REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third DIVISION
ERNESTO SAUL,
Accused-Appellant,

- versus

CA-GR. No. 3360-M & 3361-M

For: Rape

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Accused-Appellant, by counsel, and to this Honorable

Court respectfully files his brief for the appellant.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
An obvious violation and disregard of the right to
due process was committed against the defendantAppellant in this case.
The Honorable Court in its decision dated on July 22
2002 find for the Plaintiff-Appellee based on mere
allegations not supported by evidence sufficient to draw a
conclusion so as to comply with Sec. 14, Article VIII of the
constitution.
The Honorable Supreme Court on this premise made
pronouncement in a case brought forth, thus:

The court finds occasion to

remind courts and quasi-judicial bodies
that [a] decision should faithfully
comply with Section 14, Article VIII of
the Constitution which provides that no
decision shall be rendered by any court
[or
quasi-judicial
body]
without
expressing
therein
clearly
and
distinctly the facts of the case and the
law on which it is based. It is a
requirement of due process and fair
play that the parties to a litigation be
informed of how it was decided, with
an explanation of the factual and legal
reasons that led to the conclusions of
the court [or quasi-judicial body]. A
decision that does not clearly and
distinctly state the facts and law on
which it is based leaves the parties in
the dark as to how it was reached and
is especially prejudicial to the losing
party, who is unable to pinpoint the
possible errors of the court [or quasijudicial body] for review by a higher
tribunal. 1

THE PARTIES
Ernesto Saul is the appellant as represented by Militante
and Associates where process and notice from this court
may be served at room 1407 Cityland Condominium,
Tower II, 6871 Ayala Avenue corner H.V. Delacosta Street,
Salcedo Village, Makati City, while THE PEOPLE of the
PHILIPPINES is the appelle as represented by the Rizal
Provincial Prosecutors Office
TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL
Accused-appellant received on July 15 2002 the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court dated July 11 2002. A Notice of
Appeal was timely filed on July 20 2002. Accused received
on July 25 2002 the Order from the Court of Appeals
directing him to file his Appeal Brief within fifteen (15)
days from receipt. Hence ,this timely compliance.
I
1

Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA 127

STATEMENT OF FACTS
l.1 Ernesto Saul is a fifty seven (57) years old man who
drives a passenger jeep as a means of livelihood. The
private complainant, Christine dela Cruz is the niece of
the accused who was then studying at Sampaloc
Elementary School, Tanay, Rizal;
1.2 Private complainant alleged that she was raped by her
uncle, accused-appellant in the instant case, on two
occasions, in the afternoon of March 24 and March 29,
1998 inside the passenger jeep being driven by the latter;
1.3 The passenger jeep was parked in a broad daylight
infront of several houses. The jeep had partially glass
doors with the back door open and the wind shield not
covered where the offense charged was allegedly
committed by the accused-appellant;
1.4 On the dates of the alleged commission of the offense
charged, the accused-appellant was engaged with his
usual work, transporting passengers using his vehicle;
1.5 The Medical Report of the alleged rape was made on
April 9, 1999, a lapse of more than a year after the
commission of the alleged offense charged.

II
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

The trial court committed the following errors:

1. The prosecutions evidence is insufficient
to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant
beyond reasonable doubt;
2. The Trial court erred on imposing the
additional penalty of civil indemnity and
moral damages that is not supported by
law and the facts alleged by appellee.
3

III
ARGUMENTS
1.

The prosecutions evidence

is insufficient to prove the
guilt
of
the
accusedappellant
beyond
reasonable doubt;
It is the Constitutional right of the appellant
that
every circumstance favoring the innocence of the
accused must be duly taken into account. The proof
against him must survive the test of reason (Duran
vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 68). Thus it is the sole
duty of the prosecution to present evidence sufficient
to prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence presented by the prosecution however
in this case, is insufficient and has been clearly
rebutted by countervailing proof by appellant. The
following facts are presented by appellant to this
honorable court which the lower court has failed to
take credence.
a.

Delay in Filing Complaint Renders Rape

Charge Doubtful.

The alleged rape was committed on March 24

and 29 of 1998, however, the appellant was
arraigned only on August 24, 1999. Charges was
only formally filed a year after. Her affidavit was
only executed on April 9, 1999 (Exhibit A). This
creates much doubt as to the claim of the alleged
victim. The Supreme Court has already ruled that
the delay in filing criminal proceedings for rape
may result in adverse inference against the
complainant (People vs. Cueto, 84 SCRA 774).
b. Incredible.
With the presence at the premises and the
alleged rape was consummated on the front
seats of the jeepney at a public area on broad
daylight, the opportunity to commit the rape is
hardly present. More than that the alleged rape
was committed at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon,
4

c.

the elements of secrecy had been totally

ignored
of
disregarded
which
is
quite
unbelievable and incredible in such a crime of
rape.
(People vs. Leones, 117 SCRA 382).
Especially the fact that the rape was
consummated on the front seats while the
victim was sitting is highly unnatural from rape
cases, considering the small space to allow
quick
movement,
which
at
the
cross
examination of prosecution witness John Guda
testified that When they returned after 4
minutes, accused and victim, who were fully
dressed, were still occupying the front seats.
This testimony is incredulous, for how can the
accused remove his clothes, rape the victim on
the front seat, and has enough time for both of
them to redress just in 4 minutes.
Long Silence Runs Counter to Natural
Reaction.
Despite the availability of resources to
speak to, the victim slept on her rights on
reporting the alleged rape. Needless to state,
such conduct runs counter to the natural
reaction of an outraged maiden despoiled of her
honor xxx. In fine, the complainants testimony
in the instant case lacks that stamp of absolute
truth and candor necessary to overcome the
constitutional
presumption
of
innocence.
(People vs. Romero, Jr., 117 SCRA 897).

d.

