Maria Christina E.

Gaviola LEGFORMS 3B

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

CA G.R. No. 32705

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee

-versus-

MANUEL QUE
Defendant-Appellant

BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANT

MONTERO & MONTERO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

1
 SUBJECT INDEX

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

AND FACTS 3

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS/GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL 4

ARGUMENTS

1. The Trial Court Erred in Disregarding the

Recantation of Private Complainanat

2. The Trial Court Erred in Finding the Accused

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
4

RELIEF 5

AUTHORITIES CITED

1. Jurisprudence

 People vs. Villaflorez [G.R. No. 135063-64, 5 December 2001]

 People vs. Domogoy [G.R. No. 116738, 22 March 1999]
 People vs. Bacalso [G.R. No. 129055, 25 September 2000]

2
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Branch 10, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus Civil Case No. 187560

For: Rape (Art. 325, RPC)

MANUEL QUE
Defendant-Appellant,
x----------------------------------------------------------x

APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Accused-Appellant, MANUEL QUE, by undersigned counsel and to this Honorable
Court, respectfully submits that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Accused Manuel Que was charged with Rape, allegedly committed as follows:
“That on or about the 10th day of May 2000, in Brgy. Robida, Municipality of
Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Selene Limtong, a minor of
twelve (12) years of age, against her will and consent and to her damage and prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

2. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded “Not Guilty” to the offense charged.
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

3. On 7 November 2003, The Regional Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 12,
rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
“WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused Manuel Que guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape defined and penalized under Article 325 of the
Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to:
1. Suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
2. To indemnify the private complainant the amount of P50,000.00
3. To pay the private complainant the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
damages;
4. To pay the private complainant the sum of P30,000.00 as exemplary
damages;
5. To pay the cost of the suit.”

3
 A certified copy of the Decision dated 30 August 2003 is attached to the original of
this Brief and photocopies thereof are attached to the other copies hereof as Annex “A”;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Private complainant Selene Limtong and the accused, who is her cousin, were living at
their uncle’s house at the time the alleged rape incident happened. Private Complainant’s parents
were living in a small house within their uncle’s compound.

2. In the afternoon of 8 May 2000, Accused went back to Manila to work as he was
employed there. While in Manila, he was informed through phone by his sister that he was being
charged with rape and that he needed to return to Pangasinan.

3. Accused returned to Pangasinan on 13 May 2000, the same day he was arrested by the
authorities for the alleged rape.

4. On 28 May 2000, Private Complainant recanted her previous testimony and executed
an affidavit of desistance. She affirmed that no such rape occurred and that Accused-Appellant is
innocent of the crime charged.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

I. The Trial Court Erred in Disregarding the Recantation of Private Complainant Selene
Limtong.

II. The Honorable Court erred in finding that all the elements of the offense had been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I. The Trial Court Erred in

Disregarding the Recantation
of Private Complainant
Selene Limtong.

II. The Trial Court Erred in

Finding the Accused Guilty
Despite Failure of the
Prosecution to Prove His Guilt
Beyond Reasonable Doubt

4
 Convictions or acquittals in prosecutions for rape almost always depend on the credibility
of the victim and her testimony. For this reason, the testimonies of alleged rape victims must be
scrutinized by the trial court to ascertain the veracity of the charges and to determine whether the
guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, it is stated in
People vs. Villaflorez [G.R. No. 135063-64, 5 December 2001] that while judges ought to be
cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they
should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on law.

In the case at bar, Private Complainant recanted her accusations of rape against the
accused. Nevertheless, the trial court disregarded the same explaining that the admission of the
private complainant that the accused promised her consideration renders her recantation a farce.
The trial court overlooked the possibility that if the private complainant had the fortitude to
retract her previous testimony because of a promise of payment, it is also most likely that the
Private Complainant was motivated to file the rape case having in mind that she and her family
could extort money from him. It can be inferred that her recantation was with the approval of her
parents as the alleged victim is a minor.

If the victim was truly raped yet their parents were willing to trade off their dignities for a
consideration, then, with more reason that they are capable of falsely imputing rape charges
against the accused. As aptly held in People vs. Donggoy [G.R. No. 116738, 22 March 1999] viz:
“The Supreme Court will not hesitate to reverse a judgment of conviction and
acquit the accused where there are strong indications pointing to the possibility that the
rape charge was motivated by some factors other than the truth as to its commission.”

In this jurisdiction, the overriding consideration is not whether a court has doubts on the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains doubts on his guilt. Thus, as this Honorable
Court has said in People vs. Bacalso [G.R. No. 129055, 25 September 2000] “If a human life
must be taken to pay a debt to society, let not a wrong man ever be made to account for it. The
trek to justice is not a game of chance or skill but a quest for truth, the only path by which the
righteous end can be reached.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court that the
Decision dated 7 November 2003 of the lower court be REVERSED and a new one be rendered
acquitting Accused-Appellant of the crime charged.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 17 November 2004.

5
 MONTERO & MONTERO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

By:

Maria Christina E. Gaviola

Copy Furnished:

Office of the Solicitor General

132 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City

Diaz, Dominguez, Alcantara Law Office

Public Attorney’s Office
No. 66 Starboard Street, La Hista, Makati City

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Undersigned counsel informs this Honorable Court that this Memorandum of Appeal was
furnished and filed by registered mail due to lack of messengerial services.

VERIFICATION

I, MANUEL QUE, a Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Accused-Appellant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Appellant’s Brief; and
3. I have read the contents thereof and understood the same, and attest that the
allegations contained therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or
based on authentic records.

MANUEL QUE

6
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __________, in the City of Makati, affiant
exhibiting her Community Tax Certificate No.____________________, issued
at______________ on _____________________.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2006.