REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

Third DIVISION

ERNESTO SAUL,
Accused-Appellant,

- versus CA-GR. No. 3360-M & 3361-M

For: Rape

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Accused-Appellant, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court

respectfully files his brief for the appellant.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

An obvious violation and disregard of the right to due process

was committed against the defendant-Appellant in this case.

The Honorable Court in its decision dated on July 22 2002 find

for the Plaintiff-Appellee based on mere allegations not supported by
evidence sufficient to draw a conclusion so as to comply with Sec. 14,
Article VIII of the constitution.

The Honorable Supreme Court on this premise made

pronouncement in a case brought forth, thus:
 “The court finds occasion to remind
courts and quasi-judicial bodies that “[a]
decision should faithfully comply with Section
14, Article VIII of the Constitution which
provides that no decision shall be rendered by
any court [or quasi-judicial body] without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the
facts of the case and the law on which it is
based…. It is a requirement 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 [or
quasi-judicial body]. A decision that does not
clearly and distinctly state the facts and law on
which it is based leaves the parties in the dark
as to how it was reached and is especially
prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to
pinpoint the possible errors of the court [or
quasi-judicial body] for review by a higher
tribunal. 1

THE PARTIES

Ernesto Saul is the appellant as represented by Militante and

Associates where process and notice from this court may be served at
room 1407 Cityland Condominium, Tower II, 6871 Ayala Avenue corner
H.V. Delacosta Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City, while THE PEOPLE
of the PHILIPPINES is the appelle as represented by the Rizal Provincial
Prosecutors Office
TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL
Accused-appellant received on July 15 2002 the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court dated July 11 2002. A Notice of Appeal was timely
filed on July 20 2002. Accused received on July 25 2002 the Order from
the Court of Appeals directing him to file his Appeal Brief within fifteen
(15) days from receipt. Hence ,this timely compliance.

I
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1
Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA 127
2
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,
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

The trial court committed the following errors:

1. The prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove

the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt;

2. The Trial 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.

III
ARGUMENTS
3
1. The prosecution’s evidence is
insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused-appellant beyond
reasonable doubt;

It is the Constitutional right of the appellant that

“every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must
be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive
the test of reason” (Duran vs. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 68).
Thus it is the sole duty of the prosecution to present evidence
sufficient to prove the accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence presented by the prosecution however in this case,
is insufficient and has been clearly rebutted by countervailing
proof by appellant. The following facts are presented by
appellant to this honorable court which the lower court has
failed to take credence.

a. Delay in Filing Complaint Renders Rape Charge Doubtful.

The alleged rape was committed on March 24 and 29 of

1998, however, the appellant was arraigned only on August
24, 1999. Charges was only formally filed a year after. Her
affidavit was only executed on April 9, 1999 (Exhibit “A”).
This creates much doubt as to the claim of the alleged victim.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the “delay in filing
criminal proceedings for rape may result in adverse inference
against the complainant” (People vs. Cueto, 84 SCRA 774).
b. Incredible.

With the presence at the premises and the alleged

rape was consummated on the front seats of the jeepney
at a public area on broad daylight, the opportunity to
commit the rape is hardly present. More than that the
alleged rape was committed at 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, “the elements of secrecy had been totally
ignored of disregarded which is quite unbelievable and
incredible in such a crime of rape.” (People vs. Leones,
117 SCRA 382). Especially 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 quick movement, which at the cross
examination of prosecution witness John Guda testified
4
 that “When they returned after 4 minutes, accused and
victim, who were fully dressed, were still occupying the
front seats”. This 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 just in 4 minutes.
c. Long Silence Runs Counter to Natural Reaction.

Despite the availability of resources to speak to, the

victim slept on her rights on reporting the alleged rape.
“Needless to state, such conduct runs counter to the
natural reaction of an outraged maiden despoiled of her
honor xxx. In fine, the complainant’s testimony in the
instant case lacks that stamp of absolute truth and candor
necessary to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence.” (People vs. Romero, Jr., 117 SCRA 897).

d. Absence of defensive wounds, use of weapons and

attempt to ask for help.

The absence of defensive wounds on the medical

report of Dr. Winston Tan, (Exhibit “D”) and the absence
of use of any deadly weapons runs counter to the
allegation of force and intimidation. The absence of any
action on the part of the victim to call for help or shout for
assistance taking 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 offense and against
the basic norms of a girl of good repute.

e. The inconsistency of the prosecution’s witness’

testimony.

The evidence of the prosecution is tainted with

inconsistencies, uncertainties and implausibility that scorn
the credence of this Court, it must be rejected as a feeble
concoction. In the testimony of the alleged victim she
narrated that she attended school on March 24, 1998.
However this was rebutted by the testimony of school
teacher Severo Valdez who presented Form 1 or School
Register (Exhibit “7”) were she narrated that she was
absent on that day. This was corroborated by the
5
 testimony of a schoolmate of the alleged victim,
Christopher Padios testified that she was absent for the
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.

Accused was physically impossible to commit the

crime of rape. On March 24 he was busy engaged in
driving his passenger jeep, as a school service. This was
corroborated by Elena Padios, mother of one of his
passengers who rode on the jeep on that same day. They
arrived at school around 2:00 p.m. and left at 5:30 p.m. at
the afternoon.

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
 h. Sole assertion of the alleged victim is not more than
enough to over turn the burden of proof to prove the
accused guilt.

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.

2. The Trial 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.

The trial court failed to consider the following articles:

a. Article 2234 of the Civil Code provides “that the plaintiff

must show that he is entitled to more xxx damages xxx
before the court may consider xxx.”
b. Article 66 of the Revised Penal Code provides: “In imposing
fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits
established by law xxx, but more particularly to the wealth
or means of the culprit.”

The trial court awarded moral damages on both counts of rape.

This award was rendered without being alleged, proved and prayed by
the appelle. Damages 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 57 year old man whose main source of
income is manning his jeep as a school service. Thus the awards are
both contrary to law and from the basic norms of fair play and equity.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the accused-appellant respectfully prays that

Decisions of the trial court be reversed, set aside and nullified, and the
judgment be rendered in favor of the accused-appellant as prayed for
in his answer; 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

just and equitable in the premises.
7
 January 11, 2010.

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

I, ERNESTO SAUL, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of

Barangay Road, Tanay, Rizal after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
8
l. I am the accused-appellant in the foregoing Brief;

2.I caused the preparation of the foregoing pleading;

3. I have read the same and the allegations therein are true
and correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.

4. I have not commenced any other action involving the same

issues in the Supreme Court or different divisions thereof or
any other tribunal or agency.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this day

of 2010 at Makati City.

ERNESTO SAUL

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of 2010 at

Makati City,Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. CC 123456 issued at Tanay, Rizal on January 04, 2010.

Atty. Jacinto dela Cruz

Notary Public
Notarial Commission until Dec 30,2010
PTR NO. 023456/01/05/10/Makati

Doc. No.: 39
Page no.:8
Book no.:I
Series of 2010

Copy Furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Tanay, Rizal
EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Section II, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the

foregoing Brief is sent by registered mail due to lack of messengerial
personnel and time constraint in the filling thereof.
9
REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III

10