|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Rape |
Sentence: |
"Life imprisonment & PHP100,000 (US$2,352) restitution" |
Years Imprisoned: |
5.5 |
Year Crime: |
2009 |
Year Convicted: |
2012 |
Year Cleared: |
2018 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
Philippines |
County or Region of Crime: |
Davao del Sur |
City of Crime: |
Davao City |
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated Released |
Summary of Case: |
"Junard G. Racho and Juvy D. Amarela were codefendants wrongly convicted on June 26, 2012 of two counts of rape in two alleged incidents involving the same woman, the first on February 10, 2009 and the second on February 11, 2009 in the City of Davao, Philippines. Their prosecutions were based on the accusation of the alleged victim, only publicly identified as AAA. The complainant AAA asserted that on February 10 at about 6pm she was watching a beauty contest with her aunt in Davao City that was being held at a basketball court. She said that she needed to use the bathroom, so she left to go to a building that had the bathrooms. She said that while going through a treed area that separated the basketball court from the bathrooms, she was seized by a man she identified as Juvy Amarela. She said he pulled her under the stage and after punching her in the stomach he undressed her and got on top of her and inserted his penis inside her vagina. When she shouted for help Amarela fled and three men came to her rescue, but when they took her to a hut she thought they had bad intentions so she fled. She said that while on her way home she stopped at an acquaintances house, who took her to Racho's house because he thought her aunt wasn't home. In the early morning of February 11 AAA left for her aunt's house and Racho's mother asked him to acompany her. AAA claimed that Junard Racho took her into a shanty against her will and after grappling her he forcibly undressed her, and got on top of her and inserted his penis into her. AAA said that he left after he was finished, and she walked home alone. When she arrived home her parents were asleep. The next day she told her mother and eldest brother what she said happened. They reported the incidents to the police and Amarela and Racho were arrested. Both men denied that they had assaulted AAA. Amarela and Racho were jointly tried -- although they were charged with separate alleged rape incidents. The prosecution's case was based on AAA's testimony and her positive identification of Amarela and Racho as her rapists. Amarela's defense was that on February 10, 2009 he attended the fiesta celebrations in Davao City, and that about 4 o'clock in the afternoon he saw AAA and she asked him if he knew Eric Dumandan who she said was her boyfriend. He said he later saw Dumandan and he told him that AAA was looking form him. He soon left the fiesta and after a drinking spree with his friend Asther Sanchez he felt dizzy, so Sanchez took him to the house of his elder brother Joey. Amarela said he went to sleep and didn't wake up until six o'clock the next morning. Racho's defense was he was at his mother's hosue on February 10 when about 10 o'clock that night AAA arrived at the house with Godo Damandan, and she "was asking for help while crying because she was allegedly raped by three persons in the pineapple plantation." He said that after they left AAA didn't want to go to her aunt's house because she would scold her, and instead wanted to go to her parent's house in Ventura. Racho said that because Ventura was far and it was very late he didn't want to go with her to Ventura, and instead went home. He said that when the police came to his house on February 11, 2009 he told them that he could not have done what they alleged "because his hand is impaired while showing a long scar on his left arm." He said it was from a hacking incident on September 21, 2008 and he had a Medical Certificate that proved he was hospitalized for ten days. His arm was in a cast for three months, not being removed until January 2009, and afterwards "his arm was still painful and he could not move it around." Anita Racho, Racho's mother, testified that on the evening of Feb. 10 AAA arrived at her home with Dumandan and she said she had been raped by three men. She said that after a while she insisted on going home and Racho left with her after her eldest son refused to take her. She said that later Racho returned home and went to sleep. The trial judge believed AAA and found Amarela and Racho guilty in the "She said, they denied case." Amarela was sentenced to reclusion perpetua -- which is life imprisonment plus being barred for life from holding political office if he was ever released -- and ordered to pay restitution to AAA of 50,000 pesos (US$1,176) in civil indemnity and 50,000 pesos (US$1,176) as moral damages. Racho was given the same sentence. The men appealed separately, but their appeals were consolidated in the Court of appeals in November 2015. They argued their were substantial inconsistencies between AAA's police statement and her testimony, and the trial court failed to adequately consider the testimony of Amarela and Racho. On February 17, 2016 the Philippines' Court of Appeal affirmed their convictions and sentences. The Court ruled that AAA's testimony was convincing