While both of cases, People v Singson and AAA v CA, deals with the crime of rape, there are

notable variances between the two.

In the case of People v. Singson, the Court did not give credence to the claim of MJ that she was
allegedly rape by Rodel Singson due to the inconsistencies found by the Court in the various testimonial
evidence presented by the prosecution. It must be noted that there were discrepancies as to the testimonies
of MJ in court and in her sworn affidavit. Moreover, certain details of the events did not match with LK,
her mother’s statements. At the same time, the Court ruled that the sequence of events that the prosecution
tried to establish did not also make sense, hence, illogical. Testimonial evidence, to be believed, must not
only come from credible lips but must be credible in substance. A story that defies reason and logic and
above all runs against the grain of common experience cannot persuade. In the case of Singson, the
prosecution’s account failed to pass the test of credibility.

While in the case of AAA v. CA, the Court was fully convinced that AAA was speaking the truth
with the manner she professes what transpired that same day. According to the Court, they found AAA’s
testimony simple and candid. The trial court likewise observed that her answers to the lengthy and
humiliating questions were simple and straightforward, eradicating the possibility of a rehearsed testimony.
This was opposite to the testimonies of the private respondents, which seemed odd and beyond belief.

Another significant difference between the aforementioned cases is that, in People v. Singson, the
Court ruled in favor of the accused, Rodel because consent of MJ was fully established. MJ and Rodel both
consented the sexual congress. Based on the factual evidence, the Court was able to settle that the since
they were alone, Rodel and MJ lost control and made love. MJ’s cry for rape is certainly clothed with
wicked motive to save face from her family and relatives. When her mother caught her naked, MJ was
asked if she preferred to get married or to continue her studies, she must have chosen the latter. Thus, to
spare herself from embarrassment they made it look like Rodel raped her.

On the other hand, in AAA v CA, the Court pronounced the conviction of the private respondents
because it was clearly established that the sexual intercourse happened between AAA and the three accused
without AAA’s consent. Considering the fact that AAA was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at
the time the private respondents ravished her for she was weak and dizzy due to the intoxication.
The Court claimed that it is a settled rule that when there is no showing that private complainant
was impelled by improper motive in making the accusation against the accused, her complaint is entitled to
full faith and credence.
As claimed by the Court, if indeed AAA consented to the sexual act, she would not have told her
parents that just choose to keep it all to herself. AAA does not have any motive since she was not caught in
the act of making love with any of the private respondents, nor was she shown to have been in a
relationship with any of them of which her family disapproved. She never became pregnant as a result of
the deed. Absent any circumstance indicating the contrary, she filed the charge against the private
respondents simply because she was violated, her honor was taken and she wanted to obtain justice.