Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Regin

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 12, Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- R-PSG-20-02610-CR
For: Rape under Article 266-A
of the Revised Penal Code as
amended.
DEXTER ROHM BORROMEO,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR BAIL

ACCUSED DEXTER ROHM BORROMEO (the “Accused”),

through counsel, most respectfully petition the Honorable Court to
grant him bail considering that:

1. An information was filed against the herein accused. As

provided in the Information dated 25 November 2020, the
Accused was charged for the crime of Violation of Article 266-A
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No
8353. The accused, by virtue of the warrant of arrest issued by
this Honorable Court, was arrested and to date, remains in
custody of the law or under detention. No bail was allowed or
recommended for his temporary release from custody.

2. However, Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution states:

All persons, EXCEPT those charged with

offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua,
WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required. (emphasis supplied)

1
 3. The afore-quoted constitutional provision is further reflected in
Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedures which provides that:

Capital offense or an offense punishable

by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
not bailable. – No person charged with a
capital offense, or an offense punishable by
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
SHALL BE ADMITTED TO BAIL WHEN
EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG, regardless
of the stage of criminal prosecution.
(emphasis supplied)

4. As can be gleaned from above-stated provisions, it clearly

provides that when the evidence of guilt of the Accused is not
strong, he may be allowed to post bail at the discretion of the
Court upon application for admission to bail.

5. In the instant case under consideration, it is humbly

submitted to this Honorable Court that the evidence of guilt of
the herein Accused is not strong as the pieces of evidence
presented so far by the private complainant in the preliminary
investigation lacks evidentiary weight and credibility, and are
also self-serving as shall be discussed hereafter. Also, The
burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the
prosecution, and unless this fact is satisfactorily shown, the
Accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right.

6. The private complainant claims that the incidents of rape

whereby the Accused inserted his penis into her vagina
happened in multiple occasions. However, the medico-legal
report is evidently not consistent for multiple incidents of rape
of vaginal penetration as claimed by the private complainant
against the Accused considering the quantity and location of
the vaginal laceration and the relative sizes of the Accused and
the private complainant at the time of the alleged rape.
Moreover, the medico-legal report submitted portrays
otherwise as it only suggests deep healed laceration of the
hymen at 9 o’clock position which could also have been an
indication of consensual or accidental penetration inflicted
anywhere from a few days before the physical examination of
the private complainant to any earlier date before the said
examination. In the case of People vs. Amarela 1, the Supreme

1
G.R. No. 225642-43, 17 January 2018.

2
Court ruled the use and effect of medico-legal findings and
explained what such lacerations indicate, to wit:

“In the same way, a medico-legal's findings can

raise serious doubt as to the credibility of the alleged
rape victim. Based on the testimony of the medico-
legal officer who conducted the medical examination
on AAA, she diagnosed that the ano-genital findings
were caused by a blunt force or penetrating trauma.

In a study conducted by Radostina D.

Miterva,33 the most common sites for lacerations
were determined, "in rape victims with ring-shaped
hymens, lacerations were most commonly located as
followed at dorsal recumbence of the patient: (1) one
laceration at 6 o'clock position in 42.02% of cases;
(2) two lacerations at 5 and 7 o'clock positions in
24.55% cases; (3) three lacerations at 3, 6 and 9
o'clock positions in 45.36% of cases; and (4) four
lacerations at 3, 5, 6 and 9 o'clock positions in 25%
of cases."

These findings were supported by an earlier study

that described patterns of genital injury resulting
from sexual abuse.34

However, in a similar study comparing injuries

from consensual and non-consensual intercourse,
the authors discovered that the statistical results of
the locations of vaginal laceration are almost the
same.35 Their findings suggest that the injuries are
similar after consensual and non-consensual
intercourse.36

From all this, we observe that a specific location of

a vaginal laceration cannot distinguish consensual
from non-consensual sex. Rather, other factors
should be considered (such as, the frequency of
lacerations and whether they are located in different
positions) to determine whether the sexual act was
consensual or not. If the frequency of lacerations is
located in different areas of the vaginal orifice, then
it would be a good indicator that there was sexual
abuse. On the other hand, if the lacerations are
found in a specific area, it could indicate forced
rape, but could also suggest consensual intercourse.

In the instant case, the lacerations were found

only at the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions of the
hymen. Considering the locality of these lacerations,
we cannot completely rule out the probability that
AAA voluntarily had sex that night. Moreover, the
absence of bruises on AAA's thighs-when she said

3
 she was punched there twice-reinforces the theory
that AAA may have had consensual intercourse.”

