Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Third Division

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third Division
JOHN DOE,
Accused-Appellant,
- versus - CA-GR. No. 1234-M

FOR: Rape
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x
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 June 3 2020 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 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
Brief for Appellant
John Doe vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. CA-GR. No. 1234-M
Page 2 of 8
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
JOHN DOE is the appellant as represented by Renmarc Juangco

where process and notice from this court may be served at B1 L3
Malupet Village Barangay Agustin Trece Martires City, Cavite, while
THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES is the appellee as represented by
the Cavite Provincial Prosecutors Office
TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL
Accused-appellant received on June 3 2020 the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court dated June 3 2020. A Notice of Appeal was
timely filed on June 10 2020. Accused received on June 12 2020 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 John Doe is a Sixty (60) years old man who builds wooden tables
and chairs as a means of livelihood. The private complainant, AAA is
1
Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA 127
Brief for Appellant
Page 3 of 8
the ten (10) year old daughter of the accused who was then studying
at Malupet Elementary School, Trece Martires City, Cavite;
1.2 Private complainant alleged that she was raped by her father,
accused-appellant in the instant case, on one occasion, in the
evening of March 3 2016 inside their house;
1.4 On the date 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 October 20
2019, a lapse of more than 3 years 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 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.
Brief for Appellant
Page 4 of 8
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 3 2016,

however, the appellant was arraigned only on October 11,
2019. Charges was only formally filed 3 years after. This
makes much doubt as to the claim of the alleged victim.
The Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Cueto (84 SCRA
774) ruled that the “delay in filing criminal proceedings for
rape may result in adverse inference against the
complainant”
b. 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).
c. Absence of defensive wounds, use of weapons and

attempt to ask for help.
The absence of defensive wounds on the medical

report of Dr. Kwak Kwak, (Exhibit “A”) and the absence
of use of any deadly weapons runs counter to the
allegation of force and intimidation.
Brief for Appellant
Page 5 of 8
f. Alibi.
Accused was physically impossible to commit the

crime of rape. On March 3 2016 he was busy engaged in
crafting wooden table and chairs. This was documented
by Atong Ang, the client who watched John while making
the table that night. The table and chairs made by John
is a “rush order” and must be delivered at Dasmariñ as,
Cavite 1 o’clock in the morning.
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 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 amounting to

P100,000. 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, failing to
consider the fact that the accused is a 60 year old man whose main
Brief for Appellant
Page 6 of 8
source of income crafting tables and chairs. Thus the awards are
both contrary to law and from the basic norms of fair play and
equity.
PRAYER
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 case 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.
June 10, 2020.
RENMARC E. JUANGCO
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
IBP Lifetime NO. 12121
Roll No. 21212
MCLE II Compliance No. 789456
Brief for Appellant
Page 7 of 8
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, JOHN DOE, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Barangay

Agustin, Trece Martires City after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. 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

th
20 day of 2020 at Makati City.
JOHN DOE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 th day of

2020 at Makati City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his
Community Tax Certificate No. CC 654321 issued at Agustin, Trece
Martires City on January 04, 2020.
Atty. Ramner Ocgnauj

Notary Public
Notarial Commission until Dec 30,2020
PTR NO. 456456/01/05/20/Makati
Doc. No.:
Page no.:
Book no.:
Series of 2020
Copy Furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Trece Martires City, Cavite
Brief for Appellant
Page 8 of 8

Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Third Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

- versus - CA-GR. No. 1234-M

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

Accused-Appellant, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court

An obvious violation and disregard of the right to due process

The Honorable Court in its decision dated on June 3 2020 find

The Honorable Supreme Court on this premise made

“The court finds occasion to remind

by any court [or quasi-judicial body] without

JOHN DOE is the appellant as represented by Renmarc Juangco

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

Accused-appellant received on June 3 2020 the Decision of the

The trial court committed the following errors:

1. The prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove

2. The Trial court erred on imposing the additional

1. The prosecution’s evidence is

It is the Constitutional right of the appellant that “every

The evidence presented by the prosecution however in this

a. Delay in Filing Complaint Renders Rape Charge

The alleged rape was committed on March 3 2016,

b. Long Silence Runs Counter to Natural Reaction.

Despite the availability of resources to speak to, the

c. Absence of defensive wounds, use of weapons and

The absence of defensive wounds on the medical

Accused was physically impossible to commit the

h. Sole assertion of the alleged victim is not more than

2. The Trial court erred on imposing

The trial court failed to consider the following articles:

a. Article 2234 of the Civil Code provides “that the plaintiff

The trial court awarded moral damages amounting to

WHEREFORE, the accused-appellant respectfully prays that

Accused-appellant further prays for such other relief as may

June 10, 2020.

I, JOHN DOE, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Barangay

1. I am the accused-appellant in the foregoing Brief;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 th day of

Atty. Ramner Ocgnauj

You might also like