REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OF APPEALS CITY OF MANILA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee, -versus- Criminal Case No. 1234-2010 JIMMY CHUA Accused-Appellant x------------------------------------------x APPELLEE’S BRIEF SUBMITTED BY OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 123 1st Street No One Village, Quezon City By Gil M. Camaymayan Associate Solicitor General People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellee’s Brief; Page 1 A. Article 266-A (1) Reyes. G.. Appellee’s Brief. 133444. Mendoza. 292 SCRA 168 Law and Annotations Cited Revised Penal Code. 141773-76 January 20. Landicho. 2002 People vs. No. Corpuz People vs. Page 2 . 43 O. G.R. Sending.G. Jimmy Chua. 1 2 3 4 7 Contents Cover Page Subject Index Prefatory Statement Statement of Facts Counter Argument Discussion Prayer Cases Cited (Order of Appearance) People vs. Las Pinas Jr. February 20. Revised Penal Code Book II 18th Edition (2012) People of the Philippines vs. 3767 People vs.R. C. 2003 People vs.SUBJECT INDEX Page No. Nos. Jimmy Chua.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS CITY OF MANILA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee. accused-appellant assails the judgment dated 9 February 2015 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Appellee’s Brief. 1234-2010 JIMMY CHUA Accused-Appellant x------------------------------------------x APPELLEE’S BRIEF Plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 266-A (1). People of the Philippines vs. -versus- Criminal Case No. COUNTER-ARGUMENTS Plaintiff-Appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the assignment of errors raised by the accused-appellant: I. Branch 62. The Trial Court erroneously ruled that the Accused-Appellant is guilty for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. Page 3 . STATEMENT OF FACTS The appellee accepts the statement of facts in the appellant’s brief. represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in answer to the allegations raised by the accused-appellant in his Brief. respectfully states: PREFATORY STATEMENT Through this appeal. of the Revised Penal Code. finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Trial Court erroneously ruled that the Accused-Appellant is guilty for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art. It was even admitted by the accused-appellant on his brief that the defense of alibi is known to be the weakest defense. In the testimony of the accusedappellant he said that between 6 in the evening up to 1 in the early morning. – Rape is committed – 1. Given that the distance from the place where accused-appellant and his bodies were drinking as against the apartment of the brother of the victim was only 200 meters. It was also stated in the facts of the appellant that that the victim “AAA” was sexually assaulted by the appellant. 266-A (1). soon after he has consummated the horrendous act he has threatened to kill “AAA” if she would report the matter to the authorities.Discussion I. Jimmy Chua. of the Revised Penal Code. Worse more was that his alibi was not People of the Philippines vs. it does not establish the physical impossibility of the accused-appellant not to be on the scene of the scene of the crime during its commission. Page 4 . In the argument raised by the accused-appellant that the court did not considered the testimonies of the accused and his common law wife Maria Tengco. Rape. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: A. he was drinking beer with his buddies at the far end of the street which was about 200 meters away from the apartment. 2012 at the apartment resident of the victim’s brother located in Barangay Palanan. When and How Committed. Appellee’s Brief. Under Article 266-A (1) of the Revise Penal Code it provides that: xxx xxx xxx Article 266-A. Intimidation was also applied by the appellant. as it is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. threat or intimidation xxx xxx xxx It must be noted under the statement of facts of the appellant that there was an admission that the appellant Jimmy Chua had carnal knowledge against the victim “AAA” on the night of March 7. Makati City through the use of threat by pointing a knife against the victim and threatening to kill her if she would not have sex with him. The defense of alibi would only be valid if there was physical impossibility for the person to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. It is a possibility that the accused-appellant has excused himself or had left the drinking session for several minutes in order to commit the crime given that as stated on the facts that it only took him 10 minutes to consummate the crime. Through force. All of these undisputed facts were contained on the appellant’s statement of facts which was admitted by the appellant on his brief. which is considered only to be selfserving in favor of the accused-appellant. Jimmy Chua. It was held in the case of People vs. offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. “AAA” was able to positively identify Jimmy Chua as the person who sexually assaulted her at the night of March 7. In most cases of rape the testimony of the rape victim is the only one available to prove the direct commission of the crime. As for the matters raised by the accused-appellant that he did not rape “AAA” because otherwise the latter could have shouted for help. saw or heard what was going around in the neighborhood. In the case of People vs. The only person who had corroborated his testimony was his common law wife Maria Tengco who was not even on the place of the said drinking spree attended to by the accused-appellant and his buddies. Page 5 . especially in the face of an affirmative testimony of the victim as to his presence in the crime scene. corroboration by other witness is seldom available. She even asked the accused-appellant if he was there to repair the kitchen sink from which the latter replied to. which was clearly established by the “AAA” as she was able to recognize the accused-appellant at the time he entered the apartment through the kitchen. then soon after the sexual assault done by the latter. In fact the presence of such other People of the Philippines vs.corroborated by his buddies to whom he mentioned that he was with during the commission of the crime. that the children of his brother Jose would have noticed the sexual attack. It is a well settled ruled that the defense of alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification of the offended party. Where resistance would be futile. Corpuz that if an alibi of the accused can only be confirmed by his relatives. 2012 for the accused-appelant was known by “AAA” for his brother always calls upon him to repair the kitchen sink. As declared in the case of People vs. his denial of culpability deserves scant consideration. that the test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resisted or does not yield to the desires of the accused the threat would be carried out. There was actual and immediate threat on the life of the victim which amounted to fear when the accused-appellant pulled a knife point it against her and threatened to kill her. Las Pinas Jr. he threatened to kill her if she reported the matter to authorities. It is provided for in the testimony of the victim “AAA” that “naunahan ako ng takot kaya hindi po ako nakasigaw agad” for the accusedappellant took out a knife and threatened to kill her if she would not have sex with him. that there were many people along the street where the apartment was located and that the houses were near that any person could have practically knew. Sending provides that the burden of proving resistance is not imposed as a burden to the victim but it is enough that the intercourse took place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not to so. Appellee’s Brief. It is also provided for in the case of People vs. Landicho that the testimony of the victim must be conclusive. 2012 prepared by Dr. Page 6 . logical and probable then rape can be proved by uncorroborated testimony. As provided for in the case of People vs.witness could even cast serious doubts on the possibility of its commission. People of the Philippines vs. during and after the commission of the crime concisely and in a straightforward manner which was even supplemented and corroborated by a Medico Legal Report on March 8. Victim “AAA” was able to identify the accused-appellant clearly as the person who has sexually assaulted her. She was even able to narrate the events that has transpired before. Jimmy Chua. Appellee’s Brief. Mendoza that a clear and accurate testimony of the victim herself is enough to warrant a conviction of the rape against the offenders. Judy Tan who was a City Medical Officer which states that: “AAA’s” vaginal injuries are consistent with a sexual assault committed against her in the past 24 hours prior to the medical examination Motive against the accused is out of the question for the victim does not knew the accused-appellant personally and just recognize him as a person called upon by his brother to repair their kitchen sink. May 23. Camaymayan Associate Solicitor General Copy Furnished Isha Soriano Soriano and Associates Law Firm Room 1009 Richville Corporate Tower. Quezon City By Gil M. Jimmy Chua. it is respectfully prayed for that the instant appealed be DENIED for lack of merit Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable. Philippines OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 123 1st Street No One Village. Muntinlupa City Counsel of the Accussed-Appelant People of the Philippines vs. are likewise prayed for. 2015 Quezon City. Madrigal Business Park.PRAYER Viewed in the foregoing light. Page 7 . Appellee’s Brief.