Republic of the Philippines

REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH -42
Virac, Catanduanes

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES;

Plaintiff,

FOR: Violation of Sect. 5(b)

-Versus- of R.A. 7610

JORGE A. DE LEON;
Accused;

X------------------------------------------------------------X

DEFENSE’S POSITION PAPER

Prefatory Statement:

Accused is the guardian of MARY JOY RODRIGUEZ, a minor and complainant

in the above-entitled case. In her Sinumpaang Salaysay (judicial affidavit) the
complainant alleged that she was molested by the accused in four (4) separate
occasions: First was on May 26, 2016, Second, on June 9, 2016, Third, on June 10,
2016, and Fourth on June 21, 2016. The details of the complaint are contained in
the judicial affidavit she executed before the Children’s and Women’s Desk of the
Virac Municipal Police Station and submitted before the Provincial Prosecutor’s
Office, Virac, Catanduanes.

With the complainant’s testimony and that of her mother JENNYBEL

TARROBAL, the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, in a Resolution find probable cause
against the accused. The information was filed in court and upon issuance of an
arrest warrant the accused, thereafter, applied for bail for his temporary liberty.

During the pre-trial, Prosecutor Emmanuel A. Palea offered as evidence the

following:
 i.) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mary Joy and her mother;
ii.) Medical Certificate, and
iii.) The Police Desk Officer of Virac Municipal Police Station.

On the side of Defense the following were offered:

i.) Sinumpaang Salaysay (Affidavit of Desistance) of complainant;

ii.) Rustom Asejo, and
iii.) Other reserved witnesses;

1. FACTS OF THE CASE:

On June 30, 2016 a certain ALONA VILLAFUERTE of Francia, Virac, Catanduanes,

allegedly overheard Mary Joy telling her classmate, in a casual conversation, that her
guardian used to molest her. Having heard of the two (2) young girl’s conversation,
Alona came to join and started to ask Mary joy of certain personal matter at the
expense of the accused. Alona, however, did not exert any effort to know from the
girl what prompted her from telling her classmate about the alleged molestation of
her guardian if only to determine the seriousness of Mary Joy’s allegation.
Afterwards, Alona accosted Mary Joy in going home to her parents in Binanuahan,
Bato, Catanduanes that day and reported to Mary Joy’s mother what she heard from
the young girl. Thereafter, Alona asked the mother of the girl to go to Virac to get
the belongings left by Mary Joy in the house of the accused in Barangay Sta. Cruz,
Virac, Catanduanes. Alona accompanied Jennybel for that matter.

It was around 6:30 p.m. of June 30, 2016 when Alona and Jennybel arrived at the
house of Mr. De Leon where they were met by Georgina, daughter of the accused.
When Georgina asked the two of their purpose, and learning that Mary Joy went
home already to her parents- Georgina refused to give the things that Jennybel and
Alona are after unless the girl is shown to her. Mary Joy, on the early morning of
June 30, 2016 asked permission from the accused that after school she will have
lunch with her classmate and friends in Barangay Rawis as it was the Eve of the Fiesta
of Rawis that day. Unfortunately, Mary Joy did not go home that day in the house of
Mr. De Leon prompting the accused and his daughter to worry. This is likewise the
reason why Georgina vehemently refused to give the things asked by Jennybel and
Alona unless the girl is shown to her having learned that the latter went home
already at Binanuahan without letting them know to appease them of their worry.

The following day after Jennybel and Alona went to the house of Mr. De Leon,
Ma. Theresa Razzo, cousin of Georgina, came with a news that rumors are circulating
in the Barangay of Sta. Cruz that Mr. De Leon have molested Mary Joy. Upon hearing
the alarming report Georgina, together with Markton Aguilar, decided to look for
Mary Joy who was believed to be staying already at her parents. But instead of
confronting the Girl Georgina preferred to invite the girl’s parents in the house of
respondent to verify on the report about molestation implicating her father. The
dialogue invitation was first set in the morning of July 2, 2016 upon the instance of
Mr. De Leon. However, Mr. De Leon changed his mind on the venue of the meeting
and decided to have it instead at the Barangay Hall of Sta. Cruz rather than in his
residence.

