Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 11th Judicial Region Branch ___ Digos City, Davao del Sur PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. ________ For: RAPE (Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended)
- versus -
CHRIS ABARILLAMOSA,
Accused.
X=================/
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsels and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this Pre-Trial Brief, as follows: I.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1.1. Accused Chris Abarillamosa is a 22 year-old 3rd year law student at the Cor Jesu College Law School in Digos City, Davao del Sur. He is known to be the former boyfriend of the private complainant as they are often seen together before and after their classes and in other occasions inside and outside law school. 1.2. Private complainant is a 20 year-old law student at the Cor Jesu College Law School in Digos City, Davao del Sur, mother of a 1 year-old child. She works as an Assistant Secretary to the Dean’s Office of Cor Jesu College Law
School. She is known to be the former girlfriend of the accused. 1.3. Sometime in the first week of August 2012, private complainant went about her usual duty as an Assistant Secretary after her evening class. At that time, private complainant has a lot of pending works in the office. Accused, being the then-boyfriend of private complainant, accompanied the latter at the law school library. It was around 10:30 in the evening when the school guard checked the Dean’s office and the law school library. After telling to the accused and private complainant that no one is allowed to stay later than 10:30 in the campus, the couple tidied the place and readied themselves to go home. But, by reason of concupiscence, accused and private complainant were tempted to have a consensual sex before leaving the office. 1.4. On 22 August 2012 at around 8:00 in the morning, accused went to the Dean’s office. At that time, private complainant and their common friend, Hannah Leigh Ruferos, were also at the said office chatting with each other when the accused arrived. After Hannah Leigh Ruferos bid them goodbye, the couple were left alone in the office. Seizing that opportunity, accused and private complainant intimately kissed and caressed each other. They were at that moment when Hannah Leigh Ruferos went back to the office and saw them kissing and caressing. Thus, Hannah Leigh Ruferos reprimanded their actions. Thereafter, the trio went to the canteen to eat.After an hour, Hannah Leigh Ruferos went ahead while accused and private complainant went back to the Dean’s office. There, they stayed in the said office until 11:00 in the morning. 1.5. On the same date at or about 11:00 in the morning, when the other law students, identified as Diosa Mae Sarillosa, Dyanne Silagan and Cherry Duazo, went out the law school library, the accused and private complainant,
2
were again left alone in the Dean’s office. For the second time, they seized that moment to continue their consensual lustful desire. The accused and private complainant were in the act of intimately kissing and caressing each other when Brother Christopher Felipe, a member of the Brother of the Sacred Heart, caught them in that scenario. Brother Felipe reprimanded them. 1.6. Subsequently, a disciplinary letter-complaint was filed against the accused and private complainant. The accused and private complainant were found to be guilty of the acts complained of (kissing and caressing inside school premises) but were merely admonished and warned that repeated violation shall cause graver punishment. 1.7. The relationship between the accused and private complainant was merely short-lived. But, private complainant was impregnated by the accused. 1.8. Because the accused refused to marry private complainant despite her constant pleas and threats, the latter filed this criminal complainant for rape against the former.
II. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS AND/OR ADMISSION OF FACTS 2.
The accused admit the following: 2.1. The identity of the accused; 2.2. The identity of the private complainant; 2.3. The accused and private complainant are law students duly enrolled at the Cor Jesu College Law School;
3
2.4. The private complainant is an Assistant Secretary to the Dean’s Office of Cor Jesu College Law School; 2.5. The accused and private complainant were former sweethearts from June 2012 up to September 2012; 2.6. The private complainant was impregnated by the accused; 2.7. The private complainant gave birth to a child on August 2013; 2.8. Sometime in the first week of August 2012 at around 10:30 in the evening, the accused and private complainant had a consented pre-marital sex at the law school library; 2.9. On 22 August 2012 at or about 8:00 in the morning, the accused and private complainant were merely kissing and caressing each other at the Dean’s office; 2.10. On 22 August 2012 at or about 11:00 in the morning, the accused and private complainant were again merely kissing and caressing each other at the Dean’s office; 2.11. On 24 August 2012, Brother Christopher Felipe filed a disciplinary letter-complainant against the accused and private complainant at the Prefect of Discipline and another disciplinary letter-complaint against private complainant at the Human Resources Office. The complaint was likewise elevated to the Dean of Law School but was later on resolved and dismissed; 2.12. On 09 October 2012 at the ground floor of Cor Jesu College campus, private complainant threatened to file a rape case against the accused for the latter’s refusal to marry the former despite impregnating her;
4
2.13. On 27 October, another threat was made by the private complainant against the accused, this timein their house,for his refusal to marry her.
III. ISSUES TO BE TRIED 3.
Accused submit the following proposed issues to be resolved: 3.1. Whether or not the accused committed the crime charged; 3.2. Whether or nor he was guilty thereof.
