Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
4th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Branch 50

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL CASE NO. 23445

Plaintiff,

- versus - f o r

JAMES GARCIA, RAPE

Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

CASTS: Judge
Clerk of Court (COC)
Prosecutor- Atty. Ana del Mundo
Defense- Atty. Samantha Trinidad
Accused-James Garcia
Court Interpreter-

JUDGE : Call the case.

CLERK : Criminal Case No. 23445, entitled People of the

Philippines vs. James Garcia, for Rape.

JUDGE : Appearance of the Prosecution and Defense.

PROSECUTOR : Your Honor, I am Atty. __Ana del Mundo__appear

ing as prosecutor.

DEFENSE : Your Honor, I am Atty. ________ appearing as

counsel for the accused.

JUDGE : Is the accused present?

CLERK : The accused is present.

JUDGE : Noted. This hearing is one for MOTION FOR

LEAVE OF COURT to File Demurrer to the
Evidence. Counsel of the ac-
cused, may we hear from you the contents
of the subject motion which was received
by this Honorable Court?

DEFENSE : Yes, your honor.

Accused, James Garcia, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respect-
fully move for Leave of Court to allow ac-
cused to file DEMURRER TO EVI-
DENCE, for the reasons therein stated,
and that the same be served upon the com-
plainant, in accordance with law.

1. That herein accused is presently being indicted

for RAPE under Criminal Case No. 23445
filed before this Honorable Court;
2. That herein accused argued that for serious insuf
ficiency of evidence to warrant the holding of
further trial, the charge against him
must be dismissed;
3. That the testimony of the prosecution witness Dr.
Rivera stating that the vaginal injuries
of the victim were inflicted on December
29, 2008 was inconsistent with the
charge which stated that the rape incident
took place on January 1, 2009; and
4. That exculpating evidence were the contradictory
testimonies of the victim who claimed she was
raped when she was alone in her house, and
Nadine who said that the rape took
place while she was aboard James’s sled.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respect
fully prayed that the Honorable Court that
this De murrer to Evidence be granted and
that the criminal charge of Rape against
the accused James be dis missed.

JUDGE : Any objection from the prosecution?

PROSECUTOR : I object, your Honor. The Demurrer is completely

without merit.

JUDGE : And why?

PROSECUTOR : Your Honor, the prosecution has shown through

clear and positive evidence that James took
the plaintiff out of the house and brought
her somewhere and raped her for
about two minutes.

The prosecution was able to show that all the ele

ments for the crime charged were present.
And that positive identification of the
accused was estab lished. The prosecu-
tion has successfully discharged its
onus to show that the general considerations for
an accusation for rape were in favor of the plaintiff
and against the accused.

It is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court

overrule the Demurrer to Evidence presented
by the accused.

JUDGE : "Although there are inconsistencies in AAAs

testimony, inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the
rape victims testimony are to be expected.
 Rape victims are not expected to make an errorless
recollection of the incident, so humiliating
and painful that they might in fact be try-
ing to obliterate it from their memory. Thus, a few
inconsistent re marks in rape cases will not
necessarily impair the testimony of
the offended party.

No young woman, especially of tender age, would

concoct a story of defloration, allow an ex-
amination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert
herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for
the wrong committed against her. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly
improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet
exposed to the ways of the world, would im-
pute to any man a crime so serious as rape if
what she claims is not true.”

In the present case, the inconsistencies as to the

precise date and occurrence of rape is immaterial, as
such minor inconsistencies are not elements in the
crime of rape.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing

considerations, the Demurrer to Evidence filed by
the counsel for the accused is hereby Denied.
The accused may adduce evidence
in his defense. Let this assign-
ment be reset on September 22, 2018 at
nine o’clock in the morning
(9:00am).

SO ORDERED.”
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
4th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
Branch 50

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2344

Plaintiff,

- versus - f o r

Allen Mesa and Santi Rivera, Violation of PD 532 Anti-piracy

and anti-highway robbery law of
1974
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

CASTS: Judge
Clerk of Court (COC)
Prosecutor- Atty. Ana del Mundo
Defense-
Accused-Allen Mesa and Santi Rivera
Court Interpreter-

Judge : Call the case

Clerk : People of the Philippines vs. Allen Mesa and Santi Rivera
Criminal Case No. 2344 for: Violation of PD 532 Anti-
piracy and anti-highway robbery law of 1974

Judge : Appearances of the Prosecution and Defense

Prosecution : Your Honor, I am Atty. ____Ana del Mundo____ appear-

ing as prosecutor.

