GR 1399; (February, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1399 : February 12, 1904
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. NORBERTO OBREGON, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
The defendant, Norberto Obregon, was charged with the crime of attempted rape against Vicenta Andoni. The prosecution presented witnesses, including the complainant Vicenta Andoni, Casimira Jereus, Basilisa Ylustre, Genoveva Jamora, and Hilario Flores. Their testimonies contained significant contradictions. Vicenta Andoni claimed her shirt was torn during a struggle with the accused. However, other prosecution witnesses stated the tears were caused by a policeman, Eusebio Sablaon, who was trying to forcibly remove her from the house. Witnesses also gave conflicting accounts regarding the lighting and whether the windows were open or closed during the incident. The evidence suggested the alleged attempt occurred in a room with several other people present and in view of individuals serenading outside the low house. It was established that Obregon and policeman Sablaon had forced open the door of Vicenta’s house and attempted to take her away by force.
ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the crime of attempted rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the defendant. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be so numerous and materially contradictory that they could not produce a conviction of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies pertained to crucial details such as the cause of the torn clothing, the actions of the accused, and the conditions (light and open windows) at the scene. The Court deemed it highly improbable that an attempted rape would occur under the described circumstancesin a room with multiple witnesses and in potential view of people outside. However, the Court noted that the acts of forcing open the door and attempting to take Vicenta by force might constitute other crimes, such as forcible entry or coercion, and it reserved the right of the prosecuting officer to institute the proper action regarding those established facts. The costs of the proceedings were adjudged de oficio.