Student Name: Edizar O Garcia

DEFENSE
RONALD DID NOT RAPE JULIA

Arguments Against You Arguments In Your Favor

1. Julia could not have tried any further to 1. Absence of bruises on her body despite rough
flee from Ronald as the latter pointed a grounds negates rape by use of force.
knife at her and forced her to yield to
him.
[The rule:] The general rule is that the lone testimony of
the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is
sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. The
rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the
only evidence that can be adduced to establish the
guilt of the accused is usually only the offended party's
testimony.

Yet, the constitutional presumption of innocence of the

accused demands no less than a moral certainty of his
guilt free of reasonable doubt. More, the prosecution
evidence must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the defense. The testimony of the complainant must
be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably,
her own credibility must also be put on trial. (People v.
Reymundo Rapiz Y Correa, G.R. No. 240662, September
16, 2020), (People v. Marianito Arces Jr., G.R. No.
225624, October 03, 2018).

[The case fact] The medico-legal officer who examined

Julia’s whole body did not find any bruise either on her
back or on her arms. Yet, she testified that she
struggled to get free from Ronald on rough ground, a
situation that would surely have produced those
bruises. What happened, then, is that Ronald made
love to her gently, consistent with his claim that she
consented to the sexual act.

[The conclusion:] For the above reason, Julia’s

testimony cannot support a judgment for conviction.

Ronald is entitled to an acquittal. In rape, the Court

must thoroughly examine the evidence of the
complainant since only her testimony stands between
conviction and acquittal. Where her testimony is
inconsistent with common experience and defies
reason as in this case, it should not be believed. The
version of the accused may itself be weak but the
conviction cannot rest on such weakness. It must
stand on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence
alone.

Wherefore, the accused respectfully prays that

judgment be rendered acquitting him of the charge of
rape.
2. Julia ignored Ronald during the 2. Being a barrio woman, it is likely that someone
wedding party and walked home alone like Ronald walked her home at that late hour.
from the party, making him feel bad.

[The rule:] The general rule is that the lone testimony of

the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is
sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. The
rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the
only evidence that can be adduced to establish the
guilt of the accused is usually only the offended party's
testimony.

Yet, the constitutional presumption of innocence of the

accused demands no less than a moral certainty of his
guilt free of reasonable doubt. More, the prosecution
evidence must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the defense. The testimony of the complainant must
be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably,
her own credibility must also be put on trial. (People v.
Reymundo Rapiz Y Correa, G.R. No. 240662, September
16, 2020), (People v. Marianito Arces Jr., G.R. No.
225624, October 03, 2018).

[The case fact] Julia’s testimony that she walked home

alone after the wedding party is improbable especially
since it was nighttime and she had to walk across rice
fields. A Filipina woman would naturally ask the host or
a friend to walk with her home. Indeed, this was what
probably happened. Her sweetheart, Ronald, escorted
her.

[The conclusion:] For the above reason, Julia’s

testimony cannot support a judgment for conviction.

Ronald is entitled to an acquittal. In rape, the Court

must thoroughly examine the evidence of the
complainant since only her testimony stands between
conviction and acquittal. Where her testimony is
inconsistent with common experience and defies
reason as in this case, it should not be believed. The
version of the accused may itself be weak but the
conviction cannot rest on such weakness. It must
stand on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence
alone.

Wherefore, the accused respectfully prays that

judgment be rendered acquitting him of the charge of
rape.
3. Julia cannot outcry because Ronald 3. Mario did not hear Julia’s outcry.
pointed a knife at her side and
threatened to stab her if she called for
help. [The rule:] The general rule is that the lone testimony of
the victim in a prosecution for rape, if credible, is
sufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction. The
rationale is that, owing to the nature of the offense, the
only evidence that can be adduced to establish the
guilt of the accused is usually only the offended party's
testimony.

Yet, the constitutional presumption of innocence of the

accused demands no less than a moral certainty of his
guilt free of reasonable doubt. More, the prosecution
evidence must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness
of the defense. The testimony of the complainant must
be scrutinized with utmost caution, and unavoidably,
her own credibility must also be put on trial. (People v.
Reymundo Rapiz Y Correa, G.R. No. 240662, September
16, 2020), (People v. Marianito Arces Jr., G.R. No.
225624, October 03, 2018).

[The case fact] The rape allegedly took place just 50

meters away from Mario’s house. At that distance,
surely, Mario who was still awake would have heard
Julia shriek for help when it happened. A woman
forced to submit to a man’s sexual attack would no
doubt make a loud outcry. The fact that no one heard
Julia’s outcry shows that she assented to Ronald’s
moves.

[The conclusion:] For the above reason, Julia’s

testimony cannot support a judgment for conviction.

Ronald is entitled to an acquittal. In rape, the Court

must thoroughly examine the evidence of the
complainant since only her testimony stands between
conviction and acquittal. Where her testimony is
inconsistent with common experience and defies
reason as in this case, it should not be believed. The
version of the accused may itself be weak but the
conviction cannot rest on such weakness. It must
stand on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence
alone.

Wherefore, the accused respectfully prays that

judgment be rendered acquitting him of the charge of
rape.