REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
Third DIVISION
ERNESTO SAUL,
Accused-Appellant,

- versus

CA-GR. No. 3360-M & 3361-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 July 22 2002 find

for the Plaintiff-Appellee based on mere allegations not supported by

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 2 of 14

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

Ernesto Saul is the appellant as represented by Militante 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
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 14

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;
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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 4 of 14

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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 5 of 14

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).

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 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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 6 of 14

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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 7 of 14

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

of

the

prosecutions

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.
On the alleged rape on March 29, 1998, the victim
stated in her testimony that she and her nephews with the

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 8 of 14

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
19th , 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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 9 of 14

appellant, this began when the accused had an altercation

with the victims father regarding money matters.
created a rift between them.

This

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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 10 of 14

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 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.

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

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 11 of 14

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.

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 12 of 14

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.

Brief for Appellant

Ernesto Sau vs. People of the Philippines
CA-GR No. 3360-M & 3361-M
Page 13 of 14

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.

ERNESTO SAUL

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

Brief for Appellant

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

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.

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III