Proving the crime of rape sans the testimony of the victim

Proving the crime of rape sans the testimony of the victim "Is it still possible to secure conviction for the crime of rape if the purported victim of such crime is already dead and can no longer testify?Kriselda Dear Kriselda,Yes, it is still possible. In fact, this has often been the situation in cases of rape with homicide, i.e., when the victim of rape was also killed by reason or in connection with the act of rape. Relatedly, in People vs Broniola (GR 211027, June 29, 2015), ponencia of Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr., it was held that a direct evidence like the testimony of a witness victim is not indispensable to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt since indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence may discharge this burden of proof, viz:“Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.” Succinctly, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence dictates the elements of a sufficient circumstantial evidence, to wit:“Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence “Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Inferences cannot be based on other inferences.”Similarly, in People vs Villaflores (GR 184926, April 11, 2012), written by Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin, the high court elucidates:“We have often conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the circumstances of its commission. The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide, because there may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet, the situation is not always hopeless for the State, for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime, as well as the identity of the culprit. Direct evidence proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the factfinder in contrast, circumstantial evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the factfinder must draw an inference or reason from circumstantial evidence. To be clear, then, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a felon free.“The Rules of Court makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred hence, no greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Nor has the quantity of circumstances sufficient to convict an accused been fixed as to be reduced into some definite standard to be followed in every instance.” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, albeit the best evidence to prove rape is the testimony of the victim, our rules sufficiently allow circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of the crime, as well as the identity of the culprit when the rape victim is killed provided however, that such circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net." - https://www.affordablecebu.com/