Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region

Branch 105

Quezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CRIM.CASE NO. Q-08-152651

FOR: RAPE

-versus-

MAURICIO VALLADOLID,

Accused.

x----------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE

This is a case of RAPE filed by the complainant Mary Ann Geronimo against the
accused Mauricio Valladolid alleging among others that on July 29, 2007 the accused
allegedly threatened and forced the complainant to go with him and allegedly brought the
complaint to Eurotel Hotel in Cubao, Quezon City from Star Mall, Mandaluyong City, wherein
at the said place allegedly had carnal knowledge with the complaint. After which they went
out of the place and went home together.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented the complainant and her mother as primary witnesses
and submitted several documents to support their claim. The complainant and her witnesses
alleged among others that the complainant is not familiar with the accused other than
staying in the same boarding house they would only greet each other when they would
meet. She alleged that on July 29, 2007 she was held by the accused and something was
pointed at her right side which she believed to be a knife. The same object which she felt at
her right side remained there while travelled from Star Mall to Eurotel Hotel in Cubao
passing through Farmers Plaze along EDSA. She stated that the accused had carnal
knowledge of her person through threats and intimidation and that she did not resist the
advances of the accused by reason of the said threats. She likewise stated that after the
incident she went home together with the accused and was left to walk the remaining 100
meters on her own by the accused. She did not inform anybody of what happened to her
until she was able to go home to his aunt in Bulacan from which the case was filed. She
further alleged that immediately after the incident she went home to Bulacan which was on
July 29, 2007 and later changed the statement to sometime August 12, 2007.
 EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED
The accused in response to the case filed against him testified that he courted the
complainant Mary Ann and she gave her consent to him to be her boyfriend on June 29,
2007. On the date of the alleged rape, it was actually a date with the accused meeting the
complainant at Pure Gold after which they proceeded to watch a movie (SHREK) in Makati,
after which they then proceeded to Eurotel Hotel in Cubao where they had consensual sex
without any force or intimidation being made upon the complainant. He testified that prior to
July 29, 2007 he has been in constant communication with the complainant and that they
would meet each other while at the boarding house regularly. He also testified that he would
pick the complainant up from her work at Pure Gold. Further, accused testified that even
after July 29, 207 he was able to meet and see the complainant and they were able to talk to
each other for several times prior to her leaving the boarding house and going home to his
aunt in Bulacan. The accused is very familiar with the complainant and there is a clear
showing that indeed he is the boyfriend of the complainant. And there is a clear showing that
indeed he is the boyfriend of the complainant. The accused likewise talked to the
complainant and her mother after she had gone home to discuss their marriage which was
not finalized.

Testimonies by his other witnesses showed and established the same set of facts
that indeed they were sweethearts, and that prior to and after July 29, 2007 the relationship
between the accused and the complainant remained the same. Evidences for the accused
also showed that the complainant and the accused after the date July 29, 2007 still went out
together and shared much time with each other.

ISSUES
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the Crime of Rape Charged?

ARGUMENTS

COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CREDIBLE AND RELIABLE WITNESS

It is clear that the Complainant is not a credible, nor is she a reliable witness to which
the Court would give merit. By her statements alone she has proven that she lied under oath
several times and that her statements contradict themselves.

TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: Ms. Witness on July 29, 2007 particularly at 9:00 in the morning could you recall
where were you?

A: I was applying at Star Mall, Manadaluyong City, Im looking for a job.

Q: While you were there at Star Mall, Mandaluyong City, could you recall of any incident
that happened?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What was that?

A: While looking for a job in Mandaluyong City, and while I was walking, he suddenly
put his arms on my shoulder
TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: After that what happened?

A: He told me to go with him.

Q: Where?

A: In Cubao.

TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo

Q: You went to Cubao with the accused is that correct?

A: Yes sir.

Q: What vehicle or what transportation if any, did you ride in?

A: We boarded a bus going to Cubao

Q: Where in Cubao?

A: At Eurotel Hotel sir.

TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: Now, after that what happened?

A: His arms was still on my shoulder, until such time that he paid the bill with the lady in
the hotel.

Q: What time was that?

A: 1:30 sir

Q: 1:30 in the afternoon?

A: Yes sir

Take note that the testimony of the complainant would show that she met the
accused at Star Mall at somewhere around 9:00 in the morning and thereafter states that
they went to Eurotel Hotel in Cubao at around 1:30 in the afternoon which leaves us a huge
gap of time around 4 hours and a half to wonder how the accused was able to hold her for
that time with something pointed at her side.

TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: Who was ahead in going out of the Hotel, was it you or the accused?

A: It was him.

Q: You mean to say that you were just following the accused while going out of the
hotel?

A: No sir, He was holding my hand.

Q: You were holding hands together?

A: He was holding my arm, pulling me.

Q: Of course, when you went out you have to pass by the counter of the hotel, am I
right?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Was somebody there at the counter?