of Amarela and Racho's guilt under the "women's honor" doctine established by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in the 1960 case of People v. Tano, that "no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been suxually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor." The men appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 17, 2018 the Court set-aside the convictions of Amarela and Racho in a precedent setting ruling that overturned the "women's honor" doctrine it established in 1960. The Court ruled the idea a woman would be too ashamed to publicly accuse a male of rape unless it was true was outdated and false, stating: "However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a travesty ofjustice." The court stated the Court's 1960 ruling was not only outdated, but "This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. ... In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural misconception. ... in order for us to affirm a conviction for rape, we must believe beyond reasonable doubt the version of events narrated by the victim." [7-8] The Court then stated: "After a careful review of the records and a closer scrutiny of AAA's testimony, reasonable doubt lingers as we are not fully convinced that AAA was telling the truth. The following circumstances, particularly, would cast doubt as to the credibility of her testimony: (1) the version of AAA's story appearing in her affidavit-complaint differs materially from her testimony in court; (2) AAA could not have easily identified Amarela because the crime scene was dark and she only saw him for the first time; (3) her testimony lacks material details on how she was brought under the stage against her will; and (4) the medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are inconclusive of any signs of forced entry." [9] ... Accused-appellants Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho are ACQUITTED of the charge of rape on the ground of reasonable doubt. Their IMMEDIATE RELEASE from custody is hereby ordered unless they are being held for other lawful cause." [19] [Note: On 6-26-2012 the exchange rate was 42.504986 Philippine Pesos per US$1. Source: www.x-rates.com]" |
Conviction Caused By: |
Perjury by the victim. |
Innocence Proved By: |
"On January 17, 2018 the Court set-aside the convictions of Jury Amarela and Junard Racho in a precedent setting ruling that overturned the "women's honor" doctrine it established in 1960. The Court ruled the idea a woman would be too ashamed to publicly accuse a male of rape unless it was true was outdated and false, stating: "However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a travesty ofjustice." The court stated the Court's 1960 ruling was not only outdated, but "This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. ... In this way, we can evaluate the testimony of a private complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural misconception. ... in order for us to affirm a conviction for rape, we must believe beyond reasonable doubt the version of events narrated by the victim." [7-8] The Court then stated: "After a careful review of the records and a closer scrutiny of AAA's testimony, reasonable doubt lingers as we are not fully convinced that AAA was telling the truth. The following circumstances, particularly, would cast doubt as to the credibility of her testimony: (1) the version of AAA's story appearing in her affidavit-complaint differs materially from her testimony in court; (2) AAA could not have easily identified Amarela because the crime scene was dark and she only saw him for the first time; (3) her testimony lacks material details on how she was brought under the stage against her will; and (4) the medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are inconclusive of any signs of forced entry." [9] ... Accused-appellants Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho are ACQUITTED of the charge of rape on the ground of reasonable doubt. Their IMMEDIATE RELEASE from custody is hereby ordered unless they are being held for other lawful cause." [19]" |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
|
Age When Released: |
|
Sex: |
Male |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
|
Information Source 1: |
"People of the Philippines Vs. Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho, G.R. Nos. 225642-43 (Philippines Supreme Court, Third Div, January 17, 2018) (Setting aside rape convictions on the basis the "woman's honor" doctrine that a woman wouldn't lie about rape which the court established in 1960 was out of date for current society.)" |
Information Location 1: |
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/january2018/225642-43.pdf |
Information Source 2: |
"SC sets aside ‘woman’s honor’ doctrine in resolving rape cases, By Joel R. San Juan (Staff), Business Mirror, February 20, 2018" |
Information Location 2: |
https://businessmirror.com.ph/sc-sets-aside-womans-honor-doctrine-in-resolving-rape-cases/ |
Information Source 3: |
"SC acquits 2 men of rape charges, By Christopher Lloyd Caliwan (Staff), Philippine News Agency, February 20, 2018" |
Information Location 3: |
http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1025868 |
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org