Republic of the Philippines
Manila First Division EDWARD CULLEN Petitioner, versus G.R. No. 121212
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES And BELLA SWAN Respondents. x-----------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PETITIONER EDWARD CULLEN, through counsel and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully move for the reconsideration of the Decision dated February 29, 2012 DENYING the Petition for Review on lack of merit. Copy of the Decision was received on the same date. Petitioner has until March 15, 2012 within which to file this Motion for Reconsideration
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."1 "It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."2 If the court observed even a slightest doubt that the whole proof will be left to any mind the certainty of guilt, the accused should be acquitted and be set free. It is always better to err in acquitting that in punishing it.3
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1760) Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Works 293 (1970) 3 People vs Lizada (1993)
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO PROVE THE DEFENSE OF CONSENSUAL SEX III. the private complainant. the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court ruled that the petitioner RAPED the victim solely on the basis of her testimony. People SC-G.
. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THE
GUILT OF THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
I THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH XXX RELYING ONLY TO THE TESTOMINY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
The petition for review filed by the petitioners shall not be denied for the reason that in the assailed Decision. the trial court gave full weight and credence to the testimony of Bella Swan. 121212
In support of the motion for reconsideration.R.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. No. petitioner allege:
I. In laying down its decision.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH XXX RELYING ONLY TO THE TESTOMINY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
Swan will never report an incident of rape after the November 1 incident.4 (emphasis supplied) Based on the records of the court. No. Hope we can do it again. the records and the evidence presented in this proceeding will supply what happened really during the time from November 1 incident up to November 4 report of the crime happened. G. and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. Swan was actually having an affair with Mr. Cullen and based on the letter. No.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs.5 While the time in reporting the crime of rape is not essential element to prove a crime of rape. 2011 pp. y Padilla. convincing. Lets do it again after our class with TLC or after our class with Magsi.6 Xxx November 2. the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim. it shows the reason why Ms. 184922. 20117 Dearest Edward. 121212
We reiterate the ruling of your Honorable Court in People vs. I miss you.R. Swan to the appellant dated November 2. February 23. provided it is credible. 2011. Exhibits 3 and 4 (Attached herein as Annex 3 and 4) are the letters written in a piece of paper of Ms. Porferio Masagca Jr. People SC-G. it shows that the private complainant Bella Swan’s statement in relation to the event after the alleged consummation of the crime is questionable. Padilla. 2011 and November 3. Love you much! Yours Bella Babes (Sgd)8 Xxx The above letter presented shows that Ms. xxx
People of the Philippines v.R.25-26 6 Exhibit 4-B 7 Exhibit 4-A 8 Exhibit 3-B
. 2011 TSN Dated January 4.
the court gives credence to testimony of the victim not only because it is corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. 20119 Edward. bahala ka! We didn’t use condoms so I might get buntis. also a law student with a promising future now appearing before the court and presenting these letters as solid evidence to prove that there is a reason why Ms. Valdez. bahala ka! We didn’t use
condoms so I might get buntis.11 (emphasis supplied) In the case presented. People SC-G. The letter shows some stern warning of revenge if Mr.
. Panagutan mo ito or you will regret it. I feel so used by our Sogo night. there is clear and undisputable belief that the private complainant had its dire motive to falsely accuse the petitioner of the crime charge –
“I feel so used by our Sogo night. Moreover. Swan could only report an incident of rape three days after the incident. You haven’t replied to any of my text messages. If you don’t date me. Bella Swan accused the petitioner of rape. 150 SCRA 405. the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the witness of its claim that no decent and sensible woman would ever publicly admit that she was raped since she would run the risk of public contempt. If you don’t date me. 12 Ibid. However. or facebook messages. unless she was in fact a rape victim.R. but also because the victim did not have any motive to falsely implicate the accused. 121212
November 3. Panagutan mo ito or you will regret it. (heart sign) Bella Swan(sgd)10 xxx The above presented letter shows the reason why Ms. No. Cullen failed to heed from her demand. The said court merely rely on the basis of her being a law student with a bright future not to mention the fact that the accused. (heart sign) Bella Swan(sgd)”12
Exhibit 4-B Exhibit 4-A 11 People v.
and photographs. G. the prosecution during the trial also presented letters of the petitioner to the private complainant in their attempt to establish some fact that Mr. No. No. February 9.R.R. April 11. Swan. 2011( Exhibits 3 and 4) presented as corroborative evidence before the honorable lower court will support the argument of consensual sex between the appellant and Mr. demands corroboration. the prosecution challenged the credibility and authenticity of all these presented pieces of evidence.14
Before such a defense can even be considered as having credence. G. however. The defense of consensual sexual intercourse.