7. Also, in the case of Ocampo vs People, 2 the Supreme Court

also ruled the reliability of physical evidence as follows:

Indeed, physical evidence is a mute but eloquent

manifestation of truth, and it ranks higher in our hierarchy of
trustworthy evidence.25 In criminal cases such as
murder/homicide or rape, in which the accused stand to lose
their liberty if found guilty, this Court has, on many occasions,
relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the
truth.26 Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to
the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical
evidence must be upheld.27

8. Next, the allegations against the accused are also highly

suspicious, unreliable as to the truthfulness, motives and
intention of the private complainant considering the timing
when she disclosed to her mother that the Accused raped her.
As narrated, it was during when the private complainant and
her mother was having an altercation or quarrel that she
suddenly blurted out that she was raped by the Accused.

9. Furthermore, as suspicious and doubtful as the timing of

disclosure was the lapse of time before the claim of rape
against the herein Accused was reported. It becomes more
doubtful and suspicious as to the veracity bearing in mind
that it was only seven years after the alleged incident that the
private complainant reported the crime especially considering
that it was never claimed that the Accused ever threatened the
private complainant, and even having all the opportunity to
report the alleged crime after the private complainant
transferred residence with her parents away from the
residence of the accused on 2014, she never mentioned or
reported the alleged crimes.

10. Additionally, the private complainant is not even sure when

the alleged incidents of rape happened and simply alleged the
entire year of 2013 to the detriment of the Accused. She is not
also sure how many times alleged of incidents of rape
happened. This creates serious doubt as to even whether the
crime alleged ever happened in the first place. It should be
noted that the private complainant was also known in making
up and imagining stories. Knowing her to be such, it is highly

2
G.R. No. 194128, 15 June 2015.

4
 probable that the story was made up, imagined or she
completely misidentified the Accused.

11. In the case of People vs Patentes 3, the Supreme Court ruled

the importance of the credibility of the victim and in turn,
reliability of claimed against the accused which is humbly
submitted as lacking in the instant case as shown by the
medico-legal report which run counter to the allegations of the
private complainant and the absurdity and unreliability of the
allegations, to wit:

“Since the participants are usually the only

witnesses in crimes of this nature and the accused's
conviction or acquittal virtually depends on the
private complainant's testimony, it must be
received with utmost caution. It is then
incumbent upon the trial court to be very
scrupulous in ascertaining the credibility of the
victim's testimony. Judges must free themselves of
the natural tendency to be overprotective of every
woman claiming to have been sexually abused and
demanding punishment for the abuser.”

XXX

2. The time-honored test in determining the value

of the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with
human knowledge, observation and common
experience of man.18 Thus, whatever is repugnant to
the standards of human knowledge, observation and
experience becomes incredible and must lie outside
judicial cognizance.(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Also, in the same case of People vs Amarela, the Supreme

Court ruled, to wit:

More often than not, where the alleged victim

survives to tell her story of sexual· depredation, rape
cases are solely decided based on the credibility of
the testimony of the private complainant. In doing
so, we have hinged on the impression that no young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that
she has been sexually abused, unless that is the
truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her
honor. 11 However, this misconception, particularly
in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an
unfair disadvantage, but creates a travesty of justice .

3
G.R. No. 190178, 12 February 2014.

5
13. From the foregoing discussion, it is respectfully submitted that
the evidence of guilt of the herein Accused in the instant case is
not strong, and should therefore be allowed to post bail as
provided under the Rules and the Constitution.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the interest of substantial justice and taking

into consideration the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that the instant Petition for Bail be GRANTED
and consequently, the Accused be ALLOWED TO POST BAIL, after
hearing, in such amount as may be fixed and determined by this
Honorable Court.

Other relief and remedies, just and equitable under the

premises, are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

18 January 2021, Caloocan City for Pasig City.

GENO MOSCARDON
Counsel for the Accused
Suite 207 Victoria Building,
11th Ave, Caloocan City
09088812533
geno.mmoscardon@gmail.com
Roll No. 72101
IBP No. 106021/2.11.20/ Nueva Ecija
PTR No. 10403552/02.11.20 Caloocan
MCLE No. VI – 0030425
COPY FURNISHED:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Valenzuela City

Notice: Pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 15, of A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC

(Amended Rules of Court), which took effect on 01 May 2020, the
court may, in the exercise of its discretion, and if deemed necessary
for its resolution, call a hearing for the instant petition.