REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

Third DIVISION

ERNESTO SAUL,
Accused-Appellant,

- versus

CA-GR. No. 3360-M & 3361-M

For: Rape

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

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

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 2 of 19

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
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 19

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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 4 of 19

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:

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 5 of 19

1. The prosecutions 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 prosecutions evidence

is insufficient to prove the
guilt
of
the
accusedappellant 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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 6 of 19

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

arraigned only on August 24, 1999.

only formally filed a year after.

was

Charges was

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

complainant (People vs. Cueto, 84 SCRA 774).

b. Incredible.

the

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 7 of 19

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 oclock 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

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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 8 of 19

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 complainants 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)

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 9 of 19

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

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 the

alleged

victim

she

narrated that she attended school on March 24,

1998.

However

this

was

rebutted

by

the

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 10 of 19

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
accuseds 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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 11 of 19

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 victims father regarding money matters.
This created a rift between them.

Despite this,

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 12 of 19

the accused remained patient and kind to allow

her niece, to play and watch television in his
residence.
delinquency.

Plus, the victim had a history of

Barangay Secretary Jaime Ruelo

testified during trial that Maricel Dela Cruz,

victims 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

courts 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 courts ruling.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 13 of 19

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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 14 of 19

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 15 of 19

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 16 of 19

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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 17 of 19

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. Jacinto dela Cruz

Notary Public

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 18 of 19

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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 19 of 19

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III