PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim Case No. 12345

for Frustrated Murder

AKU SADO,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

PETITION FOR BAIL

Accused, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states:

1. That accused is currently detained at the Makati City Jail for the charge of Frustrated Murder and
has been behind bars since his arrest on August 1, 2013;

2. That no bail has been recommended for his temporary release on the assumption that the evidence
of guilt is strong;

3. That the prosecution's evidence of guilt against accused, however, is weak as there is no direct
evidence that will point to the accused to have committed the the charges against him. The records
will show that accused was malicious implicated in the case through the sworn statements of SINU
NGALING and BULA AN who subsequently recanted their testimonies and confessed, among others,
that they were made to sign the "affidavits of witnesses" against their will. (copies of the Affidavits of
Recantation are hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B")

4. That there is no other physical or documentary evidence to show that accused is guilty of the crime
charged;.

5. That the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong is on the prosecution, and since this fact
is not satisfactorily shown, accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right during the pendency of the
criminal case.

WHEREFORE, upon prior notice and hearing, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that accused AKU SADO be allowed to post bail for his temporary liberty pending trial of the criminal
charge against him.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

15 August 2013
City of Makati.

ATTY. VX YZ
Counsel for the Accused

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court, Branch 147
Makati City

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court on August 27, 2013 at 8:30 in the morning
for its favorable consideration and approval.

VX YZ

Copy furnished by personal service:

PROSECUTOR WX YZ
Office of the City Prosecutor, Makati City

ATTY. AB CD
Private Prosecutor
2233 Zamora Street, Pasay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim Case
No. 123456 for Theft
AKU SADO,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
 APPLICATION FOR RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE

The undersigned accused, AKU SADO, hereby applies for release on recognizance
pursuant to section 7, Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, and declares:

1. That he filed an application for probation on December 17, 2013 to this Honorable Court;

2. That he is presently confined at the Makati City Jail for theft and failed to post the
required bail bond;

3. MABA IT, a responsible member of the Community and a resident of 1122 F. Zobel
Street, Makati City is willing to accept the custody of the undersigned accused and
guarantee his appearance whenever told to do so by the Court or the Probation
Administration.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendant most respectfully prays that his
cash bail bond be released.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

06 January 2014
City of Makati.

AKU SADO
Accused

CONFORME:

MABA IT
1122 F. Zobel Street, Makati City

Copy furnished by personal service:

PROS. JUST PANTAY

Office of the City Prosecutor
Makati City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Regional Trial Court
Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 10
Santa Cruz, Laguna

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintif
-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. -----
For: Parricide
LUPE MERCADO Y GUARIN
Accused
X-----------------------------------------X

PRE-TRIAL ORDER
SUMMARY
That on or about 11:00 AM of September 4, 2011,inBRGY. Bubukal, Santa Cruz, Laguna and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one LUCY
MERCADOercado , his legal wife, by then and there shooting her with a Beretta 22 Automatic Pistol,
thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on the diferent parts of the body which was the direct
and immediate cause of her death thereafter.

STIPULATION OF FACTS
Admitted
The Defense Counsel admitted the existence and veracity of the documentary exhibits such as
the marriage certificate between Lupe and Lucy Mercado, the death certificate of Lucy Mercado which
were marked by the Prosecution and the identity of the accused.
The Prosecution admitted the existence of the Certification from the Firearms and Explosive
Division of the PNP.

Disputed
Version of the Prosecution
That on about 11:00 AM of September 4, 2011,in BRGY. Bubukal, Santa Cruz, Laguna Lupe
Mercado killed his legal wife by inflicting four (4) gunshot wounds upon the latter after a few hours of
heated arguments.
Version of the Defense
That on about 11:00 AM of September 4, 2011,in BRGY. Bubukal, Santa Cruz, Laguna Lupe
Mercado accidentally killed his legal wife by inflicting four (4) gunshot wounds upon the latter in self
defense in their scuffle for a gun which the victim poked to the suspect during their short verbal
arguments.

