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
pronouncement in a case brought forth, thus:

premise

made

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
1

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

THE PARTIES

Juanito Dalawahan is the appellant as represented by Maganda 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

l.1 Juanito Dalawahan is a forty seven (47) years old man who drives
a passenger jeep as a means of livelihood. The private complainant,
Rosalinda Ayamor 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 prosecutions 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 prosecutions 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
Doubtful.

Filing

Complaint

Renders

Rape

Charge

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).
Incredible.

b.

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 oclock 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.
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 complainants 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
testimony.

of

the

prosecutions

witness

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.
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 accuseds 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 victims 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, victims 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.
The Royeras ruling as stated in the trial courts
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 courts 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.

b.

Article 2234 of the Civil Code provides that the plaintif

must show that he is entitled to more xxx damages xxx
before the court may consider xxx.
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.
P R A Y E R
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.

MAGANDA AND ASSOCIATES

Rm 0001 Star Condominium Tower II
123 Ayala Ave. corner H.V. delarosa Street
Walain Village, Makati City

By:

JUANITA ALEJANDRA MAGANDA

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
IBP Lifetime NO. 12345
Roll No. 11111
MCLE II Compliance No. 11111
PTR No. 11122

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, JUANITO DALAWAHAN, 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 11 th
day of 2010 at Makati City.

JUANITO DALAWAHAN

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11 th 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. ATENEO LASALLELAW

Notary Public
Notarial Commission until Dec 30,2010
PTR NO. 023456/01/05/10/Makati
IBP Lifetime NO. 12345
Roll No. 11111
MCLE II Compliance No. 11111

Doc. No.: 1
Page no.:1
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.

JUANITA ALEJANDRA MAGANDA

10