Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF MANILA

CHUCK NG
Plaintiff-Appellant

-versus-

G.R. No. 54321

LILIAN DVILLE
Defendant-Appellees
x------------------------------------------x

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY


CHUCK NG
by counsel, most respectfully submit their

APPELLANTS BRIEF

pg. 1

SUBJECT INDEX

Page Number
1

Cover Page

Assignment of Errors

Statement of Facts

Summary of Proceedings

Statement of Material Dates

Appealed Decision

Issues

10

Arguments

11

Prayer

13

Appendices

Cases Cited
1. People v. Coja, supra note 30 at 186
2. People v. Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, 8 May 2009, 587 SCRA 803
3. People v. Palgan, G.R. No. 186234, 21 December 2009.
4. People v. Tan, G.R. No. 177566, March 26, 2008, 549 SCRA 489, 502;
citing People v. Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07
5. People vs Amper, G.R. No. 172708, 5 May 2010.
6. People vs Buntag, G.R. No. 123070, 14 April 2004.
7. Quidet vs People, G.R. No. 17028, 8 April 2010.
8. Sumbillo vs People, G.R. No. 167464, 21 January 2010.

Books Cited
Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book 1, 17th Ed. 2008.

pg. 2

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I.

That the complainant is not a credible witness due to her inconsistent


testimonies as to important facts of the commission of the crime

II. The testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses are not enough to pass the
test of proof beyond reasonable doubt requirement in criminal cases.
III. That the Trial Court erred in ruling that conspiracy was present and
that the accused-appellant, through his acts became a co-conspirator.
IV. The alibi of the accused-appellant negates the alleged direct
identification of the witnesses.
V. That the Trial Court erred in appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime.
VI. That the prosecution was not able to overthrow the constitutionally
guaranteed presumption of innocence of the accused-appellant.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE


This is an appeal from the decision of the court conviciting herein accusedappellant, CHUCK NG of the crime of Robbery with Rape filed by defendantappellee, LILAN DVILLE.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
1. On January 20, 2015, Defendant-Appellee instituted the instant case before
the Makati City Regional Trial Court by filing the Complaint for Robbery
with Rape against herein accused-appellant, Tommy Pemberton and Philip
Roxas, the complaint, docketed as Criminal Case No. 54321.
2. On Feburary 17, 2015, the Quezon City Prosecutor filed the information in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
3. On 21 March 2015, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision. The
dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Tommy Pemberton, Philip Roxas
and Chuck Ng GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime
of Robbery with Rape, committed with the use of a deadly weapon and with
aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and treachery, without
any mitigating circumstance to offset the same. Considering that there was
conspiracy among the accused, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of DEATH and its accessory penalties; to pay Lilian Dville the
pg. 3

following amounts: P250,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000 as civil


indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and to pay the costs.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES


1. On March 21, 2015 Plaintiffs-Appellants, through counsel, received the
Decision from the Honorable RTC of Makati dated March 21, 2005 directing them
to file their Appellants Brief within 15 days from receipt thereof. The last day of
the period given to file the Brief fell on a Friday, May 5, 2015.
2. Hence, this Brief is filed on time.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 15, 2015 at around 10:30 pm, CHUCK NG was taking care of
his sick maternal grandmother who was confined in the ICU of the Philippine
General Hospital. She had suffered a stroke. They had no other relatives; it was
only Chuck Ng who was available to tend to his grandmother who had raised him
since he was an infant. Both his parents died in a car accident. Chuck Ng is
currently a 2nd year medical student in the University of Sto. Tomas, and while his
grandmother slept, he studied for the classes he missed.
However, on Feburary 15, 2015, he was invited by the policemen to
participate in a police line-up, there, the complainant finger-pointed herein
accused-appellant as one of the suspects who ransacked her car. All the accused
denied the charges against them. They claim that they do not know each other.
Philip Roxas claimed that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime
because he was reviewing for an exam in his house at Manggahan, Fairview,
Quezon City. Meanwhile, Chuck Ng insisted that he was taking care of her
grandmother who was confined at the Philippine General Hospital. And Tommy
Pemberton claimed that he was already asleep during the time of the incident
pg. 4

somewhere in Cubao. All of them presented their relatives to prove their claim, and
Chuck Ng presented medical certificates and affidavits from the doctor that on the
date the crime happened, he had been in the hospital the entire time.
On 21 March 2015, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision. The
dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Tommy Pemberton, Philip
Roxas and Chuck Ng GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the crime of Robbery with Rape, committed with the use
of a deadly weapon and with aggravating circumstances of dwelling,
nighttime, and treachery, without any mitigating circumstance to
offset the same. Considering that there was conspiracy among the
accused, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH
and its accessory penalties; to pay Lilian Dville the following
amounts: P250,000.00 as actual damages; P75,000 as civil
indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and to pay the costs.
Only herein accused-appellant filed this appeal on the matter in the Court of
Appeals.

ISSUES
I. That the complainant is not a credible witness due to her inconsistent
testimonies as to important facts of the commission of the crime
II. The testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses are not enough to pass the test
of proof beyond reasonable doubt requirement in criminal cases.
III. That the Trial Court erred in ruling that conspiracy was present and that the
accused-appellant, through his acts became a co-conspirator.
IV. The alibi of the accused-appellant negates the alleged direct identification of
the witnesses.
V. That the Trial Court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime.
VI. That the prosecution was not able to overthrow the constitutionally
pg. 5

guaranteed presumption of innocence of the accused-appellant.


ARGUMENTS
I.

That the complainant is not a credible witness


The victim has a propensity to lie1 and her testimony should not be
given credence. In a prosecution for rape, the victims credibility
becomes the single most important issue. Lilian Dville is a known
wild child and habitual drug user of cocaine, heroin and marijuana.
It is possible that she is suffering hallucinations and is mentally
deranged.

II.

That the testimonies of the witnesses are not enough to pass the
test of proof beyond reasonable doubt requirement in criminal
cases.
The accused-appellant espoused that his presumption of innocence
has not been overthrown because the evidence of the

prosecution

is not enough to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


III.

That the Trial Court erred in ruling that conspiracy was present
and that the accused-appellant, through his acts became a coconspirator.

IV.

The alibi of the accused-appellant negates the alleged direct


identification of the witnesses.
As seen from the affidavits and medical certificates, Chuck Ng has
a strong defense of alibi.

V.

That the Trial Court erred in appreciating the aggravating


circumstance of nighttime.
The aggravating defense of nighttime was not specifically sought
in the case at bar.

VI.

That the prosecution was not able to overthrow the


constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence of the
accused-appellant.

Records page 10

pg. 6

PRAYER
Wherefore, the plaintiff-appellant humbly asks that the motion to appeal of
accused-appellant CHUCK NG be granted by this Honorable Court.

March 7, 2015, City of Manila, Philippines.

FELICIANO & FELICIANO


Counsel for the Defendant
Unit 1916 Joya South Tower
Joya Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. (632) 897-8770
Telefax. (632) 896-2116
Email: fandf@law.com
By:
MERCEDES C. FELICIANO
IBP No. 9139238 01-08-14/Makati City
PTR No. 913458/01-08-14/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 51313
MCLE Com. No. IV-002248413/06-17-14

Copy Furnished
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City, 1229
PAULYN DELA REYNA
Associate Solicitor General

pg. 7