Issues to be resolved
Whether or not the accused committed the crime as charged.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PARTIES

Evidence for the Prosecution
Exhibit A - Judicial Affidavit of Badette Mercdo
Exhibit A-1 - Page 2 of Judicial Affidavit of Badette Mercado
Exhibit A-2 - Page 3
Exhibit A-1-1 - Signature of Badette Mercado
Exhibit B - Judicial Affidavit of Rea Lucena
Exhibit B-1 - Page 2 of Judicial Affidavit of rea Lucena
Exhibit B-2 - Page 3
Exhibit B-1-1 - Signature of Rea Lucena
Exhibit C - Death Certificate of Lucy Mercdo
Exhbit D - Marriage Certificate between Lupe and Lucy Mercado
Testimonial Evidence
Prosecution will present two (2) witnesses, Badette Mercado and Rea Lucena
Evidence for the Defense
Exhibit 1 - Judicial Affidavit of Lupe Mercado
Exhibit 1 A - Page 2 of Judicial Affidavit of Lupe Mercado
Exhibit 1 B - Page 3 of Judicial Affidavit of Lupe Mercdo
Exhibit 2 - Certification from Firearma and Explosive Unit, PNP
Exhibit 3 - Certificate of Good Moral Character by Father Gomez
Testimonial Evidence
The prosecution will present two (2) witnesses namely, Ms. Badette Mercado and Ms. Rea
Lucena.
The defense will present two (2) witnesses namely, Lupe Mercado and Rev. Father and DR.
AICRAG/ Records Keeper

HEARING DATES
The trial date is set on January 26, 2013, February 2, 9, 16, 23, 2013 at 7:30 AM.
It is understood that the testimony of the witness should be completed on the scheduled date of
hearing allotted to said witness under the One-day Examination of Witness Rule. The Court however,
has the discretion on whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross examination of witnesses for good
cause shown.
Failure of the party or his counsel to comply with the aforementioned schedule of hearings and
deadlines may be a ground for imposition of fines and other sanctions by the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Santa Cruz, Laguna, January 25, 2013

JEROME PARONE
Judge
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
TAGUIG CITY, METRO MANILA
BRANCH 0000

MARY JANE BOGMALI,

Plaintiff,

CRIM CASE NO . 00000000

- Versus - FOR: RAPE

LUCKY BAUTISTA,
Accused,
x-------------------------------------------x
 FORMAL OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFF by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
offers in evidence the following documentary exhibits for the above titled case, to wit:

EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION PURPOSE/S

A Judicial affidavit of Plaintiff To prove the fact of that the crime

Ms. Mary Jane Bogmali is being committed by the accused
By proving all the allegations.

B Barangay clearance dated To prove the fact the residency of

June 2, 1969 by Brgy. The Plaintiff from the time of the
Chairman of Pinagsama commission of the offense to her
Taguig City by the Accused.

C Police blotter issued by To prove the fact that the crime

PO1 Salvador Doro is being recorded and notice
PCP6 Taguig City by the local police authority.

D Medical examination report To prove that the Plaintiff, upon

On Plaintiff prepared and examining made by the expert
Signed by Dr. Vice Ganda witness, was found to be suffering
from vaginal laceration, contusion.

E Judicial affidavit of Ms. To prove the fact that the crime

Kopkop neighbor of the charge against the accused is true
Plaintiff and witness in and actually committed by the
Above entitled case accused as seen by her.

Aforesaid exhibit are being offered to prove that the crime and accusation against the accused
was true and committed at the address indicated to her complaint.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court that
the foregoing documentary exhibits be admitted for all purposes for which each and all said exhibits were
being offered in proving the claims of the complainant/s, and with the formal submission of the aforesaid
exhibits coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses who testified thereon.

Taguig City, Metro Manila

August 2, 2014

ATTY. GERALD JEY LITONG

Counsel for Plaintiff

NOTICE

The Hon Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 69 Taguig City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Formal Offer for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

ATTY. GERALD JEY LITONG

Counsel for Plaintiff

Copy Furnished:

Counsel for the Accused

EXPLAINATION

Copies of the foregoing Formal Offer are served upon counsel of the accused and filed with the
Court by personal service.

ATTY. GERALD JEY LITONG

Counsel for Plaintiff
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
TAGUIG CITY, METRO MANILA
BRANCH 0000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff

versus CRIMINAL CASE. 1001001

FOR: RAPE

LUCKY BAUTISTA
Accused
XX---------------------------------------------------------XX

COMMENT/OBJECTIONS
(To the Prosecutions Formal Offer of Object and Documentary Evidence)

ACCUSED by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
comments and/or objects to the admission of the Prosecutions Formal Offer of Object Evidence as
follows:

ACCUSED objects to the formal offer of the Medical Report as evidence of the Prosecution,
marked as Exhibit D. The Medical examination report is inadmissible as evidence due to the reason
that it was never identified and offered during the trial of the case. There is no basis for its admissibility
thus making its purpose moot and unwarranted.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Accused most respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the foregoing
object and documentary exhibits mentioned above be denied admission for the reasons above stated.
The Accused further prays for such other relief as may be just and equitable under the premises.

