Anda di halaman 1dari 6

ay 29 at 7:19 PM

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY
BRANCH ____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. _______


For: Rape

ALLAN G. HABER
Defendant

x-------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENDANT

The defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Memorandum
in the above-entitled case and aver that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The prosecution failed to establish the elements for the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code
and failed to present clear and convincing evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant herein named
committed the offense as charged.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Defendant Allan G. Haber (Allan) and complainant Renalyn S. Santiago (Renalyn)were sweethearts since May 1, 2013.
They stayed in the same boarding house but occupying different rooms. On January 4, 2014, upon repeated request of Renalyn,
defendant Allan stayed and slept most of the time with Renalyn in the latters room in said boarding house located in Guadalupe,
Makati City.

Allan admits having carnal knowledge with Renalyn several times since January 4, 2014.

On the evening of May 1, 2014, starting at around 9:00 PM, Allan and Mark Anthony Ancheta (son of the owner of the
boarding house), took some shots of alcohol just outside the dormitory while the defendant was waiting for Ren. At around 9:55PM,
Renalyn arrived and seductively confronted Allan and whispered Hoy Allan, bakit ka naman nakikipag-inuman dyan?
Anniversary pa naman natin ngayon, halika, sumunod ka sa kwarto natin! At that instance, Allan immediately left Mark behind
and hurriedly and excitedly followed her girlfriend in their room.

The moment Allan reached their room in said boarding house, Renalyn immediately locked the door and started to kissed
Allan passionately as they later found themselves caressing each others body. That intimate moment led to doing the sexual act
now being complain by Renalyn.

The following day, May 2, 2014, Mark saw Renalyn and Allan in the dining area having their breakfast together. Mark
recall that the couple are very sweet and even saw Renalyn kissing Allan while the latter was about to go to his place of work in
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Makati.

On May 4, 2014, around 11:00 AM, and after hearing the Mass, Renalyn insisted to Allan that they should get married and
live as husband and wife. Allan refused to said demand of Renalyn and said that hindi pa tayo parehong handa. Irritated by said
refusal of her boyfriend, Renalyn replied kung hindi ka pa handa ngayon, maghahanap ako nang handa na akong pakasalan
ngayon.
At around 8:00 PM on May 4, 2014, Allan left the dormitory without a word from Renalyn and never returned to said
dormitory since then.

On May 6, 2014, a complaint was filed by Renalyn against Allan for the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code.

ISSUE

Based on the facts of the case, is the accused liable for violation of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code for Rape?

ARGUMENTS

THE DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 266-A OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE FOR RAPE FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

I. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISHED ALL THE ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE

Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed-

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a. Through force, threat or intimidation;

b. When the offended party is deprived of reason


or is otherwise unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse


of authority;

d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years


of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above are present;

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genitalia or anal orifice
of another person. (R.A. No. 8353)

More specifically, the elements of the crime of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code to
which the accused was charged are as follows:

1. That the offender is a man;

2. That the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;

3. That such act is accomplished through any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation; or

b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise


unconscious;

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of


authority;

d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

A careful examination of the evidence presented shows that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the crime
of rape. Relative to this fact is the complainants testimony during her cross-examination taken on May 14, 2014:

Q: While Allan was removing his shorts and panty, what did you
do, if any?
A: I tried to punch him, but he gave me a hard punch in the stomach.

Q: Where did Allan remove his shorts and brief?

A: Sa gilid po ng kama.

Q: Do you mean, he went off from the bed to remove his shorts and
brief?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: And how long did Allan manage to removed his shorts and brief?

A: Mga 2 minutes po.

Q: When Allan gave you a hard punch, as you alleged, what did you
feel?

A: Sobrang sakit po!

Q: Can you rate how painful for you the punch of Allan to you? Ten
(10) being the highest.

A: 10

Q: That means it is really painful, right?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: And because you were in extreme pain, you cannot move your
body, right?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: And how long do you feel such extreme pain?

A: Mga 60 minutes po.

Q: You mean for 60 minutes you cannot move your body?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: Ms. Witness, how come that you said that you were able to kick
Allan while he was already on top of you?

A: (Renalyn demonstrate how she kicked Allan)

Q: Witness, you said that in 60 minutes you were in extreme pain.


