THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MAXIMINO ARIARTE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

We have had the benefit of a carefully prepared brief by the attorney as well as oral arguments by the attorney and the representative of the Solicitor-General.

It is an undisputed fact that on the afternoon of September
25,1932, the defendant had carnal intercourse with the offended party.
The prosecution claims that the act was committed through violence and
intimidation, while the appellant contends that it was by consent. In
the ultimate analysis, conviction, if sustained, must rest upon the
uncorroborated testimony of the offended party. It is true that at the
trial she presented a dress which was torn and which she claims she was
wearing at the time of the act, but appellant denies that it was the
dress that was worn at the time. There is no proof outside of the
testimony of the offended party that the dress was in the same
condition that afternoon as it was when it was presented to the court.

The offended party is a woman who has been married five years and
presumably of a normal health and robustness. She admits that just
before the attack she was armed with a bolo, but claims that she threw
it away through fear.

Her account of the actual occurrence furnishes few details by which
her story can be tested. In one breath she speaks of resistance and
struggles, in the next that her resistance was overcome by threats and
fear. In another place she states that the threat consisted of saying
he would wound her with a bolo.

It is the theory of the prosecution that that evening she
complained and related the details of the crime to the older brother of
her husband. There are some conflicting proofs as to what took place at
the house of her brother-in-law that evening. No real act was taken by
the offended party or her relatives in making a formal complaint to the
authorities for five days. According to the evidence there was no mark
of violence, bruise or scratch on the body, face or hands of the
offended party or of the assailant.

It is evident that the parties met that afternoon by agreement;
that the elder brother was spying upon the actions of the accused; that
a sister-in-law was sent to find the offended party that afternoon but
search for her was apparently without success. A deafmute who
accompanied the offended party to the field and was working there just
prior to the alleged assault disappears from the picture without a word
of explanation. The accused was a married man apparently living with
his wife.

It is true that a conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated
testimony of the offended party. But it should never be done unless the
story of the offended party is impeccable and rings true throughout.
After a close and painstaking review of the evidence, it is impossible
for us to say that the guilt of the accused has been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from must be reversed and the accused discharged. So ordered, with costs de oficio.

Street, Abad Santos, Vickers, and Diaz, JJ., concur.