Makati City.
August 14, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Accused Lucky Bautista

PRADAC Law Office

37th Floor, LKG Tower
6801 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN

PTR 345756, 1/10/15, Makati City
IBP No. 01023 Lifetime Member
Roll No. 37435
MCLE Compliance III-000913, April 19, 2014

Copy Furnished by Personal Service to:

BIAG NI LAM-ANG
City Assistant Prosecutor
Taguig City

BAHMMM LAW OFFICE

Unit 143 44th Floor, Garampingat Bldg.
6969 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1229

EXPLANATION

The filing of this Comment/Objection was done through LBC due to time, distance and
manpower constraints.

ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
TAGUIG CITY, METRO MANILA
BRANCH 0000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff

versus CRIMINAL CASE. 1001001

FOR: RAPE

LUCKY BAUTISTA
Accused
 NOTICE OF APPEAL

ACCUSED Lucky Bautista, by counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully gives notice that he is appealing to the Regional Trial Court, both questions of
fact and law, the Decision dated 20 September 2014 (copy received on even date).

Respectfully submitted.

22 September 2014
City of Taguig.

PRADAC Law Office

37th Floor, LKG Tower
6801 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN

PTR 345756, 1/10/15, Makati City
IBP No. 01023 Lifetime Member
Roll No. 37435
MCLE Compliance III-000913, April 19, 2014

Copy furnished:

BIAG NI LAM-ANG
City Assistant Prosecutor
Taguig City

BAHMMM LAW OFFICE

Unit 143 44th Floor, Garampingat Bldg.
6969 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1229

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

Third DIVISION

LUCKY BAUTISTA,
Accused-Appellant,
 - versus CA-GR. No. 3360-M & 3361-M
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 September 20, 2014 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.1

THE PARTIES

Lucky Bautista is the appellant as represented by Militante and Associates where process and notice from

this court may be served at room 1407 Cityland Condominium, Tower II, 6871 Ayala Avenue corner H.V.

Delacosta Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City, while THE PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES is the appellee

as represented by the Taguig Prosecutors Office

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

Accused-appellant received on 20 September 2014 the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated 17

September 2014. A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on 22 September 2014. Accused received on 20

1 Saballla vs. NLRC, ibid, citing Nicos Industrial Corp vs CA, 206 SCRA 127
September 2014 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 Lucky Bautista is a fifty seven (57) years old man who drives a passenger jeep as a means of
livelihood. The private complainant, Christine dela Cruz is the niece of the accused who was then
studying at Sampaloc Elementary School, Taguig 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 March 24 and March 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;

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 July 9, 2014.

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. 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.

b. 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).

c. Absence of defensive wounds, use of weapons and attempt to ask for help.

The absence of defensive wounds on the medical report of Dr. Winston Tan, (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.

d. 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

Severo Valdez 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, Christopher Padios testified that she was absent for

the whole month of March, that she did not attend the graduation rehearsal.

On the alleged rape on March 29, 2014, the victim stated in her testimony that she

and her nephews with the accused drove the jeep towards the store of Mr. Cabansag for

recharging of the accuseds battery. However, Danilo Cabansag testified that he was
 only able to purchase the battery charger only at May 16, 2014 as evidence by Sales

Invoice (Exhibit 5) issued by Cabacial Merchandizing and was only been able to began

the business only on the 19 th, thus negating the plausibility of her testimony of a March

29 trip to Mr. Cabansag 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 Elena Padios, mother of one of his passengers who rode on the jeep on

that same day. They 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 Jaime Ruelo testified during trial that

Maricel Dela Cruz, 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 assertion of 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 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.

September 29, 2014

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
IBP Lifetime NO. 05672
Roll No. 56123
MCLE II Compliance No. 0003743
Militante and Associates
Rm 1407 Cityland Condominium Tower II
6817 Ayala Ave. corner H.V. delacosta Street
Salcedo Village, Makati City

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, LUCKY BAUTISTA, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Barangay Road, Makati 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;

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 day of 2010 at Makati City.

LUCKY BAUTISTA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of 2010 at Makati City,Philippines. Affiant

exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate No. CC 123456 issued at Makati City on January 04,

2014.

Atty. Jacinto dela Cruz

Notary Public

Notarial Commission until Dec 30,2010

PTR NO. 023456/01/05/10/Makati

Doc. No.: 39

Page no.:8

Book no.:I

Series of 2010

Copy Furnished:

Office of the Prosecutor

Taguig City

EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Section II, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court, the foregoing Brief is sent by

registered mail due to lack of messengerial personnel and time constraint in the filling thereof.

