As a conse)uence, when Jicelyn testified on 1> August 1,,1, she ga"e the sa#e description of her attac(er as that gi"en by $onalyn %astera /nder the circu#stances, we are ine"itably drawn to the conclusion that Jicelyn&s identification of 5rlando Frago was #erely patterned after the identification #ade by the %astera sisters !his is then aderivative, not positi"e, identification !he identification then of appellant by Jicelyn is doubtful 1A 'er testi#ony, standing alone, does not satisfy that )uantu# of proof re)uired to support a 1udg#ent of con"iction !he #aterial discrepancies therein engender perple*ity as to its "eracity and reliability Besides, it appears highly incredible that Jicelyn could be bodily lifted fro# her roo# in her boarding house and ta(en so#e three hundred #eters away to the "acant house of .ado Andor where she was supposedly abused 16 without awa(ening her and her two cousins who were all sleeping side by side with her 1, Moreo"er, we find the following obser"ations of the Solicitor Beneral decidedly speculati"e, hence, unacceptable C
appellant&s earlier act of fanning his hand(erchief o"er the face of $onalyn %astera e"idently shows that there was so#ething in it, #ost li(ely drug, to induce her to re#ain sleeping !his sa#e #ethod was apparently e#ployed by appellant to Jicelyn Lansap that (ept her sleeping while being ta(en to another house and therein raped by hi#, +-

because a #ere reading of $onalyn&s testi#ony on cross-e*a#ination would indicate that she did not s#ell any substance e#anating fro# her attac(er Appellant&s denial and alibi are inherently wea(, but the prosecution cannot rely on their frailty to enhance its cause !he prosecution #ust draw its strength fro# its own e"idence As has been oft-repeated, e"ery circu#stance fa"oring the innocence of the accused #ust be ta(en into account and the proof against hi# #ust sur"i"e the test of reason 5nly when the conscience is satisfied that the cri#e has been co##itted by the person on trial should the sentence be for con"iction +1/nfortunately for the prosecution, its e"idence has #iserably failed to pass that conscience test <'D$DF5$D, the decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant 5$LAE.5 F$AB5 guilty of rape in 8ri# 8ase Eo ,1?? is $DFD$SD. and SD! AS7.D, and he is A8G/7!!D. as his guilt has not been pro"ed beyond reasonable doubt 7t appearing that he is detained, his i##ediate release fro# custody is ordered unless he is held for another cause