. 2011. like the sweetheart defense. Swan is consensual sex and not rape as provided by the Revised Penal Code. mementos. In fact.15 The text messages recorded under the electronic evidence rule (Marked as Exhibit 2) and the letters dated November 2. Independent proof is required — such as tokens. Toriaga. they failed to destroy said presented
TSN dated February 2. In People vs. 2011 and November 3. Cullen is a stalker of Ms.13 THE THE TO HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING CORROBORATIVE PROVE THE EVIDENCE OF PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER DEFENSE CONSENSUAL SEX
The main argument in this case is that the incident happened between the appellant and Ms. 121212
Said letters were timely presented and offered before the court and the prosecution did not object on the matter of its credibility and purpose. Swan. No. People SC-G. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory. it must be proven by compelling evidence. 177145. Reynaldo Olesco y Ondayang. 2011 15 Philippines v. 174861. Joey Toriaga. This pieces of evidence presented by the petitioner before the honorable appellate court was given a lesser weight versus the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution.R.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. 2012 page 30 People of the Philippines v. In fact.
Cullen and Ms. Aside from the fact that the prosecution failed to object Mr. page 12 18 Ibid. based on the testimony of Mr. 2012 pp. Swan and Mr. People SC-G. Cartagena should be given weight considering the fact that the prosecution failed to discredit all his testimony before the court. the prosecution also admitted the recordings of the CCTV camera of the SOGO Hotel dated November 1. They even presented before the court as evidence a love letter sent by Mr.18 If these pieces of evidence and testimonies were all considered and credited by any court of this land. the manager of the SOGO Hotel Malate when he testified before the honorable lower court to prove that Mr. His testimony supported the testimony of Mr. Cartagena’s testimony. Cullen is busy transacting with the Manager and some hotel attendants. Swan was not drugged when she entered the hotel together with the appellant. 2011 around 12 am to 4 am. Swan leave the SOGO premises without any commotion or unusual thing happened as the prosecution claiming. Cullen had sex with the consent of each other. No. Cullen that he never drugged and brought the private complainant unconscious to the hotel. hence. Philip Cartagena. In addition. 9-10 Ibid. Swan while holding each other. entered the SOGO hotel at around 12 midnight and leave the premises at around 4 in the morning. Cullen to Ms. Swan have a special relation with each other that will support the argument of consensual sex. Said letter of the prosecution as a matter of fact established the proof that Mr. Cartagena shows that Mr. the Court of Appeals erred for ignoring the testimony of Mr. 121212
evidence credibility. page 5
APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING
TSN dated January 11.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. no rape based on the claim of deprivation of consciousness should be charged against the petitioner. Cullen and Ms. the decision should be an acquittal of the crime charged.16 The testimony of the witness Mr.17 The recordings. Cullen and Ms. the video does not lie as Ms. Swan. The footage is a compelling evidence to prove that Ms. Moreover. In fact she is consciously aware and normal in the video while Mr.
or any instrument or object. Rizal failed to conduct an examination that will prove that Ms. Dr. Such deprivation of
TSN dated December 7. (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. the medico-legal expert and the lone expert witness of the prosecution failed to establish the consummation of rape beyond reasonable doubt.21 (emphasis supplied) Lack of material evidence or well-founded testimony to prove the deprivation of consciousness will result to lack of one of the essential elements of the crime of rape under the Revised Penal Code. In the case presented. under any of the circumstances mentioned above. the failure of the medico-legal officer to examine if Ms. Swan was really drugged at that time will result a doubt as to whether or not the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Dr. Based on the records of the court. He only conducted an examination on the vaginal laceration and for the positive presence of spermatozoa. Jose Rizal.) No. Bella Swan was drugged.A.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice. he testified that he examined Ms. 186441. and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented.19 Moreover. People of the Philippines. G. or “The Anti-Rape Law of 1997. 2010.