III. EVIDENCE FOR MARKINGS 4.
Accused intends to present the following documents as evidence: 4.1. “Exhibit 1” to “Exhibit 1-A” – Pictures of the accused and private complainant Purpose: to prove that accused and private complainant are sweethearts from June 2012 to September 2012 4.2. “Exhibit 2” to “Exhibit 2-B” – Love letters of private complainant to the accused Purpose: to prove that accused and private complainant are sweethearts from June 2012 to September 2012 4.3. “Exhibit 3” – Accused’s Discount Card of Digos City Inn Purpose: to prove that accused and private complainant are regular customers of Digos City Inn and that they are having consensual sex during the course of their romantic relationship 4.4. “Exhibit 4” – Letter from the Prefect of Discipline’s Office Purpose: to prove that accused and private complainant were summoned to the Office of the Prefect of Discipline to be 5
investigated regarding the disciplinary letter-complaint filed by Brother Christopher Felipe when he caught them doing indecent acts (kissing and caressing) inside the school premises 4.5. “Exhibit 5” – Letter from the Human Resources Office Purpose: to prove that private complainant was summoned to the Human Resources Office to be investigated regarding the disciplinary letter-complaint filed by Brother Christopher Felipe when he caught them doing indecent acts (kissing and caressing) inside the school premises 4.6. “Exhibit 6” – Dean Robin Rodriguez’s Resolution Purpose: to prove that accused and private complainant were investigated under the Office of Dean Robin Rodriguez, and were later on admonished by the violation they were complained of. 4.7. Judicial Counter-Affidavit of the Accused Purpose: to prove for the facts that no rape was committed sometime in the first week of August 2012, on 22 August 2012 at or about 8:00 in the morning, and on 22 August 2012 between 11:00 in the morning and 1:00 in the afternoon 4.8. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Ryan Paul Olamit Purpose: to prove that sometime on the first week of August 2012 at 10:30 in the evening at the law school library of Cor Jesu College, he saw the accused and private complainant at the law school library in good disposition, and saw them leave the campus together at around 11:00 in the evening 4.9. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Hannah Leigh Ruferos Purpose: toprove that on 22 August 2012 at 8:00 in the morning, she saw accused and private complainant merely kissing and caressing at the Dean’s Office and that no alleged rape was committed on said time and date 4.10. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Brother Christopher Felipe Purpose: to prove that on 22 August 2012 at 11:00 in the morning, he saw accused and private complainant merely kissing and caressing at the Dean’s Office and that no alleged rape was committed on said time and date
6
4.11. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Fran Dayaday Purpose: toprove that on 09 October 2012, private complainant threatened to file a rape case against the accused for his refusal to marry the latter despite being impregnated by the former 4.12. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Joebuena Abarillamosa Purpose: toprove that on 27 October 2012, private complainant threatened to file a rape case against the accused for his refusal to marry the latter despite being impregnated by the former 4.13. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Diosa Mae Sarillosa Purpose: toprovethat on 22 August 2012 between 9:00 and 11:00 in the morning and from 1:00 in the afternoon onwards, accused and private complainant were both in good disposition and that no alleged rape wascommitted on said time and date 4.14. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Marites Gonzaga Purpose: to testify that accused and private complainant are regular customers of Digos City Inn and that they are having consensual sex every time they go to the inn 4.15. Accused reserve the right to present any and all documentary evidence, which shall become relevant to rebut plaintiff’s claims in the course of trial. V. NAMES OF WITNESSES 5.
Accused intend to present the following witnesses: 5.1. Accused himself Purpose: to testify on the true circumstances leading to the filing of this case against him 5.2. Fran Dayaday – the girlfriend of the accused Purpose: to testify that on 09 October 2012, private complainant threatened to file a rape case against the accused for his refusal to marry the latter despite being impregnated by the former
7
5.3.Ryan Paul Olamit – the security guard Purpose: to testify thatsometime on the first week of August 2012 at 10:30 in the evening at the law school library of Cor Jesu College, he saw the accused and private complainant at the law school library and saw them leave the campus together at around 11:00 in the evening in good disposition 5.4.Hannah Leigh Ruferos – common friend of the accused and private complainant Purpose: to testify that on 22 August 2012 at 8:00 in the morning, she saw accused and private complainant merely kissing and caressing at the Dean’s Office and that no alleged rape was committed on said time and date 5.5.Brother Christopher Felipe – member of the Brother of Sacred Heart Purpose: to testify that on 22 August 2012 at 11:00 in the morning, he saw accused and private complainant merely kissing and caressing at the Dean’s Office and that no alleged rape was committed on said time and date 5.6.Joebuena Abarillamosa – mother of the accused Purpose: to testify that on 27 October 2012, private complainant threatened to file a rape case against the accused for his refusal to marry the latter despite being impregnated by the former 5.7.Diosa Mae Sarillosa – classmate of the accused Purpose: to testify that on 22 August 2012 between 9:00 and 11:00 in the morning and from 1:00 in the afternoon onwards, accused and private complainant were both in good disposition and that no alleged rape was committed on said time and date 5.8.Marites Gonzaga – receptionist of Digos City Inn Purpose: to testify that accused and private complainant are regular customers of Digos City Inn and that they are having consensual sex every time they go to the inn
8
5.9. Accused reserve the right to present any other witnesses whose testimony will become relevant to belie plaintiff’s witnesses, if necessary. VI. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE 5.
Accused will conjure up the Revised Rules of Evidence, Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, and Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Rape Law of 1997. VII. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES
6.
Accused suggest that in order to avoid conflict of schedules, the trial dates be deliberate during the pre-trial conference where all the parties are in attendance. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Digos City, Davao del Sur, Philippines, 08 February 2014.
VISITACION & ETING LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Accused
____________________, Digos City, Davao del Sur Tel. No. __________ Email:
[email protected] By: ATTY. RUBY VISITACION
Counsel for the Defense
Roll No. ______ PTR No. _____________ IBP No. _____________ TIN: 222-256-784 MCLE Compliance No. _________________
9
And
ATTY. MARILOU ETING
Counsel for the Defense
Roll No. _______ PTR No. ____________ IBP No. _____________ TIN: 333-865-754 MCLE Compliance No. ________________
Copy furnished: PROS. RENELYN DINAMPO
Assistant City Prosecutor
Received by:_____________ Date Received:___________
TEMBS, CAOAGDAN, DINAMPO LAW OFFICES
Registry Receipt No._______ Date Received:___________
Hall of Justice Digos City, Davao del Sur
Counsel for the Private Complainant Forbes St., Ayala Heights, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato
10
