Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Appellant's Brief
Appellant's Brief
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third DIVISION
ERNESTO SAUL,
Accused-Appellant,
PREFATORY STATEMENT
THE PARTIES
I
STATEMENT OF FACTS
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,
1
Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA 127
2
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
III
ARGUMENTS
3
1. The prosecution’s evidence is
insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt;
5
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 accused’s 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.
f. Alibi.
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 victim’s father regarding money matters. This
created a rift between them. Despite this, the accused
remained patient and kind to allow her niece, to play and
watch television in his residence. Plus, the victim had a
history of delinquency. Barangay Secretary Jaime Ruelo
testified during trial that Maricel Dela Cruz, victim’s 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.
6
The Royeras ruling as stated in the trial court’s 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 court’s ruling.
PRAYER
7
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
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
ERNESTO SAUL
Doc. No.: 39
Page no.:8
Book no.:I
Series of 2010
Copy Furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Tanay, Rizal
EXPLANATION