THE Court of Appeal (CoA) has affirmed the conviction of 42-year-old Marino Corbis, who was found guilty of raping a 69-year-old woman during a violent home invasion in the county of Berbice in 2016.

However, in a ruling handed down recently, the court reduced his life sentence to 25 years in prison, less time already served. Corbis had appealed both his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge’s summation to the jury was unfair and unbalanced and that the original sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. He was convicted in early 2018 at the Berbice High Court following a two-week trial before Justice Sandil Kissoon and a mixed 12-member jury.

The rape occurred during the wee hours of November 16, 2016.

The victim, a 69-year-old woman who had known Corbis from infancy and regarded him almost like a son, testified during the trial.  She recounted a harrowing ordeal in which Corbis broke into her home and raped her at knifepoint for approximately 30 minutes.

Corbis, who had returned to Guyana in 2016 after living in Antigua and Curaçao, denied the charge. During the trial, he claimed he had been at home at the time of the incident.

However, the defence did not formally raise an alibi nor call witnesses to support that assertion.

In reviewing the appeal, the Court of Appeal—comprising the Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justices of Appeal Dawn Gregory and Rishi Persaud—on Wednesday last, held that the trial judge had sufficiently and properly addressed the critical issue of identification.

“She [the victim] knew him from infancy, and it was not a fleeting glance,” Chancellor Cummings-Edwards stated, highlighting the prolonged nature of the assault. However, the appellate court acknowledged the defence’s concerns that the trial judge’s summation may have placed more emphasis on the prosecution’s case while failing to equally highlight the weaknesses in the evidence or give balanced treatment to the defence’s position.

These weaknesses included the absence of forensic evidence and the failure of police officers to collect fingerprints from the crime scene. Despite this, the appellate court ruled that these shortcomings would not have changed the jury’s decision, given the totality of the evidence. “It is clear the jury would have arrived at the same verdict,” the court held.

Regarding sentencing, the Court of Appeal agreed that a life sentence was excessive in this case. The panel of judges cited sentencing guidelines and decisions from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), emphasising that while each case must be judged on its own facts, consistency in punishment is essential.

They noted the severity of the crime, the use of violence, the vulnerability of the elderly victim, and the breach of trust as aggravating factors. Still, they ruled that a sentence of 25 years was more appropriate. Corbis will now serve 25 years in prison, with time spent in pre-trial and post-trial custody deducted from his new sentence.