It came about later that this change on the venue meeting became very
disastrous to the accused because it gave certain barangay officials who are
antagonistic to the family of Mr. De Leon to get revenge. The daughter of Mr. De
Leon once filed a complaint against Kagawad Janice Molina and Punong Barangay
Ronald Oscar Lim before the Office of the Ombudsman on the charge of corruption.
This could have been the cause why instead of taking up the main purpose of the
dialogue with the complainant regarding the rumored child molestation the whole
thing resulted to something else. After the meeting, Kagawad Janice Molina and
Dina Buenafe coerced the parents of the girl to file a case against the accused,
promising Jennybel of assistance in the filing of the case, enticing further Jennybel
of big financial return should an amicable settlement is offered by the accused. With
fabricated, concocted, and scripted testimonies the complainant went to the Virac
Police Station to execute her Sinumpaang Salaysay. This assertion by the accused is
collaborated by the testimonies of two (2) Sta. Cruz Barangay Kagawads, namely:
Kagawad Markton Aguilar and Kagawad Regina Camacho who saw and heard Kags.
Molina and Buenafe coaching the girl and enticing the mother to file a case against
Mr. de Leon. These are what could have triggered the filing of the instant case
against the accused as brought about by the motivation of some antagonistic
individuals who have an axe to grind against the accused family.
 2. THE ISSUES:

Based on the foregoing facts, the issues here that has to be settled are the
following:

a.) Is the accused Guilty of the crime charged?

b.) Is the filing of the case by complainant caused by the coercion,
instigation, and intervention of other individuals for their own
benefit and not out of complainant’s free will?
c.) Has the Prosecution proved the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt?

RESPONDENT’S DEFENSE:

During the hearing the following were taken from the transcript of stenographic
notes ( t.s.n. ) as transcribed by the Court Stenographer to form part of Respondent’s
defense, to wit:

1.) Complainant Mary Joy admitted having signed a Sinumpaang Salaysay

(Affidavit of Desistance) and admitting the signature appearing thereat
as her signature;
2.) Complainant admitted that she was not forced or intimidated from
signing the said Sinumpaang Salaysay;
3.) She likewise admitted that she understand tagalog, the said
Sinumpaang Salaysay being written in Tagalog;
4.) The complainant admitted that she was told by Georgina De leon that
she ( Mary Joy) can go home already to her parents after the death of
Mrs. Victoria De Leon (but complainant opted to stay at the accused
house); When asked by the Court why complainant opted not to go
home after the death of the wife of respondent, she answered that her
lola Vicky (wife of Mr. De Leon) told her not to leave her Lolo Jorge
(respondent) when she dies. What is dubious is why her covenant with
Lola Vicky was forsaken after Alona Villafuerte encouraged her
(complainant) to go home to her parents and acceded to Alona’s
proddings.
 5.) Complainant admitted that she has not told her mother about the
alleged molestation against her by the accused, (not even the wife of
the accused have she reported, nor any member of the accused’s
children);
6.) Mary Joy admitted that she was trusted receiving the money paid by
the creditors of Mrs. De Leon;
7.) Mary Joy also admitted that she signed another Sinumpaang Salaysay
prepared by Atty. Romulo Atencia at the latter’s Law Office;
8.) Complainant admitted that there were Kagawads of Brgy. Sta. Cruz that
talked to her and her parents at Binanuahan, Bato, Catanduanes, and
at the Barangay Hall of Sta. Cruz after the dialogue meeting at the said
Barangay Hall;
9.) Complainant identified the signature in the Sinumpaang Salaysay as
that of her mother Jennybel Tarrobal and father Eddie Rodriguez;
10.) Complainant’s mother admitted that it was Alona Villafuerte who
informed her about the alleged molestation by the accused against
Mary Joy;
11.) Complainant’s mother also admitted having signed two (2) sets of
Sinumpaang Salaysay. The first was signed at Binanuahan and the
second at the Law Office of Atty. Atencia at Bliss, Sto. Niño, Virac,
Catanduanes;
12.) The Doctor’s testimony about the result of her medical examination on
Mary Joy stated that the girl’s hymen is undamaged or intact, showing
that no penetration has happened on the vagina of the complainant;
13.) The children and Women’s Desk Officer of VMPS admitted that no
Social Welfare Officer from the DSWD assisted the complainant in the
preparation of her judicial affidavit;
14.) Complainant testified that the reason why she signed the Sinumpaang
Salaysay (Affidavit of Desistance) is because of pity to the respondent
when asked by the court.