DEFENSE : Your Honor, I am Atty. ___Samantha Trinidad_____ ap

pearing as counsel for the accused.

Prosecutor : Your Honor, before we proceed for today’s proceeding, we

respectfully manifest per information of the provin-
cial warden that the accused Allen Mesa and
Santi Rivera had escaped from their confine-
ment last Monday, August 28, hence, we re-
spectfully move your honor that a warrant of
 arrest be issued by this honorable court against the accused
and that a trial in absentia be made considering that the ac
cused were already arraigned prior to their escaped.

JUDGE : Trial may proceed.

JUDGE : We may now hear the opening statement of the

prosecution.

Prosecutor : Thank you YH.

Your Honor, This case is a violation of PD 532 Anti-piracy

and anti-highway robbery law of 1974. On or about
the 20thth day of July 20018, in the City of
PUERTO PRINCE SA, Philippines, within the ju-
risdiction of this Honorable Court, Allen Mesa and
Santi Rivera conspiring and confed erating to-
gether and helping one another, both armed with
assorted firearms, with intent to gain, by means of violence
and intimidation against persons, did then and there willful
ly, unlawfully and feloniously rob the driver and the pas
sengers of Cherry Jeepney owned and operated by John
Corpuz Y Asis, to their damage and prejudice. At the con
clusion of this trial, it is my hope, in the interest of
justice, that you will return a verdict of guilty.
Thank you

JUDGE : The defense would like to give an opening state-

ment?

Defense : Your Honor, we would ask you to keep an open mind and
listen to ALL the evidence, and return a verdict of
“not guilty”. Thank you.

JUDGE : For the prosecution, you may now call your first
witness.

Prosecutor : May we call Mr. John CORPUZ to stand in the witness

stand.

Clerk : Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Court Interpreter : Itaas ang kanang kamay. Ikaw ba ay nangangako na
magsasabi ng katotohanan, buong katoto-
hanan at pawang katotothanan lamang?

Witness : Opo, maam.

Court Interpreter : Yes. I do, maam.

Prosecutor : May I proceed YH?

JUDGE : Proceed.

Prosecutor : Thank you YH. Mr. Witness, please state your name, age
and other personal circumstance.

Court Interpreter : Salamat. Ginoo, pwede po ba ninyo sabihin sa hukumang

ito ang iyong pangalan, edad at iba pang personal na
im pormasyon.

Witness : Ako po ay si John Corpuz, Dalawpu’t limang taong gulang

at isang jeepney driver po. Ako po ay nakatira sa
Bgy. San Pedro, Lungsod ng Puerto Princesa.

Court Interpreter : I am John Corpuz. 25 years old, bus driver and a resident of
Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City.

Prosecutor : Regarding criminal case no. 2344, did you execute an affi
davit?

Court Interpreter : Patungkol sa kasong kriminal na may numerong 2344,

kayo po ba ay nagsumite ng iyong sinumpaang sa-
laysay.

Witness : Opo maam.

Court Interpreter : Yes, maam.

Prosecutor : (Showing an affidavit) what is the relation of this affidavit

to you?

Court Interpreter : Nakikilala nyo po ba ang sinumpaang salaysay na ito,

ginoo?

Witness. : Opo maam. Yan po asy ang aking sinumpaang salaysay.

Court Interpreter : Yes, maam. Thats my affidavit, maam.

Prosecutor : Above the name John Corpuz, whose signature is this?

Court Interpreter : Sa taas ng pangalang John Corpuz, kaninong lagda po ito?

Witness : Yan po ay aking lagda, maam.

Court Interpreter : My signature, maam.

Prosecutor : We pray that the signature of Mr. John Corpuz will be

marked as Exhibit m-1.

Judge : Mark it.

Prosecutor : Do you affirm and confirm the authenticity of this affida-

vit?