And now youre claiming that you were able to do that (cross-
examiner repeated the action of the complainant as to the manner
the latter was able to kick he accused.)

A: Kasi po nababawasan po yung sakit habang lumilipas ang oras.

Q: But the time Allan gave you a hard punch only 2 minutes had
gone by. Do you mean that after 2 minutes you were now able
to move the lower part of your body when you just
mentioned that in 60 minutes after that hard punch you were
in excruciating pain?

A: (No answer were given.)

Evidently, the complainant is creating a whole story of lies. For one, she alleged that she was raped by her boyfriend at
the night of their first year anniversary and yet when she had the opportunity to cry for help, she did not do anything knowing that
Mark was present in said boarding house. Also, during the 2 minutes that Allan was removing his shorts and brief, the complainant
did not even bother to do anything to Allan. She did not punch nor kick Allan. Said action only suggests that she submitted herself
voluntarily to Allan.
Additionally, Renalyn also testified to this effect when asked to rate the drunkenness of the accused:

Q: When Allan was already inside the room, what did you notice to
him, if any?

A: Lasing na lasing po sya.

Q: How did you know that he was drunk?

A: Mapulang-mapula na po ang pisngi nya at amoy alak po.

Q: Can you rate the drunkenness of Allan? Ten (10) as the highest.

A: 10 po.

Q: Do you mean he is totally drunk?

A: Yes po.

Inconsistencies on the complaint-affidavit and the testimonies given in the court by the complainant as shown above are
apparent. More so, these circumstances would lead us to the conclusion that Renalyn was fabricating the facts of the case. Also,
Allan did not force Renalyn to do the sexual act, in fact Renalyn let the door open so Allan can easily come in and immediately
locked the same when Allan was already inside.

The testimony of the complainant clearly showed that her allegations are mere manipulations of facts that cannot be
supported by her own testimony. For once, how can a person so drunk can punch so hard as to cause an extreme pain to the
receiver of the blow?

It must be noted that this is a criminal case, hence, speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof
required to established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal case, every circumstance favoring the
innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account.

The other witness presented by the prosecution is the boardmate of the complainant. She said that she accompany
Renalyn to the Ospital Ng Makati for medical check up and afterwards to the police station to report the incident. But when asked on
the time to convince the complainant t speak up, the time to convince the complainant to narrate the alleged rape incident, the travel
time required to get a taxi cab, the travel time from the boarding house to the hospital, the time required for medical examination and
the travel time from the hospital to the police station it appears that it is already 1:30 AM by the time they arrived at the police
station. However, in the testimony given by the witness, she mentioned in her direct testimony that she was with the complainant in
the police station at 12:00 midnight.

On the whole then, the scanty evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of the accused. It
does not pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights
guarantees the accused. It is apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law,
synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

II. RAPE WAS NOT PROVED BY THE CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY OF


THE COMPLAINANT

The testimony of the offended party most often is the only one available
to prove directly the commission of rape. The testimony, however, must be
conclusive, logical and probable. (People vs. Landicho, C.A. O.G. 3767)

In reviewing the evidence adduced in the prosecution for the crime of


rape, a well-known principle that the evidence for the prosecution must stand
or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weaknesses of the evidence for the defense. (People vs. Villapana, 101 SCRA
72)

However, the testimony coming from Renalyn is not firm, uncategorical


and not straightforward. Hence, the accused should not be convicted on the
basis of her testimony. Also, the testimony of the complainant that she did not
shout despite the presence of Mark in the boarding house which is
uncorroborated cannot support the conviction for the accused.
III. A BROKEN HYMEN IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF RAPE

A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.


Research in medicine revealed that the hymen may not be torn despite
repeated coitus. In People vs. Capt. Llanto, (G.R. No. 146458, January 20,
2003)the Supreme Court held that medical findings suggests that it is possible
for the victims hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.
The Supreme Court further held that the strength and dilatability of the
hymen varies from one woman to another, such that it may be so elastic as to
stretch without laceration during intercourse; on the other hand, it may be so
resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can ensue.

