You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


National Capital Judicial Region
BRANCH 15
Makati City

RENALYN S. SANTIAGO,
Complainant,
-versus-

CASE NO. 95-

87390
For: Rape
ALLAN HABER,
Accused.
x..x

MEMORANDUM
The STATE, by the undersigned state prosecutor, and in compliance with the
Order of this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its
case, and, states:
PREPARATORY STATEMENTS
The fact alone that two people were seen beside each other, conversing during a
morning breakfast, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were
sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet
murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her would
have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship.[1]

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The information charged accused for the crime of Rape as the information reads
as follows: CRIM CASE No. 01
I N F O R M AT I O N
The undersigned accuses ALLAN HABER, of crime of Rape, committed as
follows:

That on May 1, 2014, at or about 10:00 in the evening, in # 12 Guadalupe,


Makati City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
aforementioned accused prompted with lewd design and by means of force, threat and
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with RENALYN SANTIAGO, against her will and consent to her damage and
prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
1. Whether the accused Allan Haber is guilty of Rape under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether or not the sweet heart theory is applicable in this case.
3. Whether offer of marriage during trial by the accused is admission of guilt.
ARGUMENT/ DISCUSSION
I.
Allan Haber is guilty of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
since the element of force and intimidation is sufficiently proven by the
complainant.
Pertinently, the elements of rape under par. 1(a) of Art. 266-A of the Code are the
following: (1) that the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (3) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.[2]
The above-cited elements of the crime of rape had been sufficiently established.
In the case at bar the complainant satisfactorily proved that the accused execute his
carnal desire against the latter by employing force to weaken her strength by a hard
blow in her stomach, making any delicate damsel scourge in pain.
Medico Legal report shows that the complainant suffered abdominal contusion
during the heinous event of rape that completely pacifies and limit the victim to perform
further resistance. The defense deduction that lack of resistance by the victim suffices
consent is insufficient. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats
and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of
fear. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victims
submission to the perpetrators lust. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to
determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not
an essential element of rape. Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong
resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Thus, the
law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.[3]

The defense allegation regarding the victims inconsistency in depicting the actual
scene or position of the accused during the vicious moment of rape is a frail attempt to
dismiss the credibility of the victim. Courts have often reiterated that minor
inconsistencies with no material effect on the charge will not warrant the dismissal of the
case not the rejection of the testimony of the victim itself. No one expects rape victims
to remember with precision every detail of the crime.[4] Errorless recollection of a
harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is
recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape.
[5] Inconsistencies in a rape victims testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if
the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the
commission of rape.[6] Victims certainly do not cherish keeping in their memory an
accurate account of the dates, number of times, and the manner in which they were
sexually violated.[7]
II.

Sweet heart defense is not applicable in the case.

Defendant in order to disclaim the allegation of rape resorted to the most often used
and abused theory in rape cases, which is the sweet heart defense. The defendant
insists that the victim was his lover or sweetheart and that the consummation of the
carnal act was a deed between two people in love.[8] The "sweetheart defense" has
often been raised in rape cases but has rarely been upheld as the defense failed to
come up with convincing proof. Indeed, accused bears the burden of proving that he
and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship.[9] The
accused protestation that the complainant loves him and that her only motive for filing
the case was because of his refusal to marry hir because both of them is not yet ready
at the moment is not worthy of belief. No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly
admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. Besides, even if indeed the
accused and the complainant are sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate
rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man
cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon
her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[10]
The defendant in a pitiable attempt to prove that there is indeed a relationship
between him and the victim, present two (2) forged love letters with signatures over
printed name of the victim. In People vs. Ayuda, G.R. No. 128882, October 2, 2003, the
Supreme Court ruled that: "A sweetheart defense to be credible should be substantiated
by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship-like mementos, love letters,
notes, pictures and the like. However in the case at bar, defendant failed to prove the
authenticity of the handwriting and the signature of the victim.
III.

Offer of marriage in rape cases is an admission of guilt.

The accused guilt is established by the fact that he offered to marry the complainant
during his testimony in the court. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an
admission of guilt.[11] No such obvious sign of surrender than to hear the accused in

open court that he indeed love the complainant and willing to marry her, and offer to
marry her. Such a frail attempt to console the complainant, he even sugar coat the
degradation felt by the victim.

PRAYE R
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed for that
aJUDGMENT OF CONVICTION be rendered against Allan Haber for the commission of
the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.
Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.
Makati, May 23, 2014.
Charmaine Japzon Itable
City Prosecutor
Roll Number: 42134
IBP No. 12375-02/08/11-Makati
PTR No.102282-02/03/12-Makati
MCLE Compliance No. II-0004678
Copy furnished through personal service:
ATTY. RYAN ALTERIA
Counsel for Defendant
Alteria Law Office
1515 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila

People vs. Napudo, G.R. No. 168448, October 8, 2008


[2] Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code 525 (16th ed., 2006)
[3] People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y Francia, G.R. No. 189324, March 20,
2013.
[4] People vs. Orilla, 422 SCRA 620 (2004).
[5] People vs. Tonyacao, 433 SCRA 513 (2004).
[6] People vs. Borromeo, 430 SCRA 533 (2004).
[7] People vs. Mantis, 433 SCRA 236 (2004).
[8] Annotation Defenses in Rape Cases by David Robert C. Aquino, CSEE 540 SCRA
531 (2007).
[9] People vs. Dreu, G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000.
[10] People v. Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, Sept. 29, 1999.
[11] People vs. Dreu, G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000.
[1]

2014-05-23 17:46 GMT-07:00 renalyn santiago<renalyn.santiago@yahoo.com>:

hi charm, sorry di ko maopen eh..kasi sira ung windows 2010 ko po eh...pwede mo ba send nalang sa
mismong notes...or copy mo nalng dito sa email mismo kahit di na sa word...thanks po..if ever kahit send
mo na lang po yan kay kuya ong =) sabi ko sau wag ka na mageffort mashado...napuyat ka pa
tuloy..hehe..thanks so much! =)

On Friday, May 23, 2014 8:59 AM, Charmaine Itable <itablecharmaine@gmail.com>


wrote:
Good evening sorry sa istorbo. Pa check na lang po kng anuman. Tapos pabalik po sa
akin para ma email ko kay Rey. thank you.