Midterms I

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Regional Trial Court

National Judicial Capital Region
Pasay, Branch 1
People of the
Philippines
-versus-
Criminal Case No. 00681
Frank Smith Jr., For: RA 8353, Rape
Accused,
X--------------------------------X
TRIAL MEMORANDUM
Accused, through counsel, most respectfully alleges:
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in the
judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material,
relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit:
1. PRIVATE COMPLAINANT is Kathreen Padilla Picart, tweny-five

(25) years old, single and a resident of 858 Mangga St, Sampaloc
Manila, while ACCUSED is Danilo Hil, twenty-five (25) years old,
single and a resident of 69 Dalisay St, Bulacan;
2. PRIVATE COMPLAINANT filed a criminal complaint against herein

ACCUSED for the crime of Rape under RA 8353 otherwise known as
the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997”.;
3. The occurrence which gave rise to the institution of this criminal

action allegedly took place on 6 January 2009, in unit 3225 Burgundy
Suites Pasay;
4. Defendant admits the allegations of Kathreen such as, but not limited
to the circumstances which led them to his condominium unit;
5. However, Defendant vehemently denies having raped private

complainant. In fact, Defendant and Kathreen are in an amorous
relationship;
6. In spite of this, contrary to Defendant’s expectations of having found

a partner in life, he was disappointedly surprised that upon coming
home Kathreen was nowhere to be found. Furthermore, calls and text
messages sent to the Private Complainant was never returned or
answered;
7. As if the abandonment was not enough for Defendant, another

unfortunate surprise was in store for the Defendant as he received a
subpoena from the Prosecutor’s Office, with regard to the complaint
filed by Kathreen for Rape to which Defendant filed his Counter
Affidavit1;
8. Subsequently, after the preliminary investigation was submitted for

resolution, Defendant went home to his province to start his life anew,
from the trauma that the criminal charge brought to him;
9. On 06 February 2019, Defendant found out that a warrant for his

arrest was issued and thus he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities
in Bulacan;
10.During trial, Defendant testified on the above-mentioned facts and

despite rigid cross-examination, maintained his innocence;
11.Defendant presented2 his mother Carlita Hil as witness. And the latter
testified that Defendant and Kathreen are actually sweethearts, she
1
Exhibit 1 – Counter Affidavit executed by Defendant
2
Exhibit 3 – Affidavit of Carlita Hil
further alleged that Kathreen has been to their home several times and
appear to be a sweet and loving couple;
12.In addition, Derico Adornee, a bandmate of Defendant was also

presented3 during trial. He corroborated the testimony that Defendant
and Kathreen were a couple.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Defendant and Private Complainant are in an

amorous relationship thereby negating the element of Rape;
2. Whether or not the acts of private complainant preceding sexual act

was unusual for someone who has just been raped thereby casting
doubt in the theory of Rape.
ARGUMENTS
1. In People V. Rubillar Jr.4, The “sweetheart theory” is an affirmative

defense often raised to prove the nonattendance of force or
intimidation. It is “effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of
the victim and consequently places on accused-appellant the burden of
proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence.”
The “sweetheart theory” operates to impair the victim’s testimony or

create doubt on her version of the facts when the defense presents
sufficient evidence of a relationship between the accused and the
victim but the latter simply denies it.
Defendant’s relationship with the Private Complainant has been

sufficiently proved by the testimonies of his mother, Carlita Hil and
Derico Adornee. Therefore, the same are sweethearts.
3
Exhibit 4 – Affidavit of Derico Adornee
4
GR No. 224631, August 23, 2017
2. The conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual
assault is significant in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of
rape.5
Plainly, Kathreen’s act of shopping at the mall is uncharacteristic of

one who has been raped and seeks retribution for it.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court

that the cased be DISMISSED and herein defendant be released from
preventive custody.
Pasay City, April 12, 2021.
Atty. Atticus Finch

Counsel for the Accused
One Executive Tower, Ermita, Manila
PTR No. 46578
IBP Lifetime No. 143143
Roll of Attorney’s No. 9374658
MCLE Compliance No. 098766
Tel Fax. No. 9450036
Email: [email protected]
EXPLANATION
This certifies that due to time and distance constraints and lack of
manpower, personal service cannot be effected.
ATTY. JOHN I DOE
Copy furnished:
5
Ibd.
Kathreen Padilla
858 Mangga St, Sampaloc Manila
RTC Pasay Br 1
Office of the City Prosecutor

Midterms I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterms I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midterms I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Regional Trial Court

1. PRIVATE COMPLAINANT is Kathreen Padilla Picart, tweny-five

2. PRIVATE COMPLAINANT filed a criminal complaint against herein

3. The occurrence which gave rise to the institution of this criminal

5. However, Defendant vehemently denies having raped private

6. In spite of this, contrary to Defendant’s expectations of having found

7. As if the abandonment was not enough for Defendant, another

8. Subsequently, after the preliminary investigation was submitted for

9. On 06 February 2019, Defendant found out that a warrant for his

10.During trial, Defendant testified on the above-mentioned facts and

12.In addition, Derico Adornee, a bandmate of Defendant was also

1. Whether or not the Defendant and Private Complainant are in an

2. Whether or not the acts of private complainant preceding sexual act

1. In People V. Rubillar Jr.4, The “sweetheart theory” is an affirmative

The “sweetheart theory” operates to impair the victim’s testimony or

Defendant’s relationship with the Private Complainant has been

Plainly, Kathreen’s act of shopping at the mall is uncharacteristic of

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court

Atty. Atticus Finch

ATTY. JOHN I DOE

Office of the City Prosecutor

You might also like