IV. MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ARE MERELY


CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely


corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case.
(People vs. Orilla, G.R. 148939, February 13, 2004)

IV. THE SEXUAL ACT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTROVERSY WAS
CONSENSUAL SEX

Allan G. Haber, in is direct examination testified that it was a consensual


sex. Said fact was apparent when the accused did not suffer any bruise nor
abrasion in any parts of his body. Allan even presented a love letter that was
never denied by the complainant to prove that they have a serious
relationship.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed


that judgment be rendered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff
by finding ALLAN G. HABER not guilty for the commission of the crime of rape
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City, Philippines, this 23rd day of May 2014.

By: ATTY. RYAN A. ALTERIA


Counsel for the Defendant
IBP Lifetime No. 123446; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 2746545; 8/1/2013
Roll of Attorney No. 2003-76532
MCLE Compliance No. III-765423

TEXT
S-13 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR SAN JUAN CITY
Gloria Lapitin Labandera Complainant I.S. NO. __________________________ -VS - - For - Gerardo Fuentes and Maria Yasmin
Fuentes Respondents Rape and Serious Physical Injuries x------------------------------------------------------x COUNTER AFFIDAVIT We,
Gerardo Fuentes, of legal age, married, and with residence at No. 203 San Antonio St., San Juan City, and Maria Yasmin Fuentes,
of legal age, married, and with residence at No. 203 San Antonio St., San Juan City, both after being sworn in accordance with law,
depose and say that: 1. We are executing this counter-affidavit as a reply to the sinumpaang salaysay and affidavit of Gloria Lapitin
Labandera; 2. We admit that the complainant was employed as a house helper in our household for six (6) months since October
2012; 3. We vehemently refute the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint-affidavit that she submitted to this
honorable court, viz: 3.1. The complaint of the crime of serious physical injuries under Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code against
Maria Yasmin Fuentes. We rather maintain that the following are the truth behind the allegations made by the complainant: 3.1.1.
There was no time that I noticed something different from how respondent Gerardo Fuentes treat her, compared to the other helpers
in our household, 3.1.2. The assertion of the complainant in number 1, sub-clauses e and f of her affidavit seemed
impossible because I am always in my office and I seldom stay at home. Hence, there is no chance that such observation can be
made. Indeed, complainant also averred in her sworn statement that I am always at work and I leave the house early, and return
late at night. 3.1.3. The complainant was not maltreated in any way, like her enumerations in number 1, sub-clauses g and h
of her affidavit during her employment in our household, and 3.1.4. Her assertion in number 1, sub-clauses F to I of her
affidavit is just a myth, and that the injuries she incurred were self-inflicted, and not in any way caused by us; and 3.2. The complaint
of the crime of rape under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code against Gerardo Fuentes, the truth being that. Similarly, we rather
avow that the following are the truth behind the allegations made by the complainant: 3.2.1. There are no instances that I made
some partial preference in my treatment of our household helpers, 3.2.2. The avowal of the complainant that I was staring at her and
giving her stimulating smiles when she was working is likewise a myth and has no basis. Simply because I am in the office while
the complainants and her colleagues are doing the various household works assigned to them, 3.2.3. The allegation that
complainant made that I raped her on 24 June 2013 is again a fictitious story crafted by her, 3.2.4. While it was true that it was only
the complainant, my baby, and myself that were in the house on the evening of 24 June 2013, no rape was consummated. In fact, I
was then pre-occupied with some office work and with looking after my nursing child, 3.2.5. Shortly before 24 June 2013, the
respondent peculiarly availed of her monthly day off because she said that her mother was in town from the province, 3.2.6. It can
be presumed that the lacerations found on her vagina by the medico legal was caused by a sexual encounter she had during her
day off, and 3.2.7. That I categorically state that I have no carnal desires for the respondent, and that during her employment in our
household, I treated her with outmost respect and dignity, akin to how I treat her other colleagues. AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH
NAUGHT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of June 2013, in San Juan City. GERARDO
FUENTES MARIA YASMIN FUENTES Affiant Affiant JURAT SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me, in the City of San Juan, this 26th
day of June, 2013, the affiant, Gerardo Fuentes exhibiting his Passport No. EB2017767 issued at the City of Manila on August 29,
2011, and affiant Maria Yasmin Fuentes exhibiting her Drivers License No. 1234567890 issued at the City of San Juan on
September 29, 2011 Doc. No. ___; Page No. ___; Book No. ___; Series of 2013