G.R. No. 117682, August 18, 1997
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Silvino (Silverio) Salarza, Jr., Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case involves an appeal from a conviction for rape. The complainant testified that she was half-asleep when the accused-appellant, Silvino Salarza Jr., took off her underwear, removed his briefs, mounted her, spread her legs, penetrated her, and performed push-and-pull movements. Initially believing the person to be her boyfriend, she did not resist. However, she stated that the accused-appellant then softly whispered, “Zareen, it’s not Ricky; it’s Jun. I love you,” after which she pushed him aside.
Following the alleged assault, the complainant did not immediately flee or raise an alarm. Instead, she went to the bathroom to wash herself, citing a fear of pregnancy. She also engaged in a conversation with the accused-appellant, asking him why he had done such a thing to her. This sequence of events and her described reactions formed the core of the prosecution’s narrative for the rape charge.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the complainant’s testimony, detailing the alleged rape and her subsequent actions, is credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Justice Francisco, in his concurring opinion, voted for acquittal, finding the complainant’s account inherently incredible and contrary to human experience. The legal logic centers on the principle that for evidence to be believed, it must not only come from a credible witness but must itself be credible and probable under the circumstances as judged by common experience.
The opinion highlights two major improbabilities. First, it is deemed highly unnatural for a perpetrator, having successfully initiated a sexual assault on an unsuspecting victim, to voluntarily reveal his identity, thereby ensuring he could be identified and prosecuted. This act contradicts the instinct of a criminal to avoid detection. Second, the complainant’s immediate reaction—calmly washing herself and then conversing with her alleged attacker—is characterized as far too casual and inconsistent with the expected trauma and instinctive fear of a rape victim. Such behavior does not align with the normal reactions of someone who has just undergone a violent and harrowing experience.
Therefore, because the testimony fails the test of credibility in itself, creating reasonable doubt as to the truth of the alleged crime, the concurring opinion agrees with the main decision to reverse the conviction and acquit the accused-appellant. The ruling underscores that the prosecution’s evidence must be consistent with human nature and probability to sustain a criminal conviction.