Closer examination of complainant’s judicial affidavit that deserved proper

scrutiny for rebuttal are hereunder quoted:

“On May 26, 2016 at around 12:00 noon while Mary Joy was washing the
dishes in the house of respondent at barangay Sta. Cruz, Virac, Catanduanes,
with lewd desire, she was hugged from the back by respondent.”
 x-x-x-x-x-x

“On June 9, 2016 at around 7:00 in the morning while she was also
washing the dishes in the house of respondent at barangay Sta. Cruz, Virac,
Catanduanes, with lewd desire, she was kissed on the mouth by respondent
and she was given Php 20.00 bill.”

x-x-x-x-x-x

“On June 10, 2016 at around 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon while she was
washing at the sink and respondent was cooking, with lewd desire, she was
hugged by respondent from the back, and thereafter, her vagina was caressed
by the latter and followed by the lifting of her shirt and kissing her back down
to her buttocks.”

x-x-x-x-x-x

“On June 21, 2016 at around 6:30 in the morning while she was combing
her hair inside the house of respondent at Barangay Sta. Cruz, Virac,
Catanduanes, with lewd desire, she was hugged by respondent from behind
and thereafter she was required to face the latter and she was kissed on the
mouth and followed by the inserting of respondent’s tongue inside the mouth
of the former. Afterwards, respondent placed coins in her pocket.”

x-x-x-x-x-x

It is obvious, however, that nothing was mentioned by complainant during

direct examination as to the measure or efforts she has made to evade from the
advances of the respondent if she was truly molested. She never even said that she
resisted or parried the advances being done to her by the accused by at least
screaming, or running away from him to get saved from being molested. It appeared
that complainant simply stood in front of the accused while the latter is doing
allegedly the lewd acts on Mary Joy. And if it’s true that respondent even lifted her
shirt and kissing her back down to her buttocks indicates that she simply stood still
and no effort from moving away out of distance. Was she telling the truth when she
said that afterwards, respondent “placed coins in her pocket.” What was she doing?
Is it normal for anyone who is sexually molested to just simply kept at still and allow
her attacker do his lustful act? Respondent’s arguments doesn’t end here in seeking
for the truth. And here are the reasons:

Simple argument would tell that it is hard to believe for accused to do the
alleged act of molestation on the complainant had there been some form of
resistance, rejection, or refusal from the girl. Never did she testifY on direct
examination that she resisted the lust of respondent while she is being molested,
giving one the impression that she is enjoying perhaps what is being done to her or
she is simply lying. What is even more obvious is that why did Mary joy opted to stay
in the house of respondent, although already told to go home to her parents, if she
is truly getting molested by the accused? And even the medical Certification of the
doctor who examined Mary Joy and the Police Office who took the statement of the
complainant proved nothing to establish the guilt of the accused, not even the
testimony of her mother.

On the other hand, one need not have to be a lawyer to explain, as logic will
tell that he who alleges must prove of his accusations. Based on the foregoing
narrative, complainant failed to prove her accusations against the respondent and
proving his guilt beyond reasonable to convict him. Furthermore, Prosecution failed
to prove guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable; and citing a Supreme Court
decision as precedent jurisprudence, says That:

“ In every criminal prosecution, the accused is presumed innocent until

proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And the burden of proving such guilt
lies on the prosecution. Mere suspicion of guilt no matter how strong, should
not sway judgment against the accused. Every circumstances favoring his
innocence should be fully taken into account, as ruled by the Supreme Court in
(People vs. Mahinay, G.R. 199894, April 5, 2017).

Furthermore:
 “Without the proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused herein was not overcome.
The accuse has no burden to prove his innocence. It is the prosecution which
has the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence.”

x- x – x – x – x – x

Citing the above-cited jurisprudence, respondent wishes to impress upon the

honorable Court that prosecution, in the instant case, failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt over the accusations alleged by the complainant.
In fact, the entire testimonies of complainant are full of inconsistencies to form
belief on what she alleged while the respondent must be proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt to convict. But this adversarial process that forms our legal system
such as “burden of proof” and standard proof such as: “beyond a reasonable doubt”,
or “more probable than not” were not countered to convict the accused being guilty
of the crime being charged. Meanwhile, herein respondent has no burden to prove
beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt based on existing laws and jurisprudence,
therefore, he remained innocent on the crime to be convicted.

3. PRAYER:
4.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent prays for the DISMISSAL of the

case and provide the accused with relief thereof that is just and equitable under the
premises as evidenced by the truth executed on the matter.

JORGE A. DE LEON
(accused)