You are on page 1of 11


Third Division
- versus - CA-GR No !!"#-M
$ !!"%-M
FOR& Rape

Accused-Appellant, by counsel, and to this Honorable
Court respectfully fles his brief for the appellant.
An obvious violation and disregard of the right to
due process was committed against the defendant-
Appellant in this case.
he Honorable Court in its decision dated on !uly ""
"##" fnd for the $lainti%-Appellee based on mere
allegations not supported by evidence su&cient to draw a
conclusion so as to comply with 'ec. (), Article *+++ of the
he Honorable 'upreme Court on this premise made
pronouncement in a case brought forth, thus,
-he court fnds occasion to
remind courts and .uasi-/udicial bodies
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e " of
that -0a1 decision should faithfully
comply with 'ection (), Article *+++ of
the Constitution which provides that no
decision shall be rendered by any court
0or .uasi-/udicial body1 without
expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts of the case and the
law on which it is based2. +t is a
re.uirement 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 0or .uasi-/udicial body1. A
decision that does not clearly and
distinctly state the facts and law on
which it is based leaves the parties in
the dar3 as to how it was reached and
is especially pre/udicial to the losing
party, who is unable to pinpoint the
possible errors of the court 0or .uasi-
/udicial body1 for review by a higher
4rnesto 'aul is the appellant as represented by 5ilitante
and Associates where process and notice from this court
may be served at room ()#6 Cityland Condominium,
ower ++, 786( Ayala Avenue corner H.*. 9elacosta 'treet,
'alcedo *illage, 5a3ati City, while H4 $4:$;4 of the
$H+;+$$+<4' is the appelle as represented by the Ri=al
$rovincial $rosecutors :&ce
Accused-appellant received on !uly (> "##" the 9ecision
of the Regional rial Court dated !uly (( "##". A <otice of
Appeal was timely fled on !uly "# "##". Accused received
on !uly "> "##" the :rder from the Court of Appeals
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 & 336-M
Pa!e 3 of
directing him to fle his Appeal ?rief within ffteen @(>A
days from receipt. Hence ,this timely compliance.
l.( 4rnesto 'aul is a ffty seven @>6A years old man who
drives a passenger /eep as a means of livelihood. he
private complainant, Christine dela Cru= is the niece of
the accused who was then studying at 'ampaloc
4lementary 'chool, anay, Ri=alB
(." $rivate complainant alleged that she was raped by her
uncle, accused-appellant in the instant case, on two
occasions, in the afternoon of 5arch ") and 5arch "C,
(CC8 inside the passenger /eep being driven by the latterB
(.D he passenger /eep was par3ed in a broad daylight
infront of several houses. he /eep had partially glass
doors with the bac3 door open and the wind shield not
covered where the o%ense charged was allegedly
committed by the accused-appellantB
(.) :n the dates of the alleged commission of the o%ense
charged, the accused-appellant was engaged with his
usual wor3, transporting passengers using his vehicleB
(.> he 5edical Report of the alleged rape was made on
April C, (CCC, a lapse of more than a year after the
commission of the alleged o%ense charged.
he trial court committed the following errors,
(. he prosecutionEs evidence is insu&cient
to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant
beyond reasonable doubtB
". he rial 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.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e # of
% Th( )ros(*+,ion-s (vid(n*(
is ins+.*i(n, ,o )rov( ,h(
/+il, o0 ,h( a**+s(d-
a))(llan, 1(2ond
r(asona1l( do+1,3
+t is the Constitutional right of the appellant that
-every circumstance favoring the innocence of the
accused must be duly ta3en into account. he proof
against him must survive the test of reasonF @9uran
vs. Court of Appeals, 6( 'CRA 78A. hus it is the sole
duty of the prosecution to present evidence
su&cient to prove the accused guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. he evidence presented by the
prosecution however in this case, is insu&cient and
has been clearly rebutted by countervailing proof by
appellant. he following facts are presented by
appellant to this honorable court which the lower
court has failed to ta3e credence.