. or [B] by any person who. threat. 8353.20 Under Republic Act (R. Bella Swan only at the time she reported the incident before the Malate Police Station which was four days after the reported incident of rape happened. into the genital or anal orifice of another person. No.” Rape is committed by [A] a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force. People SC-G. 121212
THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT It must be stressed out that the prosecution presented only three witnesses including the offended party to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.R. March 3.R. 21 Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. No. 2011 page 20 Ibid. or intimidation. even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
TSN dated December 7. No. August 3. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting quantum of evidence required. G. 25 Supra. 185724. June 5. 2009. In doing so.22 To support a conviction for the crime of rape under Article 266-A par 1(2) of the Revised Penal Code. 24 People vs. 187494. 2009. and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. Malate. G.23 In addition.R. the presumption of innocence requires that before the accused is convicted.R. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the victim’s body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape nor will prove such. 26 People vs. 2011 page 25 People of the Philippines vs. his guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.24 (emphasis supplied) The appellate court erred in finding the guilt of the petitioner Edward Cullen beyond reasonable doubt based on the mistaken viewpoint of the lower court. the prosecution must only prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman.R.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. The foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony. The presence of hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape. the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. albeit a healed or fresh laceration is compelling proof of defloration. No. (2) that such carnal knowledge was achieved when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. he was not able to overcome the burden of proof required. 121212
reason or consciousness should be proven by any compelling evidence. No. not merely relying on the testimony of the one who is accusing. Angus. Elmer Barberos alias “EMIE”. No. 2010
. As the lower court stated: xxx “Although evidence may be presented to prove his innocence. December 23. People SC-G. 178778. G.” xxx The petitioner was confused when the trial court made a determination that the he as the accused had the burden of proving his innocence.
The constitutional presumption of innocence can be accorded to the accused in the absence of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. No. No.R. December 14. only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape. in the recent celebrated case of Lejano vs. it is even more difficult for the accused. though innocent. 189092. and frank testimony. having allegedly testified in a “categorical. People vs Lolos. courts consider the following principle” 1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility. 121212
If the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof. G. No. 2010 31 Ibid.28 Furthermore. straightforward. the testimony of the complaint should be scrutinized with great caution.32
Ibid. if the court observed even a slightest doubt that the whole proof will be left to any mind the certainty of guilt.31 The presented case before your Honorable Court should be treated in the same way since the trial court in this case remained unfazed by significant discrepancies on the evidence and testimony presented. August 9 2010 29 People vs Lizada G. 2) considering that in the nature of things. it is always better to err in acquitting that in punishing it. As stated in People vs. the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. No. Lizada. G. People SC-G.R. to disprove. the honorable appellate court should have been more cautious in affirming the decisions of the lower court particularly in this nature of case where there is a clear mistake of appreciation of facts and law.29 Also.30 records disclose that the trial court was impressed by the witness’ supposed detailed narration of the crime and the events surrounding it. and 3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Court of Appeals. spontaneous. your Honorable Court found the testimony of the prosecution’s main witness devoid of the credibility necessary to convict an accused not because of having observed the conduct of the witness while being examined in open court but because of discrepancies in the testimony.R.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. In such cases the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. (1993) 30 G. the accused should be acquitted and be set free.R. 171310. 176 389. Moreover.27 In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases.R. No. July 9 2009
. but while the accusation is difficult to prove. 32 People vs Cabacaba.” However.
People SC-G. 121212
PRAYER WHEREFORE. and instead. SET ASIDE AND REVERSED and accused-appellants be ACQUITTED. 2012 (Annex C). 54321/lifetime/Quezon City IBP NO.R. Manila Telefax: 4121314 Mobile No. No. 805559/01-05-11/Quezon City ROLL NO. in view of all the foregoing. incidental and other relief as may be just and equitable be granted to the accused-appellants. finding accused-appellant Edward Cullen guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 7 March 2012. be reconsidered. and b) such further. 31245/06-02-11/Makati City IBP NO. 09222222222 By:
REPA RADO B. DE VERA GALOS LAW OFFICE 2/F Espana Tower Espana Boulevard Blumentritt. GALOS III PTR NO. 989889/05-25-11/Bulacan Chapter
.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. City of Manila. it is respectfully prayed before the Honorable Court that: a) the Decision dated February 29. 54321 Admitted to the Bar April 2011 (MCLE COMPLIANCE N/A) RUSTICO DE VERA PTR NO.
ROLL NO.______ Manila City Hall Post Office 20 February 2012 Reg. Legaspi Village Makati City Reg. Ermita. 12121 Admitted to the Bar April 2011 (MCLE COMPLIANCE N/A)
Copy furnished by registered mail: ALMENDRAL CHUA LAW OFFICE ___________________________ ___________________________ COURT OF APPEALS Padre Faura St. People SC-G. Receipt No.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. No.
RUSTICO DE VERA REPARADO B. Receipt No. by registered mail because of time and personnel constraints.______ Manila City Hall Post Office 20 February 2012 Reg. Receipt No. GALOS III
.R.______ Manila City Hall Post Office 20 February 2012
The foregoing Petition for Review on Certiorari and Prohibition is filed personally with the Honorable Court and copies thereof served on the other parties and/or their counsel. Manila 1005 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street.
R. No.Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. 121212
. People SC-G.