This is a rape case. You know every time I see a case and
everything written about it is immediately preceded by a title starting with
People. I tend to gear up myself before reading because I know I had to read
the facts, facts in a criminal case that is.
It’s just words, I know. None even any of media or any image
representation, but, its injustice you know. Any normal human being getting
informed about certain injustice that happened somehow reacts in a spectrum of
feeling of indignation somehow. Try to post something bad about what happened
to anyone in the social media, and you’ll expect a swarm of empathizing,
ruthless bashing, radicalizing series of comments.
But just the same we were trained to read this, so we read. And
reading about it seems to bring you right where it happened. And we somehow
get, well not dehumanized of course but.. we get to a certain degree of
callousness somehow, and an exterior of
toughness. Toughness to know the truth. Callousness which drives you to an end
result of justice.
And so you somehow read it with indignation. But of course,
as all students of law knows.. there is a court resolution in the end. The
final verdict. The one that tilts the balance. The redeeming factor.
But.. I mean you know. It’s just interesting to know that in
the process of doing so you are kept reminded more or less about the state of man, and how debase human dignity
is capable of being turned into, and that man is fallen (Well, not only as LOTR describes it, but also how the holy scriptures
accounts for it and how it’s soul is undeniably in need of a Savior. A
Redeemer. The ultimate redeeming factor).
Here we are inside the court room. Judge, counsels or
advocates, the perpetrator, the victim. Counsel for the prosecution states ‘..and on that very same night, above named
accused by force, threat, and intimidation did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the helpless barely 15
year old complainant, against her will.. consequently by this premise, your
honor please, may I call on the complainant to the witness stand’. ‘Objection your honor’ Counsel for the
defense interjected ‘I hereby invoke Rule
130 of the Rules On Evidence. Witness being called for is incapable of
perceiving the facts which she will be
examined, neither will she be able to relate them truthfully, it is but proper
for the honorable court to disqualify complainant as witness’. Objection
over ruled!!.. naks! naman.
The beauty of this case is that the court took cognizance of the
little girl’s straightforward narration of her ordeals despite of her youth and
her credibility being assailed by the adverse party.
The crime perpetrated here was chronologic. Notice it was
established that there were series of abuse. Four counts of rape of
considerable intervals were instituted in the complaint. This must have toughened
the girl to be able to talk straight in front of the magistrates.
Notice what I’ve wrote on the side notes? ‘Victim had no
choice’ this means she was trapped, she had no where to go. And what does it
say in the next side note? That ‘she made effort to remember’. This was her way of fighting. It’s not to
forget, but to remember is her weapon. She
must have wrote the dates somehow. In her young naïve mind she must have somehow
thought she must be ready, if lady justice comes walking by someday she would be able to account
for it somehow, and she kept her hopes. She might have not been doing anything
in the course of the series of crimes committed by her step-father because she
doesn’t know how, but in her limited
mind she was seeking for justice.
It would have been a great site to see the bravery and
toughness of this young girl in court and how the magistrates listened and gave
full credence to her testimony attributing to her what is credible and
competent evidence.
(The RTC in its decision meted the death penalty. Death
penalty cases are automatically raised to the Supreme Court for finality. The SC affirmed decision of the lower court
but modified the sentence to Reclusion Perpetua. The case was decided 1995,
contemporaneously I think it was then that the then President of the Republic
signed the death sentence moratorium. Or was it the qualification of the
accused to the death sentence requisite that motivated a modification. The SCRA
case doesn’t say so. Or I might just have not read any further. I should check).
