Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS

Cagayan de Oro

Third DIVISION

PROCULA KURAKOT,

Accused-Appellant,

- versus CA-GR. No. 1234 & 1235-M

For: Direct Bribery

MARIA HUBACON,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

x-------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Accused-Appellant, by counsel, and to this

Honorable Court respectfully files his brief for the

appellant.
Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 2 of 13

PREFATORY STATEMENT

An error was committed by the Trial Court

against the defendant-Appellant in this case.

The Honorable Court in its decision dated on

March 3, 2016 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


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 3 of 13

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 quasi-judicial body] for

review by a higher tribunal.

THE PARTIES

Procula Kurakot is the appellant as represented

by Atty. Alejandra Cagampang where process and

notice from this court may be served at room 201

Cagampang Building, 074 Narciso Street, Surigao City

while Maria Hubacon is the appelle as represented by

the Surigao del Norte Provincial Prosecutors Office.

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 4 of 13

Accused-appellant received on March 16, 2016 the

Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated March 3,

2016. A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on April 6,

2016. Accused received on May 4, 2016 the Order from

the Court of Appeals directing him to file his Appeal

Brief within fifteen (15) days from receipt. Hence ,this

timely compliance.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

l.1 Procula Kurakot is a public officer as the Division

Superintendent of Department of Education Bucbocon

Division at Surigao City;

1.2 Private complainant alleged that she was bribed by

Kurakot in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS in

consideration of executing her Appointment as Teacher

I in Balibayon Elementary School;


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 5 of 13

1.3 That on April 10, 2015 at about 9:00 oclock in the

morning, Hubacon delivered the money to Dr. Kurakot

at the burger stand outside the Bucbocon Division

Office and Kurakots driver received it and thereafter,

Hubacon was given various receipts;

1.4 On the dates of the alleged commission of the

offense charged, the accused-appellant was engaged

with her official duties;

1.5 After two days from the commission of the

offense, April 12, 2015, the execution of Appointment

for Maria was perfected.

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;
Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 6 of 13

2. The Trial court erred in its decision to

charge the accused-appellant of Direct

Bribery under Article 210 of the

Revised Penal Code.

III

ARGUMENTS

1. The prosecutions

evidence is insufficient

to prove the guilt of the

accused-appellant

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. Thus it is the sole duty of the

prosecution to present evidence sufficient to

prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 7 of 13

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. Absence of evidences

The absence of evidences that Kurakot

did receive and accept the money was not

significantly shown in the complaint of

Hubacon. In fact, the evidences presented

by the Prosecution shows that Hubacon

voluntarily offered the money.

b. The inconsistency of the prosecutions

witness testimony.

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 one of the


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 8 of 13

witnesses of the Prosecution, Maria

Wentotown, the table office of said

Wentotown was 20 meters away from the

table of accused-appellant. Thus, she

cannot sufficiently hear the conversation.

c. Motive.

The accused-appellant has not shown

any criminal intent in asking and accepting

for said amount of ten thousand pesos (Php

10,000.00). The various receipts issued to

the plaintiff-appellee was due to the

different amounts plaintiff-appellee paid in

connection with her application as Teacher

I.

d. Alibi

Accused was physically impossible to

commit the crime because she did not

personally receive the money.

e. Sole assertion of the alleged victim is not

more than enough to over turn the

burden of proof to prove the accused

guilt.
Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 9 of 13

The testimony of the victim and two

other witnesses the Prosecution has

presented are not sufficient to prove that the

accused is guilty of the crime of Direct

Bribery.

2. The Trial court erred in

its decision to charge

the accused-appellant of

Direct Bribery under

Article 210 of the

Revised Penal Code.

The trial court failed to consider that the

accused-appellant was not the one who received

the money but rather her driver and that there

was no intention on her part to gain because the

receipts presented by the Prosecution were issued

not because of the alleged bribed money of ten

thousand pesos (Php 10,000.00).

PRAYER
Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 10 of 13

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 charge against him for Direct

Bribery as 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.

May 13, 2016.

ATTY. ALEJANDRA CAGAMPANG

Counsel for Accused-Appellant

PTR No. 109678263-1-05-08:SC

IBP No, 123456:1-05-8:SC

Roll No. 13457:7-10-95: Surigao

Rm. 5 2/F CAGAMPANG Building

23 Kaimo Street, Surigao City


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 11 of 13

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, Procula Kurakot, of legal age, Filipino and a

resident of Barangay Taft, Surigao City 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 the preparation of the foregoing pleading;


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 12 of 13

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 13 th day of May 2016 at Surigao City.

Procula Kurakot

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 13 th day

of May 2016 at Surigao City,Philippines. Affiant

exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate No. CC

123456 issued at Barangay Taft, Surigao City on

January 1, 2016.

Doc. No.:__________

Page no.:__________

Book no.:__________

Series of 2016 NOTARY PUBLIC


Brief for Appellant
Procula Kurakot vs. Maria Hubacon
CA-GR No. 1234 & 1235
Page 13 of 13

Copy Furnished:

Offi ce of the Provincial Prosecutor

Surigao City, Surigao del Norte

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.

ATTY. ALEJANDRA CAGAMPANG