Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Division Ii, City of Manila
Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Division Ii, City of Manila
SULIT
I-D
3/31/07
-versus-
APPELLEES BRIEF
SUBMITTED BY
SUBJECT INDEX
Page No.
Contents
Cover Page
Subject Index
3
Prefatory Statement
Counter-Statement
of Facts
5
Counter Arguments
Discussion
14
Prayer
APPELLEES BRIEF
Plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Office of
the Solicitor General in answer to the allegations raised by the accused-appellant in
his Brief, respectfully states:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Through this appeal, accused-appellant assails the judgment dated 30
November 2006 rendered by Judge Barabas Baldoza of the Regional Trial Court, 12 th
Judicial Regional Branch 15, Quezon City, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Robbery with Rape.
COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS
Accused-appellant Pedro Sarmiento y Tordecilla together with co-accused
Timeo Yhaap y Palparan and Antonio Olanne y Bergdugo was charged before the
Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Regional Branch 15, Quezon City of robbery with
rape. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 123456. The accusatory portion
reads:
That on or about February 14, 2006, in Quezon City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, armed with a knife, and gun, conspiring and confederating
together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, forced open
the red Toyota Corrola Plate No. YHJ123 owned by WANDA S. RIVERA,
Demek and Angela Catindoyok were the two couple who found the victim
standing by the road around 11:00 p.m. of February 14, 2006 while walking home
after celebrating their first wedding anniversary. Mrs. Catindoyok even testified that
before finding the victim they saw three men running towards them, one of them
was even carrying a Laptop computer. They were able to identify them later in a
police line up as the accused-appellant Pedro Sarmiento and two other co-accused,
Timeo Yhapp and Antonio Olanne.
The accused denied the charges, claiming that they did not know each other.
All of them used the defense of alibi: Timeo Yhapp testified that during the
commission of the crime he was reviewing in his house at Manggahan, Fairview,
Quezon City; Antonio Olanne claimed that he was taking care of his sick grandmother
who was confined at the Philippine General Hospital; and Pedro Sarmiento claimed
that he had slept early that night in his house somewhere in Cubao, Quezon City. All
three presented their relatives as witnesses to corroborate their respective alibis.
On November 30, 2006 on the strength of the prosecutions evidence the
Regional Trial Court promulgated its decision. The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds co-accused Timeo Yhapp, Antonio
Olanne, and Pedro Sarmiento GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
the crime of Robbery with Rape, committing with the use of 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 actual
damages;
P75,000.00
as
civil
indemnity;
P75,000.00
as moral
Only one of the accused Pedro Sarmiento appealed the matter to the Court of
Appeals raising his arguments in his Appellant Brief.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff-appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the assignment of
errors raised by the accused-appellant:
I. The clear and convincing testimony of the private complainant is
credible enough to establish the commission of the crime.
V. Positive
identification
by
the
private
complainant
as
well
as
xxx
xxx
xxx
Atty. Makarate
Q: After they took your material possessions, what
happened next?
A: They removed their mask, and then one of them
pointed a gun at me. He then took me to the talahib
beside my car, removed my clothes and started to kiss
me while caressing my breast. The others were
cheering him on while he was raping me. I was so
scared that I could not move my whole body. 2
xxx
xxx
2
3
4
5
6
7
xxx
Genitalia:
xxx
external
examination=
abundant
pubic
hair,
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Atty Makarate:
Q: What did you see at the road while walking on the
night of February 15, 2007?
A: While me and Demek were walking along the road,
it was our first wedding anniversary then, we saw
three men running towards us, the tall one was even
carrying
laptop
computer.
Then
we
continued
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
in
fact,
connected
and
cooperative,
indicating
need
only
to
knowingly
contribute
his
efforts
in
as
his
conspirators.
xxx
own
the
criminal
designs
of
his
co-
14
xxx
10
identification
by
the
private
complainant
as
well
as
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
Aside from the fact that the crime happened during the night the
victim Ms. Rivera, testified that she always passes by Lubayong Street
on her way to work. Furthermore it is well known that Lubayong Street
is one of the busiest streets in the Cubao area. This clearly implicates
that the accused would not have been successful if they carried out
their plan during the day time. That is why they waited for their victim
at end of dusk to take advantage of the silence of the night. Under the
Article 14 of the Penal Code, 27 nighttime is appreciated when it was
purposely sought for by the offenders. Furthermore when the offender
took advantage of nighttime or the same facilitated the commission of
the crime, nighttime need not be specifically sought for.28
VII. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as the
clear and credible testimony of the private complainant satisfied the
crucible test of reasonable doubt to overthrow the Constitutional
guaranty of presumption of innocence and clearly established the
accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses including the victim
herself to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
withstanding the crucible test of reasonable doubt and overthrowing
the presumption of innocence of the said appellant.
The victim Wanda Rivera positively identified all of the accused when
they removed their mask after robbing her.29 She also identified Yhapp
as the one who raped her while the accused-appellant Sarmiento was
jeering her. It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that an accurate
and convincing testimony of the rape victim alone is enough to warrant
a conviction for rape since no decent woman would publicly admit that
she was raped and face public contempt, unless she was in fact
ravished.30
Although the victims testimony is enough to warrant conviction it was
even
corroborated
by
the
other
witnesses
presented
by
the
prosecution. Dr. Quinto testified that Ms. Rivera was positive of fresh
spermatozoa and vaginal laceration upon physical examination, after
the latter was brought to her clinic. She positively stated in her
affidavit that Ms. Rivera indeed had carnal knowledge during the time
when she examined her.31
27
28
29
30
31
12
PRAYER
32
33
13
Copy Furnished
Atty. Zelpidio Paparan
Epal Law Office
LTA, Bldg. Salcedo Village, Makati
Counsel of the Accused-appellant
14