Republic of the Philippines

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 2, Baguio City

VANDAM K. PATOGTOG
Accused-Appellant,

- versus CA-GR. No. 269879-K

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 March 22March

2016 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 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. (Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos
Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA 127)

THE PARTIES

VANDAM K. PATOGTOG is the appellant as represented by

TUAZON AND ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM where process and notice
from this court may be served at 3F La Azotea Bldg., Session Road,
Baguio City. PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES is the appelle as
represented by the Rizal Provincial Prosecutors Office

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

Accused-appellant received on March 30, 2016the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court dated March 22, 2016. A Notice of Appeal was
timely filed on April 11, 2016. Accused received on April 1, 2016 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 Vandam K. Patogtog is a thirty five (35) years old man who drives
a passenger jeep as a means of livelihood. The private complainant,
Petra A. Peter is the niece of the accused who was then studying at
Dona Aurora National High School at Aurora Hill Baguio City.

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 December 24 and December 29, 2014 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;

Page 2 of 8
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 March 9,
2016, a lapse of more than a year after the commission of the alleged
offense charged.

II
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

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.

a. Delay in Filing Complaint Renders Rape Charge

Doubtful.

Page 3 of 8
 The alleged rape was committed on December 24 and
December 29, 2014, however, the appellant was arraigned
only on November 24, 2015. Charges was only formally filed
a year after. Her affidavit was only executed on November
9, 2015 (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 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.

Page 4 of 8
 The absence of defensive wounds on the medical report
of Dr. Bello V. BK , (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
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 Kitty Doll 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, Shandee
Tikak testified that she was absent for the whole month
of March, that she did not attend the graduation
rehearsal.

On the alleged rape on December 29, 2014, the victim

stated in her testimony that she and her nephews with
the accused drove the jeep towards the store of Ms. Anne
Feeling for recharging of the accusers battery. However,
Ms. Anne Feeling testified that she was only able to
purchase the battery charger only at January 16, 2015 as
evidence by Sales Invoice (Exhibit 5) issued by Extras
Merchandising and was only been able to began the
business only on the 30 th, thus negating the plausibility
of her testimony of a December 29 trip to Ms. Anne
Feeling 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 Ada Angotna, mother of one of his
passengers who rode on the jeep on that same day. They

Page 5 of 8
 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
appellant, this began when the accused had an altercation
with the victims father regarding money matters. This
created a rift between them. 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 Jose Tito
testified during trial thatMariaPeter, 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 assertionof 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.

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

Page 6 of 8
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 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.

April 11, 2016.

TUAZON AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

3F La Azotea Bldg., Session Road, Baguio City

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, VANDAM K. PATOGTOG, of legal age, Filipino and a

resident of Dominican Hill, Baguio City 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;

Page 7 of 8
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

11 th day of April2016 at Baguio City.

VANDAM K. PATOGTOG

Page 8 of 8