A: Yes sir, a security guard

Q: And of course, you have to pass the door of the hotel am I right?

A: Yes sir

Q: In that door of the hotel, was there also a security guard?

A: Yes

Q: Is the same security guard that you saw when you went inside the hotel?

A: I did not notice sir

Q: When you went out with the accused, was the accused still holding the knife that you
mentioned during your direct examination?

A: I did not notice sir because his hand was in his pocket

Q: Why did you not ask for help from the security guard?

A: I was not able to ask for help because I was afraid of his threats

TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: What did you take as a mode of transportation Madam Witness?

A: We rode a bus going back to Mandaluyong

Q: I suppose in that but there were many people?

A: There were a few passengers when we boarded the bus

Q: In the bus did you not bother to ask any help or assistance from the passengers or
even from the conductor of the bus?

A: No sir, because I was afraid of his threats

Q: How many times did you take a ride before you reached your boarding house at
Mandaluyong?

A: Two rides sir.

Q: What was the second ride?

A: A Jeep sir

Q: And in that jeep, considering that it was already 5 in the afternoon and it was
Sunday, of course, there were many passengers, am I right?

A: Yes sir

Q: Why did you not bother to ask for any help from the jeepney driver or from the other
passengers?

A: I was not able to ask for help because I was afraid of his threats
TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: And of course, you were walking together with the accused in going home?

A: No sir, he told me to go ahead

Q: How far was the accused from you while you were walking home?

A: He just left at the place where we alighted.

Q: While you were walking, of course, you met many persons walking am I right?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Why did you not bother to ask any help?

A: I was not able to ask for help because I was afraid of his threats.

In rape cases, the claim of the complainant of having been threatened appears
to be a common expedient of face-saving subterfuge. (People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA
676)

As to be reasonably expected, a ravished woman would instinctively call for

help or at least flee her lecherous captor to safer ground when opportunity presents
itself. (People v. Sinatao, 249 SCRA 554.)

The complainant did not ask for any help from the security guard nor from the many
people around her despite the fact that the sharp object allegedly used by the accused was
no longer pointed at her and that the accused was merely pulling her arm. Furthermore,
when the accused and the complainant separated from each other, the complainant did not
even bother to ask for help from any person while she was already walking alone.

TSN (Mary Ann Geronimo)

Q: Would you still admit Madam Witness that you were working at Puregold last July 29,
2007, you were still working at Puregold?

A: Yes sir

Q: In fact, you worked at Puregold somewhere at Starmall until the 6th of August 2007, am I
right?

A: I was not working anymore.

Q: How about on July 30, were you still with Puregold?

A: Not anymore

Q: A while ago you said you were working on the 29th of July 2007 at Puregold, you mean to
say that was your last day with the company?

A: I think I was not working then.

Q: So, you are changing your answer now?

A: I was no longer working sir.

Q: But a while ago you admitted that you were still with the Puregold on July 29, 2007. Now
you are telling this Court that you no longer working on July 29, 2007. Which is which
Madam Witness?

A: I was no longer working

Q: Before you admitted that a day after the alleged rape on July 29, 2007, you went to your
mother and stayed there in Bulacan. Now, you are telling this Court that it was only on the
12th of August 2007 that you went to Bulacan to see your mother. Which is not the truth
Madam Witness?

A: The August 12, sir

Q: In other words, what you said in your direct examination was a lie, am I right?

A: I was confused then sir

Q: You were confused thats why you told a lie?

A: That was not intentional on my party I was just confused

The complainant said during cross-examination that she was confused but the
questions asked were merely to clarify if she was still working with Puregold and was really
looking for a job on the date of the alleged rape occurred. Further, she admitted to having to
a lied in her sworn statement during cross-examination that she told a lie because she was
confused, even if such lie was unintentional because she was confused during such cross-
examination there should be no confusion on the part of the complainant at all if a person is
telling the truth about simple facts or circumstances.

Inconsistencies and material discrepancies in the testimony of a witness

engenders serious doubts as to its reliability and veracity. (People vs. Flores, 165
SCRA 71)

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and
observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the
circumstances. (People v. Perucho, 305 SCRA 770; People v. Lagmay, 306 SCRA 157.)

SWEETHEART THEORY EXISTS IN THE PRESENT CASE

First and foremost, by the testimony of the accused that he and the complainant
were sweethearts there exist a doubt as to the truth of the claim of the complainant. The
testimony of the accused which stated familiarity with the person of the complainant thus
goes to prove indeed the accused and the complainant do not just greet each other when
they meet, it also shows that there is a relationship between the two other than just being
mere acquaintances.

Although the sweet heart theory has not gained favor with the courts, such
is not always the case if the hard fact is that the accused and the supposed victim
are, in truth, intimately related except that, as is usual in most cases, either the
relationship is illicit or the victims parents are against it. (People v. Godoy, 250 SCRA
676.)

