Unique offense and offenders

A LAW EACH DAY(KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) | Updated May 27,
2015 - 12:00am

Sometimes the credibility of the evidence for the prosecution in rape cases is assailed because it is quite
unique and weird as to be believable. But even if weird and fantastic, it may still be accepted as true and
possible like in this case of Val and Lisa, husband and wife who were jointly prosecuted for rape.

Val and Lisa were residents of a barrio near Cebu City where they surreptitiously carried on their trade of
supplying girls to a house of prostitution. In such kind of business, Lisa was quite reconciled already to
the practice followed by Val of sometimes sampling the “prospective merchandise” in their business even
without their consent especially when she was not in a position to satisfy his sexual urge. It was under
this situation that this unique incident happened as narrated by the victim, Eva.

Eva was the kumadre of Val and Lisa, married to Carding, a fisherman, with three children and one of the
neighbors of the couple. One evening at about 10 p.m. when Carding was away on a fishing trip, Eva
heard Lisa calling her by the window. So she stood up and opened the door for Lisa to come in. The two
then sat side by side with Lisa at Eva’s left. While conversing, Eva heard Lisa whistle and immediately
thereafter Val entered the house. No sooner had he entered when Lisa placed her left arm around Eva’s
neck and pinned her down. Then Lisa thrust her left leg between Eva’s knees. With the bigger and taller
Lisa choking her neck, Eva was unable to extricate herself. So, Val took advantage of the situation and
through force removed Eva’s black skirt and panties, threw them aside, removed his short pants and
placed himself on top of her. Thus he was able to consummate the sexual act.

While Eva was being sexually assaulted, Val and Lisa told her in a low voice not to worry because she
would be financially assisted, the needs of her children attended to and perfumes and dresses supplied
her. They continued to appease her and then left her still in tears the whole evening. When Carding
arrived at 5 a.m. the following day, Eva immediately reported what happened to her. The enraged Carding
with scythe in hand was about to jump out of the window to go after Val and Lisa to avenge his honor but
Eva held him back and advised him not to take the law into his own hands and suffer imprisonment.

Thus they just decided to go to their farm in their hometown but on the way their cousin persuaded them
to file a case against Val and Lisa. And so after reporting the incident to the local police, Val and Lisa were
charged with rape; Val, by direct participation, and Lisa by indispensable cooperation.

At the trial, Eva testified and reiterated her grim ordeal as narrated above. Her seven-year-old son Benjie
also testified and told the court that he saw her mother wriggling and heard her moaning as Val was on
top of her while Lisa was choking her. A neighbor who happened to pass by at that time corroborated
Benjie’s testimony as he also heard the moaning Eva and saw Val and Lisa coming out of her house later
on.

On basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution against the defense of alibi advanced by Val and
Lisa, the lower court found the latter guilty of rape and sentence them to reclusion perpetua and to pay
the corresponding damages.

Val and Lisa appealed the decision questioning the credibility and implausibility of what was testified to by
the prosecution witnesses, especially Eva, and insisting that they were in their house the whole evening
of the incident.

But the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The SC said that on the question of credence
between the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, the findings and conclusions of the
lower court must be accorded the greatest respect because it had the opportunity to see, hear and
observe the witnesses testify.

The SC also found the narration of Eva believable as it was characterized by simplicity and veracity. It
yields the impression of a witness revealing the grim ordeal to which she was subjected and finding it
difficult but quite necessary to face her tormentors. The emotional stress she was laboring under was
quite evident. It cannot be doubted that if she were not thus sexually assaulted, she would not have been
bold and brazen enough to accuse not only the man but also the wife as it could have aroused misgivings
on the truth of what was narrated by her which was made clear by the couple’s trade of supplying girls to
a house of prostitution and by Val’s practice of sampling the “merchandise” even without their consent. It
is unbelievable that she could have entertained the thought of imputing to them such a heinous offense if
there were no basis for it, considering that they were her compadre and comadre. Besides her testimony
was also corroborated by her seven year old son Benjie and by another neighbor who explicitly affirmed
that Val and Lisa were the ones who came out from Eva house as he saw them through the light of a
lamp (People vs. Villamala, G.R. L-41312, July 29, 1977, 78 SCRA 145)