Court Interpreter : Pinapatotohanan mo po ba na ang sinumpaang salaysay na

ito ay ang sinumpaang salaysay na inyong ginawa.

Witness : Opo maam.

Court Interpreter : Yes maam.

Prosecutor : Will tell us the nature of your work, Mr. Witness?

Court Interpreter : Ginoo, maari nyo po bang sabihin sa hukumang ito ang
iyong trabaho?

Witness : Opo maam, ako po ay isang drayber ng jeepney

Court Interpreter : Yes, Maam, I work as a jeepney driver.

Prosecutor : MR. WITNESS , where were you on July 20, 2018?

Court Interpreter : Saan po kayo nung ika dalawampu ng hulyo, taong

dalawang libo at labingwalo?

Witness : Nagmamaneho po ako ng aking jeep. Huling byahe ko na

rin po yun, maam, bago po ako dapat uuwi ng ba-
hay.

Court Interpreter : I was driving my jeepney, Maam, It was my last trip before
heading home..

Prosecutor : Sir, please tell us how the incident happened.

Court Interpreter : Maari mo bang ikwento sa amin kung paano nangyari ang
insidente.

Witness : Mga bandang alas-diyes ng gabi, maam, habang binabagtas

ko ang kahabaan ng Rizal Avenue, may dalawang mamang
nakatayo sa tapat ng Mendoza park, pinara nila ang
aking jeep at sumakay. habang binabagtas namin
ang daan ng barangay san Manuel, biglang
nagdeklara ng holdap ang dalawang lalake.

Court Interpreter : Around 10pm, while I was passing by rizal ave, two
passengers standing along Mendoza Park flagged down my
jeepney. We were at Barangay San Manuel when
those two men suddenly declared hold up.

PROSECUTOR : Were there working street lights during the inci-

dent?

Court Interpreter : Meron po bang mga ilaw ang daan nung naangyari ang in
sidente?

WITNESS : Wala po maam, madilim nnga noon ang daan.

Court Interpreter : None, maam. Actually, the road was really dark.

PROSECUTOR : You said that it was dark, now, will you please tell
me if you see their faces?

Court Interpreter : Ginoo, ang sabi mo madilim ang daan, ngayon, nakita mo
ba ang mukha ng mga akusado?

WITNESS : Opo maam, may ilaw naman po ako sa loob ng jeep.

Court Interpreter : Yes, maam. My jeepney has a light inside.

PROSECUTOR : Conceding that you indeed saw their faces, will you
please describe before this court the accused.

Court Interpreter : Ngayong iyong inamin sa nakita mo ang mukha ng

dalawang akusado, pwde mo bang sabihin sa amin
ang kani lang pagkakakilalanlan.

WITNESS : Opo maam. Yung isa may kalakihan ang dibdib at mahaba
ang kanyang buhok, siguro mga bandang dito po
(pointing at his shoulders). May napansin din
po akong paru-parong marka sa kanyang ka-
nang pulso. Yung isa naman po may medyo mat-
aba, kulot yung kanyang buhok. May napansin
po akong mahabang peklat sa kanyang noo, bandang dito
po hanggang dito.

Court Interpreter : Yes, maam. One of them has barrel-chested built with long
hair, about his shoulders. And he has a butterfly tattoo on
his right wrist. The other has a thick and solid built
and a …..curly hair I would say. I noticed also that
he has a long scar across his forehead

PROSECUTOR : What else did you observe about the defendants,

Mr.
witness?

Court Interpreter : May iba pa po ba kayong napansin sa mga akusado, Ginoo?

WITNESS: : Opo. Yung akusado pong may mahabang buhok, sinabihan

nya yung isang akusado na “Pre, konting bilis. Ta-
pos, tinawag nya po ito sa pangalang Santi, mga
dalawang
beses. Minamadali niya ito sa pagkuha ng aming pera at iba
pang gamit.

Court Interpreter : The accused with a long hair told his companion “Pre,
konting bilis”. Then, called him Santi, twice I
would say, maam . He was referring to the col-
lection of valuables.

PROSECUTOR : Is Mr. Santi Rivera one of the men who entered the
jeepney, declared hold up and pointed his gun towards you?

Defense : Objection! The question is leading.