TSN (Mauricio Valladolid Jr.)

Q: Mr. witness, how do you know the complainant in this case?

A: She is my girlfriend.

Q: Since was the complainant in this case your girlfriend?

A: Since June 29, 2007 when she answered me.

Q: I am showing a 2x2 picture, can you recognize who is the person in this picture?

A: This is my girlfriend sir, she gave that picture to me the night she answered me as her
boyfriend.

Q: There is a writing on the back of this picture which says I LOVE YOU MAU2 can you tell
me whose handwriting is this?
A: This is my girlfriends handwriting sir.

Q: How did you know that this was her hand writing?

A: I know her handwriting very well sir because we usually write love letters to each other.

Q: And who might this MAU2 be?

A: That is me, she calls me by that name.

Based on the testimony of the accused and the picture of the complainant
accompanied by a dedication (Exhibit 1), it can be concluded that the accused and the
complainant in this case are in fact sweethearts.

This testimony is supported and corroborated by the testimony given by the best
friend of the accused.

TSN (Catherine Gabarra)

Q: Madam witness, do you know the accused in this case?

A: Yes sir, he is my best friend.

Q: Do you also know the complainant in this case?

A: Yes sir, she is Mauricios girlfriend.

Q: How did you know that the complainant here is the girlfriend of the accused?

A: She was instroduced to me by Mauricio as his girlfriend

Q: Are there other instances that would lead you to believe that the complainant is in truth
and in fact the girlfriend of the accused?

A: Yes sir, the night after they became sweet hearts, Mauricio immediately notified me
because he was so happy that they are now together and the time when I went in his
boarding house I usually see them inside the room with just the two of them.

Q: What do they usually do when you see them in the boarding house?

A: They were just talking but they were sweet with each other.

Q: How can you say that they were sweet with each other when the both of them are just
talking?

A: They are sometimes tickle with each other.

Q: And who is the one tickling the other?

A: Mauricio is the one usually who tickles Mary Ann at the waist sir.

Q: And what was her reaction when you see her being tickled by the accused?

A: She is smiling and laughing sir and sort of blushing.

For a woman to stay with a man alone in the room of that man would indicate that
they are close and are either very close friends or are sweethearts. In addition, what they
were doing while inside that room would not be acts by mere friends but of sweethearts. It is
proof that indeed the parties knew each other very well and that they are sweethearts

For the [sweetheart] theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed

relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce
such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. For the
satisfaction of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their common friends or,
if none, a substantiation by tokens of such relationship. (People v. Dahilig, G.R. No.
187083, June 13, 2011, 651 SCRA 778)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

NO RAPE AS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT. The complainant was in a relationship

with the accused on July 29, 2007 and they remained in good spirits without falling out even
after July 29, 2007 until the complainant left the boarding house. This is clear as based on
the following facts:

(1) Witnesses and the accused categorically and clearly established several situations
which depict, show and manifest the relationship between the accused and the
complainant, thus debunking the statement of the complainant that she does not
know the accused;

(2) After July 29, 2007, the accused and the complainant were still communicating with
each other and were seen at the boarding house together and in different instances
by different persons, both witnesses attest that both of them are still sweet at the
time 1st week of August;

(3) The alleged threat after having been lost and/or disappeared or despite several
opportunities to ask for help from the people around her the complainant never told
anyone or asked for help.

(4) The complainant and the accused were sweethearts and there no rape committed
because what merely transpired between them was consented sexual intercourse.

These facts as shown in this case prove the fact that the complainant has been lying before
the police authorities who took her statement as well as before the honorable court based
on her inconsistent testimonies and due to these inconsistent testimonies made by the
complainant, all of her testimonies bears no credibility at all. Furthermore, even assuming
that her testimonies bear any credibility, there can be no crime of rape on the ground that
the complainant and the accused are sweethearts, hence, there was merely consented
sexual intercourse.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that the accused be acquitted from the present charge of RAPE for failure
of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Quezon City, Philippines, September 9, 2015

 WILLARD YUNG

Counsel for Defendant

Unit 1208, GA Towers, Mandaluyong City

IBP No. 33565/January 17, 2000/Mandaluyong

PTR No. 777776/February 27, 2000/Mandaluyong

Roll of Attorneys No. 99997

MCLE Compliance No. II-444447

RAUL BONGALON

Counsel for Defendant

Unit 1208, GA Towers, Mandaluyong City

IBP No. 33564/January 17, 2000/Mandaluyong

PTR No. 777776/February 20, 2000/Mandaluyong

Roll of Attorneys No. 99568

MCLE Compliance No. II-4454584

BRYAN DIEGO

Counsel for Defendant

Unit 1208, GA Towers, Mandaluyong City

IBP No. 33365/January 17, 2000/Mandaluyong

PTR No. 777776/February 26, 2000/Mandaluyong

Roll of Attorneys No. 99658

MCLE Compliance No. II-444552