The Court of Appeals in its recent decision affirmed the guilty verdict handed on July 12, 2002 by the Kabankalan Regional Trial Court against Victor Pearson for two counts of rape against a 15-year-old minor but reduced the moral damages from P500,000 to P50,000 for each count.

In the Feb. 29, 2008 decision, CA Associate Justices Pampio Abarintos, Francisco Acosta and Amy Lazaro-Javier stated that they are morally convinced of Pearson’s guilt considering the evidence presented by the prosecution which consisted of the testimonies of the victim, the doctor who examined her, other witnesses, and Pearson’s own admission that he had sexual intercourse with the victim.

The CA also found it hard to believe Pearson’s claim that prosecution witnesses were coerced by the Department of Social Welfare and Development social workers and the private prosecutor to testify against him.

Prosecution witnesses Ester and Michelle, who worked as household helpers of Pearson, recanted their original testimonies after the trial court conviction.

But even with the recanting of the original testimonies, the CA Justices said they view the move with suspicion and reservation especially when it was made after the conviction of Pearson.

Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessary vitiate the original testimony as testimony given in court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, the CA decision stated.

The Justices added they found no reason to disagree with the trial court’s observations with respect to the victim’s account of the rape that occurred on Oct. 20, 1998 and Dec. 4, 2000 and Pearson’s defense of denial.

In most rape or sexual abuse cases, the credibility of the victim is vital considering that it is easy to fabricate, hard to prove and even harder to disprove and in child sexual cases, most often than not, the conviction or acquittal of the accused depends almost always on the complainant’s lone testimony, the CA decision stated.

In his appeal, Pearson vehemently denied the accusation and contends that the sexual acts with the minor were consensual.

The CA Justices were however not persuaded by the denial of the accused, stating that the victim is barely 15-years-old and was on her second day of employment as Pearson’s helper and it was natural for her to feel disbelief, confusion, shame, distress and most importantly, fear and terror.*NAB

back to top