Judge : Sustain. Rephrase the question.

PROSECUTOR : Is the two men, during the arraignment, were the

same men who entered the jeepney, declared hold up and took
away your money and other things of value?

Court Interpreter : Ang dalawang akusado bang binasahan ng sakdal sa

krimeng ito, ay ang mga mga lalakeng nagdeklara ng
holdap at kumuha ng inyong pera at iba pang
mahahalagang bagay?
Witness : Opo, maam.

Court Interpreter : Yes, maam,

Prosecutor : Are you positive with that , Mr. Witness?

Court Interpreter : Kayo po ba ay nakakatiyak sa inyong sinabi, Ginoo?

Witness : Nakakatiyak po ako, maam. Hindi po ako pwedeng

magkamali. Alalang alala ko po ang kanilang mga
pagmu mukha.

Witness : I cannot be wronged, maam. I remember very well the

faces of those two accused.

Prosecutor : Will you tell us what happened after they took all your
valuables?

Court Interpreter : Pwede nyo po bang sabihin kung ano pong ginawa ng mga
akusado pagkatapos nilang kuhanin ang inyong pera at mga
mahahalagang bagay?

Witness: Yung isa, yung may kalusugan yung katawan, tinutukan

ako ng baril at inutusan akong magmaneho hang-
gang sa makarating kame ng Viet Ville, pi-
nahinto na niya ako at dali-dali silang
bumaba.

Court Interpreter : One of the men, the one whose built is thick, pointed his
gun and instructed me to drive further. Upon reach-
ing Viet Ville, he asked me to pull over and
they hurriedly alighted from the jeepney.

PROSECUTOR : Mr. witness, do you know anything about guns?

Court Interpreter : Ginoo, may alam po ba kayo sa mga baril?

Witness: : Opo, maam. Nagtrabaho din po akong school security

guard, sa loob ng tatlong taon, ibat ibang baril din
po yung pinagamit sa akin.

Court Interpreter : Yes maam. I also worked as a school security guard for
3years, and during those years, I was issued differ-
ent guns.
PROSECUTOR : I have here with me the gun taken from the defend-
ants when they were arrested, can you tell me
what gun it is?

Court Interpreter : Ginoo, hawak ko ngayon ay ang baril na nakita sa mga

akusado nung sila ay nahuli, pwede nyo po bang
sabihin sa akin kung anong baril po ito?

WITNESS : Kalibre .45 po maam.

Court Interpreter : Its caliber .45, maam.

PROSECUTOR : Is it possible that this gun was the same gun used by
the accused the night of the hold upping inci-
dent?

WITNESS : Opo maam.

Court Interpreter : Yes maam.

Prosecutor : How did you say so, Mr. Witness?

Court Interpreter : Paano nyo po nasabi, Ginoo?

Witness: : Maam, napansin ko pong may tandaan na itim na pintura

po ang slide ng baril ng akusado, katulad po ng ha-
wak ninyo.

Court Interpreter : Maam, I notice that there was a strange, black paint on the
slide of the gun.

Prosecutor : Mr. Corpuz, will you please point to me the slide of the
gun.

Court Interpreter : Ginoong corpuz, maari nyo po bang ituro kung saan dito
ang slide ng baril na sinasabi po ninyo?

Witness : Dito po maam, ito po ang slide ng baril.

Court Interpreter : This area, maam. This is where the slide of the gun is.

Prosecutor : Your honor, this is to make a manifestation that the witness

identified the gun marked as exhibit m-2 as
the same gun used by the defendant.
Judge : Make it of record.

Prosecutor : Thank you, your honor.

I have no further question on the witness, your honor.
Judge : Alright.

“When this case was called for arraignment and pre-trial conference,
both the accused and private complainant are in court. They are duly
represented by Atty. Samantha Trinidad and Provincial Prosecutor
Anna del Mundo, respectively. The accused have been arraigned
and entered pleas of not guilty. Considering that both accused es-
caped from their detention, they are deemed to have waived their
right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. The court hereby
grants the prosecution to present evidence ex parte. Let this assign-
ment be reset on September 24, 2018 at nine o’clock in the morning
(9:00am).

SO ORDERED.”