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

HULL, J.:

The accused was convicted in the Court of First
Instance of Agusan of the crime of rape.

We have had the benefit of a carefully prepared
brief by the attorney de oficio as well as oral arguments by
the attorney de oficio 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.