a. D(la2 in Filin/ Co4)lain, R(nd(rs Ra)(
Char/( Do+1,0+l
he alleged rape was committed on 5arch ")
and "C of (CC8, however, the appellant was
arraigned only on August "), (CCC. Charges was
only formally fled a year after. Her a&davit was
only executed on April C, (CCC @4xhibit -AFA. his
creates much doubt as to the claim of the alleged
victim. he 'upreme Court has already ruled that
the -delay in fling criminal proceedings for rape
may result in adverse inference against the
complainantF @$eople vs. Cueto, 8) 'CRA 66)A.
b. In*r(di1l(
Gith the presence at the premises and the
alleged rape was consummated on the front
seats of the /eepney at a public area on broad
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e $ of
daylight, the opportunity to commit the rape is
hardly present. 5ore than that the alleged rape
was committed at D,## oEcloc3 in the afternoon,
-the elements of secrecy had been totally
ignored of disregarded which is .uite
unbelievable and incredible in such a crime of
rape.F @$eople vs. ;eones, ((6 'CRA D8"A.
4specially the fact that the rape was
consummated on the front seats while the
victim was sitting is highly unnatural from rape
cases, considering the small space to allow
.uic3 movement, which at the cross
examination of prosecution witness !ohn Huda
testifed that -Ghen they returned after )
minutes, accused and victim, who were fully
dressed, were still occupying the front seatsF.
his testimony is incredulous, for how can the
accused remove his clothes, rape the victim on
the front seat, and has enough time for both of
them to redress /ust in ) minutes.
c. Lon/ Sil(n*( R+ns Co+n,(r ,o Na,+ral
9espite the availability of resources to
spea3 to, the victim slept on her rights on
reporting the alleged rape. -<eedless to state,
such conduct runs counter to the natural
reaction of an outraged maiden despoiled of her
honor xxx. +n fne, the complainantEs testimony
in the instant case lac3s that stamp of absolute
truth and candor necessary to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.F
@$eople vs. Romero, !r., ((6 'CRA 8C6A.
d. A1s(n*( o0 d(0(nsiv( 5o+nds, +s( o0
5(a)ons and a,,(4), ,o as6 0or h(l).
he absence of defensive wounds on the
medical report of 9r. Ginston an, @4xhibit -9FA
and the absence of use of any deadly weapons
runs counter to the allegation of force and
intimidation. he absence of any action on the
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e 6 of
part of the victim to call for help or shout for
assistance ta3ing 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 o%ense and against
the basic norms of a girl of good repute.
e. Th( in*onsis,(n*2 o0 ,h( )ros(*+,ion-s
5i,n(ss- ,(s,i4on2
he evidence of the prosecution is tainted
with inconsistencies, uncertainties and
implausibility that scorn the credence of this
Court, it must be re/ected as a feeble
concoction. +n the testimony of the alleged
victim she narrated that she attended school on
5arch "), (CC8. However this was rebutted by
the testimony of school teacher 'evero *alde=
who presented Iorm ( or 'chool Register
@4xhibit -6FA were she narrated that she was
absent on that day. his was corroborated by
the testimony of a schoolmate of the alleged
victim, Christopher $adios testifed that she was
absent for the whole month of 5arch, that she
did not attend the graduation rehearsal.
:n the alleged rape on 5arch "C, (CC8, the
victim stated in her testimony that she and her
nephews with the accused drove the /eep
towards the store of 5r. Cabansag for
recharging of the accusedEs battery. However,
9anilo Cabansag testifed that he was only able
to purchase the battery charger only at 5ay (7,
(CC8 as evidence by 'ales +nvoice @4xhibit ->FA
issued by Cabacial 5erchandi=ing and was only
been able to began the business only on the
, thus negating the plausibility of her
testimony of a 5arch "C trip to 5r. Cabansag
f. Ali1i
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e % of
Accused was physically impossible to
commit the crime of rape. :n 5arch ") he was
busy engaged in driving his passenger /eep, as
a school service. his was corroborated by
4lena $adios, mother of one of his passengers
who rode on the /eep on that same day. hey
arrived at school around ",## p.m. and left at
>,D# p.m. at the afternoon.
g. Mo,iv(.
