Last week I wrote about rape and the victim's credibility. As discussed there, the prosecution must present a witness (or witnesses) who must be credible. Without such trustworthiness, the prosecution's accusation will collapse like a house of cards.

The guilt of the accused will not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. His acquittal must necessarily follow. As we are all aware, the prosecution cannot rely on the weakness of the accused's evidence, but on the strength of its evidence. Acquittal precisely was what was granted to the accused in the case I cited last week. It was due mainly to the victim's testimony which had inconsistencies too glaring for the Highest Court to overlook. Accordingly, the Supreme Court believed the accused's sweetheart defense. There was no crime of rape; the sexual acts were consensual.

If on the other hand, the prosecution presents persons with credibility, testifying with all truthfulness and spontaneity, there is no doubt for the court to impose the prescribed penalty. In fact, the Supreme Court, on review of the records, will not overturn the findings and observations of the trial court. Thus, in People versus Reggie Briones (G.R. 240217 promulgated on 23 June 2020), the Highest Court proclaimed, "[w]e sustain the conclusion of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that the elements of the crime charged herein were duly proven. Settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation and conclusion on the credibility of witnesses in rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect and at times even finality, and that its findings are binding and conclusive on the appellate court unless there is a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records that certain facts or circumstances of weight, substance or value were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and the manner of testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility. Indeed, trial judges are in the best position to assess whether the witness is telling the truth or lie as they have the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression, gesture, tone of voice of the witness while testifying."

In this case, the accused, a friend of the victim's family, had easy access to the latter's house. There he raped the victim on a number of occasions. This he achieved with impunity as he threatened the victim with bodily harm if she told anyone. It was only when his illegal act got the victim pregnant that everything was brought out in the open. Thus, the accused was indicted for rape. During the trial, he raised the sweetheart's defense. He presented both love letters and his cousin who testified that the accused and victim were indeed lovers. But even with such evidence that seems to suggest consensuality, the Supreme Court had this to say, "Briones can offer love letters to prove that FFF was his lover, but the fact that they were sweethearts does not necessarily establish FFF's consent to the sexual act. To repeat, FFF categorically testified in open court that she tried pushing Briones away and even pleaded for him to stop. Still, to corroborate his sweetheart defense, Briones presented his cousin, Mary Ann, who allegedly witnessed their love affair.

But we sustain with approval the appellate court's finding that Mary Ann never testified that the sexual relations between Briones and FFF were with the latter's consent.

Records merely show that all Mary Ann testified to was that there was one time when FFF and Briones went inside the latter's bedroom for about 30 minutes. Unfortunately for Briones, however, Mary Ann's testimony can barely save his plight. First of all, she categorically stated that she did not know what happened therein. Yet, as the CA rules, agreeing to enter one's room is far from consenting to any sexual act that may have happened therein. Second, this encounter that Mary Ann testified to was, in fact, not the act FFF complained of in this case. Indeed, a testimony as to an apparent sweetness between two people does not instantly prove consent to a sexual encounter. It cannot be denied, therefore, that the evidence n record is bereft of any indication that FFF consented to Briones' bestial acts."

I encourage you to read both cases, the one I wrote about last week and the one I am discussing now. Compare. You will see the stark difference in the discussion of the Supreme Court on the witnesses' testimonies. You will surely notice how credibility plays a vital role, a pivotal role in fact, in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. No matter what defense is set up by the accused, his fate will still be determined by the strength or weakness of the prosecution's evidence.