`REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
- versus CA-GR. No. xxxxxxxx
For: Declaration for
Nullity of Marriage
JUANA DELA CRUZ,
Respondent-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
Petitioner-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 02
December 2017 find for the Plaintiff-Appellee based on
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 2 of 16
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
Juan Dela Cruz is the appellant as represented by Toquero
and Associates where process and notice from this court
1
Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA
127
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 3 of 16
may be served at The Penthouse, Makati Infinity Towers
H.V. Delacosta Street, Brgy. Bel Air, Makati City, while
JUANA DELA CRUZ is the appelle as represented by
Manansala Associates, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig,
Philippines
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;
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 4 of 16
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 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
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 5 of 16
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).
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 6 of 16
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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 7 of 16
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
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 8 of 16
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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 9 of 16
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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 10 of 16
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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 11 of 16
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
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 12 of 16
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.
PRAY ER
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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 13 of 16
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
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 14 of 16
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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 15 of 16
JUAN DELA CRUZ
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
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 16 of 16
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
