REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third DIVISION

ERNESTO SAUL,
Accused-Appellant,
CA-GR. No. 3360-M &
3361-M For: Rape

- versus

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

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

APPELLATE BRIEF

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 defendant-Appellant 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
quasi-judicial 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
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
Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA
127
 1. The prosecution’s 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.

III
ARGUMENTS

1. The prosecution’s 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” (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 o’clock in the afternoon, “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.
c. 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 complainant’s 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 of weapons and attempt to ask for

help.

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.

e. The inconsistency of the prosecution’s 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 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 accused’s 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 19 th , 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.
 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
victim’s 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, victim’s 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 court’s 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 court’s 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 court failed to consider the following articles:

a. 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.”
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

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 the preparation of the foregoing pleading;
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. Richard T. Galera

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