he Ramos ruling as appreciated by the
trial court in its decision cannot be ta3en
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 victimEs father regarding
money matters. his created a rift between
them. 9espite this, the accused remained
patient and 3ind to allow her niece, to play and
watch television in his residence. $lus, the
victim had a history of delin.uency. ?arangay
'ecretary !aime Ruelo testifed during trial that
5aricel 9ela Cru=, victimEs sister reported to
him at the barangay hall that the victim went
with her classmate without as3ing permission
from her parents and she had not returned.
his creates much doubt as to the veracity of
her reputation.
h. Sol( ass(r,ion o0 ,h( all(/(d vi*,i4 is no,
4or( ,han (no+/h ,o ov(r ,+rn ,h( 1+rd(n
o0 )roo0 ,o )rov( ,h( a**+s(d /+il,
he Royeras ruling as stated in the trial
courtEs decision, does not apply in the case at
bar, for the facts previously stated has created
more than su&cient contrary proof, to allow
reversal of the trial courtEs ruling.
". Th( Trial *o+r, (rr(d on
i4)osin/ ,h( addi,ional
)(nal,2 o0 *ivil ind(4ni,2
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e & of
and 4oral da4a/(s ,ha, is
no, s+))or,(d 12 la5 and
,h( 0a*,s all(/(d 12
he trial court failed to consider the following
a. Article ""D) of the Civil Code provides “that the
plaintif must show that he is entitled to more
xxx damages xxx before the court may consider
b. Article 77 of the Revised $enal Code provides,
“In imposing nes the courts may x any
amount within the limits established by law xxx,
but more particularly to the wealth or means of
the culprit.”
he trial court awarded moral damages on both
counts of rape. his award was rendered without being
alleged, proved and prayed by the appelle. 9amages are
never presumed but must be proven by competent
evidence, which the prosecution has failed to do. Also the
trial court imposed a civil indemnity on both counts,
failing to consider the fact that the accused is a >6 year
old man whose main source of income is manning his /eep
as a school service. hus the awards are both contrary to
law and from the basic norms of fair play and e.uity.
P R A ' E R
7HEREFORE, the accused-appellant respectfully
prays that 9ecisions of the trial court be reversed, set
aside and nullifed, and the /udgment be rendered in favor
of the accused-appellant as prayed for in his answerB to
dismiss the two counts of rape for his guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant further prays for such other relief
as may be /ust and e.uitable in the premises.
!anuary ((, "#(#.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e ' of
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
+?$ ;ifetime <:. #>76"
Roll <o. >7("D
5C;4 ++ Compliance <o. ###D6)D
5ilitante and Associates
Rm ()#6 Cityland Condominium ower ++
78(6 Ayala Ave. corner H.*. delacosta 'treet
'alcedo *illage, 5a3ati City

+, 4R<4': 'AJ;, of legal age, Iilipino and a resident
of ?arangay Road, anay, Ri=al after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
(. + am the accused-appellant in the foregoing
". + caused the preparation of the foregoing pleadingB
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e 0 of
D. + have read the same and the allegations therein are
true and correct of my personal 3nowledge or based
on authentic records.
). + have not commenced any other action involving the
same issues in the 'upreme Court or di%erent
divisions thereof or any other tribunal or agency.
IN 7ITNESS 7HEREOF, + have a&xed my signature
this day of "#(# at 5a3ati City.

SUBSCRIBED AND S7ORN to before me this
day of "#(# at 5a3ati City, $hilippines. A&ant
exhibited to me his Community ax Certifcate <o. CC
("D)>7 issued at anay, Ri=al on !anuary #), "#(#.
Atty. !acinto dela Cru=
<otarial Commission until 9ec
$R <:. #"D)>7K#(K#>K(#K5a3ati
9oc. <o., DC
$age no.,8
?oo3 no.,+
'eries of "#(#
Copy Iurnished,
:&ce of the $rovincial $rosecutor
anay, Ri=al
$ursuant to 'ection ++, Rule (D of the (CC6 Rules of
Court, the foregoing ?rief is sent by registered mail due
to lac3 ofmessengerial personnel and time constraint in
the flling thereof.
Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 336-M
Pa!e of