Scribd
Upload
195 views

Chapter 12 LegWrit

The document summarizes a court case involving a man, Hector Galos, who was accused of raping Rita Romero, a minor, in her home. While Rita claimed the act was nonconsensual, Galos insisted it was consensual and that Rita had been drinking with him earlier. The lower court convicted Galos, but upon further review, the court determined the testimonies did not prove Galos' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As the accused, Galos was entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the element of lack of consent. The court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision and acquitted Galos of rape.

Uploaded by

Valerie San Miguel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
195 views

Chapter 12 LegWrit

The document summarizes a court case involving a man, Hector Galos, who was accused of raping Rita Romero, a minor, in her home. While Rita claimed the act was nonconsensual, Galos insisted it was consensual and that Rita had been drinking with him earlier. The lower court convicted Galos, but upon further review, the court determined the testimonies did not prove Galos' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As the accused, Galos was entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the element of lack of consent. The court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision and acquitted Galos of rape.

Uploaded by

Valerie San Miguel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Chapter 12

Fate caused an unexpected circumstance to the Romero family. On the evening of


November 30, 1970, Rita, the daughter who was below fifteen years old, was left alone in a house
at Aliw Beach, Zamboanga City because her mother was away. During that night, she was raped
by the accused Hector Galos, who was a boarder in the same house. Although he admitted the
sexual intercourse, Galos insisted that Rita freely agreed to it, she being his sweetheart. He also
said he stayed in the room until the next day and Rita did not scream, which could have been
heard by those staying in the next room. The testimony of Galos regarding the absence of force
was supported by the boarder of the next room and the owner of the house.

The lower court favored Rita’s version and sentenced Galos to life imprisonment
However, since the penalty imposed is serious and there is a conflict of testimony about what
really happened, the court read the records of the proceedings with greater care. The testimonies
of the complainant and accused failed to prove the latter’s guilt. The court then changed its
decision.

The difference in the versions of the parties cannot hide unquestionable facts. The
accused did not use force or deceit in entering the rented room where the alleged rape
happened. Moreover, the two witnesses did not deny the version of the accused that earlier in
the evening Rita was with a group, including the accused, involved in drinking and light
conversation. As a result of Rita’s drinking, she felt a feeling of excitement and happiness, which
made her incapable of rejecting Galos. Hence, unexpected sexual intimacies happened. At first,
Rita did not agree in the act of intercourse, but it eventually led to sexual intercourse due to the
sweet-talking of the accused. It happened twice and there could have been a third time, but it
was stopped because the combined weight of the parties broke the chair.

Galos had no weapon to intimidate Rita and she did not refuse, since there was no yell or
scream heard by the two witnesses on any side of the room. The rooms were separated only by
a thin plywood partition, which means the two witness would have heard everything. Besides,
the accused stayed until the next morning and they were seen together. In other words, what
happened was not rape. Hence, acquittal should have been the proper verdict.

1. The accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence, which is required by law.
Even when the previous Organic Act did not provide, a defendant, according to the
case of U.S. vs Asiao, which was decided by Justice Torres in 1902, is entitled to
presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven by satisfactory testimony. Thus the
burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish guilt and remove every sign of doubt
that has rational basis. More specifically, where the offense charged is rape through
force, it must show that force and intimidation were used. This means the element of
voluntariness must be missing.
2. The opinion of the Court must not be misunderstood. It aims to acknowledge that the
proof submitted on behalf of the complainant did not meet the standard required in
cases of this nature.

Due to the applicable constitutional provision and rights of an accused, the decision is
reversed.
Therefore, the decision of lower court is set aside and the accused is discharged of rape

You might also like