`REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
THIRD DIVISION

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

- versus CA-GR. No. xxxxxxxx

For: Declaration for
Nullity of Marriage

JUANA DELA CRUZ,

Respondent-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Petitioner-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 02

December 2017 find for the Plaintiff-Appellee based on

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 2 of 16

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

Juan Dela Cruz is the appellant as represented by Toquero

and Associates where process and notice from this court

1
Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA
127
 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 3 of 16

may be served at The Penthouse, Makati Infinity Towers

H.V. Delacosta Street, Brgy. Bel Air, Makati City, while

JUANA DELA CRUZ is the appelle as represented by

Manansala Associates, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig,

Philippines

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

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;
 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 4 of 16

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

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

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 5 of 16

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).

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 6 of 16

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 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.

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 7 of 16

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

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 8 of 16

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 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.
 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 9 of 16

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.
 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 10 of 16

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.

h. Sole assertion of the alleged victim is not

more than enough to over turn the burden of

proof to prove the accused guilt.

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 11 of 16

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

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 12 of 16

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.

PRAY ER

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.

January 11, 2010.

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 13 of 16

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
 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 14 of 16

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:

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.

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 15 of 16

JUAN DELA CRUZ

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

 Brief for Appellant
Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 16 of 16

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.

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III