Absence of defensive wounds, use

weapons and attempt to ask for help.

of

The absence of defensive wounds on the

medical report of Dr. Winston Tan, (Exhibit D)
and the absence of use of any deadly weapons
runs counter to the allegation of force and
intimidation. The absence of any action on the
part of the victim to call for help or shout for
assistance
taking
into
consideration
the
allegedly rapes were committed on a public
area, which is in the direct access of nearby
civilians, runs much doubt as to the credibility
of the commission of the offense and against
the basic norms of a girl of good repute.
5

e.

The inconsistency of
witness testimony.

the

prosecutions

The evidence of the prosecution is tainted

with
inconsistencies,
uncertainties
and
implausibility that scorn the credence of this
Court, it must be rejected as a feeble
concoction. In the testimony of the alleged
victim she narrated that she attended school on
March 24, 1998. However this was rebutted by
the testimony of school teacher Severo Valdez
who presented Form 1 or School Register
(Exhibit 7) were she narrated that she was
absent on that day. This was corroborated by
the testimony of a schoolmate of the alleged
victim, Christopher Padios testified that she was
absent for the whole month of March, that she
did not attend the graduation rehearsal.
On the alleged rape on March 29, 1998, the
victim stated in her testimony that she and her
nephews with the accused drove the jeep
towards the store of Mr. Cabansag for
recharging of the accuseds battery. However,
Danilo Cabansag testified that he was only able
to purchase the battery charger only at May 16,
1998 as evidence by Sales Invoice (Exhibit 5)
issued by Cabacial Merchandizing and was only
been able to began the business only on the
19th, thus negating the plausibility of her
testimony of a March 29 trip to Mr. Cabansag
store.
f.

Alibi.
Accused was physically impossible to
commit the crime of rape. On March 24 he was
busy engaged in driving his passenger jeep, as
a school service.
This was corroborated by
Elena Padios, mother of one of his passengers
who rode on the jeep on that same day. They
arrived at school around 2:00 p.m. and left at
5:30 p.m. at the afternoon.

g.

Motive.
6

The Ramos ruling as appreciated by the

trial court in its decision cannot be taken
credence for the complaint was a concoction of
a well planned revenge of the family of the
alleged victim. As provided in the testimony of
the appellant, this began when the accused had
an altercation with the victims father regarding
money matters. This created a rift between
them.
Despite this, the accused remained
patient and kind to allow her niece, to play and
watch television in his residence.
Plus, the
victim had a history of delinquency. Barangay
Secretary Jaime Ruelo testified during trial that
Maricel Dela Cruz, victims sister reported to
him at the barangay hall that the victim went
with her classmate without asking permission
from her parents and she had not returned.
This creates much doubt as to the veracity of
her reputation.
h.

Sole assertion of the alleged victim is not

more than enough to over turn the burden
of proof to prove the accused guilt.
The Royeras ruling as stated in the trial
courts decision, does not apply in the case at
bar, for the facts previously stated has created
more than sufficient contrary proof, to allow
reversal of the trial courts ruling.

2.

The Trial court erred on

imposing
the
additional
penalty of civil indemnity
and moral damages that is
not supported by law and
the
facts
alleged
by
appellee.
The trial
articles:
a.

court

failed

to

consider

the

following

Article 2234 of the Civil Code provides that the

plaintiff must show that he is entitled to more
xxx damages xxx before the court may consider
xxx.
7

b.

Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

In imposing fines the courts may fix any
amount within the limits established by law xxx,
but more particularly to the wealth or means of
the culprit.

The trial court awarded moral damages on both

counts of rape. This award was rendered without being
alleged, proved and prayed by the appelle. Damages are
never presumed but must be proven by competent
evidence, which the prosecution has failed to do. Also the
trial court imposed a civil indemnity on both counts,
failing to consider the fact that the accused is a 57 year
old man whose main source of income is manning his jeep
as a school service. Thus the awards are both contrary to
law and from the basic norms of fair play and equity.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, the accused-appellant respectfully
prays that Decisions of the trial court be reversed, set
aside and nullified, and the judgment be rendered in favor
of the accused-appellant as prayed for in his answer; to
dismiss the two counts of rape for his guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant further prays for such other relief
as may be just and equitable in the premises.
January 11, 2010.

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III

8

Counsel for Accused-Appellant

IBP Lifetime NO. 05672
Roll No. 56123
MCLE II Compliance No. 0003743
Militante and Associates
Rm 1407 Cityland Condominium Tower II
6817 Ayala Ave. corner H.V. delacosta Street
Salcedo Village, Makati City

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, ERNESTO SAUL, of legal age, Filipino and a
resident of Barangay Road, Tanay, Rizal after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby depose and say:
l. I am the accused-appellant in the foregoing Brief;
2.I caused
pleading;

the

preparation

of

the

foregoing

3. I have read the same and the allegations therein

are true and correct of my personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.
4. I have not commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court or
different divisions thereof or any other tribunal or
agency.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature
this
day of
2010 at Makati City.

ERNESTO SAUL
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
day of
2010 at Makati City,Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me
his Community Tax Certificate No. CC 123456 issued at
Tanay, Rizal on January 04, 2010.

Atty. Jacinto dela Cruz

Notary Public
Notarial Commission until Dec 30,2010
PTR NO. 023456/01/05/10/Makati
Doc. No.: 39
Page no.:8
Book no.:I
Series of 2010
Copy Furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Tanay, Rizal
EXPLANATION
Pursuant to Section II, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Court, the foregoing Brief is sent by registered mail due
to lack of messengerial personnel and time constraint in
the filling thereof.

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III

10