Memorandum.rape

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region BRANCH 15 Makati City

RENALYN S. SANTIAGO, Complainant, -versus-

CASE NO. 95-

87390 For: Rape ALLAN HABER, Accused. x…………………………………..x

MEMORANDUM The STATE, by the undersigned state prosecutor, and in compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its case, and, states: PREPARATORY STATEMENTS The fact alone that two people were seen beside each other, conversing during a morning breakfast, without more, cannot give rise to the inference that they were sweethearts. Intimacies such as loving caresses, cuddling, tender smiles, sweet murmurs or any other affectionate gestures that one bestows upon his or her would have been seen and are expected to indicate the presence of the relationship.[1]

STATEMENT OF FACTS The information charged accused for the crime of Rape as the information reads as follows: CRIM CASE No. 01 I N F O R M AT I O N The undersigned accuses ALLAN HABER, of crime of Rape, committed as follows:

That on May 1, 2014, at or about 10:00 in the evening, in # 12 Guadalupe, Makati City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the aforementioned accused prompted with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with RENALYN SANTIAGO, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice. CONTRARY TO LAW. STATEMENT OF ISSUE 1. Whether the accused Allan Haber is guilty of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. 2. Whether or not the sweet heart theory is applicable in this case. 3. Whether offer of marriage during trial by the accused is admission of guilt. ARGUMENT/ DISCUSSION I. Allan Haber is guilty of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code since the element of force and intimidation is sufficiently proven by the complainant. Pertinently, the elements of rape under par. 1(a) of Art. 266-A of the Code are the following: (1) that the offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (3) that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.[2] The above-cited elements of the crime of rape had been sufficiently established. In the case at bar the complainant satisfactorily proved that the accused execute his carnal desire against the latter by employing force to weaken her strength by a hard blow in her stomach, making any delicate damsel scourge in pain. Medico Legal report shows that the complainant suffered abdominal contusion during the heinous event of rape that completely pacifies and limit the victim to perform further resistance. The defense deduction that lack of resistance by the victim suffices consent is insufficient. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed, and the victim submits herself to her attacker because of fear. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not make voluntary the victim’s submission to the perpetrator’s lust. Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused; it is not an essential element of rape. Rape victims react differently. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Thus, the law does not impose upon the private complainant the burden of proving resistance.[3]

The defense allegation regarding the victim’s inconsistency in depicting the actual scene or position of the accused during the vicious moment of rape is a frail attempt to dismiss the credibility of the victim. Courts have often reiterated that minor inconsistencies with no material effect on the charge will not warrant the dismissal of the case not the rejection of the testimony of the victim itself. No one expects rape victims to remember with precision every detail of the crime.[4] Errorless recollection of a harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape. [5] Inconsistencies in a rape victim’s testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of rape.[6] Victims certainly do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the dates, number of times, and the manner in which they were sexually violated.[7] II.

Sweet heart defense is not applicable in the case.

Defendant in order to disclaim the allegation of rape resorted to the most often used and abused theory in rape cases, which is the “sweet heart defense”. The defendant insists that the victim was his lover or sweetheart and that the consummation of the carnal act was a deed between two people in love.[8] The "sweetheart defense" has often been raised in rape cases but has rarely been upheld as the defense failed to come up with convincing proof. Indeed, accused bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship.[9] The accused protestation that the complainant loves him and that her only motive for filing the case was because of his refusal to marry hir because both of them is not yet ready at the moment is not worthy of belief. No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. Besides, even if indeed the accused and the complainant are sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."[10] The defendant in a pitiable attempt to prove that there is indeed a relationship between him and the victim, present two (2) forged love letters with signatures over printed name of the victim. In People vs. Ayuda, G.R. No. 128882, October 2, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that: "A sweetheart defense to be credible should be substantiated by some documentary or other evidence of the relationship-like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. However in the case at bar, defendant failed to prove the authenticity of the handwriting and the signature of the victim. III.

Offer of marriage in rape cases is an admission of guilt.

The accused guilt is established by the fact that he offered to marry the complainant during his testimony in the court. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt.[11] No such obvious sign of surrender than to hear the accused in

open court that he indeed love the complainant and willing to marry her, and offer to marry her. Such a frail attempt to console the complainant, he even sugar coat the degradation felt by the victim.

PRAYE R WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed for that aJUDGMENT OF CONVICTION be rendered against Allan Haber for the commission of the crime of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for. Makati, May 23, 2014. Charmaine Japzon Itable City Prosecutor Roll Number: 42134 IBP No. 12375-02/08/11-Makati PTR No.102282-02/03/12-Makati MCLE Compliance No. II-0004678 Copy furnished through personal service: ATTY. RYAN ALTERIA Counsel for Defendant Alteria Law Office 1515 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila

People vs. Napudo, G.R. No. 168448, October 8, 2008 [2] Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code 525 (16th ed., 2006) [3] People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Penilla y Francia, G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013. [4] People vs. Orilla, 422 SCRA 620 (2004). [5] People vs. Tonyacao, 433 SCRA 513 (2004). [6] People vs. Borromeo, 430 SCRA 533 (2004). [7] People vs. Mantis, 433 SCRA 236 (2004). [8] Annotation Defenses in Rape Cases by David Robert C. Aquino, CSEE 540 SCRA 531 (2007). [9] People vs. Dreu, G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000. [10] People v. Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, Sept. 29, 1999. [11] People vs. Dreu, G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000. [1]

2014-05-23 17:46 GMT-07:00 renalyn santiago:

hi charm, sorry di ko maopen eh..kasi sira ung windows 2010 ko po eh...pwede mo ba send nalang sa mismong notes...or copy mo nalng dito sa email mismo kahit di na sa word...thanks po..if ever kahit send mo na lang po yan kay kuya ong =) sabi ko sau wag ka na mageffort mashado...napuyat ka pa tuloy..hehe..thanks so much! =)

On Friday, May 23, 2014 8:59 AM, Charmaine Itable wrote: Good evening sorry sa istorbo. Pa check na lang po kng anuman. Tapos pabalik po sa akin para ma email ko kay Rey. thank you.