REYNALDO GREGORIO T. MILITANTE III

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II, CITY OF MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintif-Appellee,

-versus- GA. G.R. No. 123456

LUCKY BAUTISTA
Accused-Appellant,
x------------------------------------------x

APPELLEES BRIEF

Plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 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, accused-appellant assails the judgment dated 20 September 2014
rendered by Judge Barabas Baldoza of the Regional Trial Court, 12 th Judicial Regional Branch 15,
Taguig City, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape.

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

Accused-appellant Lucky Bautista y Tordecilla was charged before the Regional Trial Court,
12 th
Judicial Regional Branch 15, Taguig City of rape. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No.
123456. The accusatory portion reads:

That on or about February 14, 2014, in Taguig City, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed
with a knife, and gun, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding
and assisting with one another, forced open the red Toyota Corrola Plate No.
YHJ123 owned by MARY JANE BOGMALI, and by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons that is, at gun point, took, stole and carried away the
following items: a Apple laptop computer, black Nokia N91 cellphone,
diamond engagement ring, green Lacoste handbag, and cash, all estimated to
be worth P150,000.00, all belonging to and taken against the will of said
MARY JANE BOGMALI, all to the latters damage and prejudice; that on the
occasion of means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully and
feloniously, have carnal knowledge of the said MARY JANE BOGMALI, a 22-
year old woman against her will.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Upon being arraigned all the accused including accused-appellant Sarmiento pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged.

The prosecution established the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt by
presenting as evidence the testimony of the victim herself, MARY JANE BOGMALI, and the other
witnesses DR. MA. ANNA MAE QUINTO, DEMEK CATINDOYOK, and ANGELA CATINDOYOK.

MARY JANE BOGMALI, the private complainant testified that she was driving her way to her
house passing through Lubayong Street, after working overtime when two of her tires blew. She got
out of the car to survey the damage when suddenly three men, two of which where armed, grabbed
her, forced her car open and took her personal belongings inside the said car. Thereafter the all the
perpetrators removed their mask one of them pointed a gun at her, took her to a nearby grassy area
then and there forcibly raped her at gunpoint. She was able to identify Timeo Yhapp as the rapist and
the accused-appellant Pedro Sarmiento as the one holding the knife and was jeering when she was
being raped.
 DR. MA. ANNA MAE QUINTO was the Medico-Legal officer of the National Bureau of
Investigation who examined Rivera on February 16, 2014 (about 10:30 a.m.), testified that the latter
was positive of spermatozoa, vaginal laceration, and there were also bruises on Wandas thighs
indicating forced entry on her vagina. Dr. Quinto presented the following report:

Genitalia: external examination= abundant pubic hair, nulliparous outlet, no

bleeding note.
= hymen (+) complete, old healed .aceration at 4 and 7 oclock.
Speculum= vaginal wall no erosion/laceration.
Cervix= pinkish, (+) whitish discharge.
Internal examination= admist 1 finger with ease,
Cervix= closed, small midline, firm, non-tender on wriggling,
Uterus= small,
Adnexae= negative for tenderness.
Positive for spermatozoa.

Demek and Angela Catindoyok were the two couple who found the victim standing by the
road around 11:00 p.m. of February 14, 2014 while walking home after celebrating their first
wedding anniversary. Mrs. Catindoyok even testified that before finding the victim they saw three
men running towards them, one of them was even carrying a Laptop computer. They were able to
identify them later in a police line up as the accused-appellant Pedro Sarmiento and two other co-
accused, Timeo Yhapp and Antonio Olanne.

The accused denied the charges, claiming that they did not know each other. All of them used
the defense of alibi: Timeo Yhapp testified that during the commission of the crime he was reviewing
in his house at Manggahan, Fairview, Quezon City; Antonio Olanne claimed that he was taking care of
his sick grandmother who was confined at the Philippine General Hospital; and Pedro Sarmiento
claimed that he had slept early that night in his house somewhere in Cubao, Quezon City. All three
presented their relatives as witnesses to corroborate their respective alibis.

On November 30, 2006 on the strength of the prosecutions evidence the Regional Trial Court
promulgated its decision. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds co-accused Timeo Yhapp, Antonio Olanne, and
Pedro Sarmiento GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Rape,
committing with the use of deadly weapon and with aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and treachery, without any mitigating
circumstance to offset the same. Considering that there was conspiracy
among the accused, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
DEATH and its actual damages; P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as
moral damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay the costs.

Only one of the accused Pedro Sarmiento appealed the matter to the Court of Appeals raising
his arguments in his Appellant Brief.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff-appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the assignment of errors raised by

the accused-appellant:

I. The clear and convincing testimony of the private complainant is credible enough to
establish the commission of the crime.
 II. The testimony of the private complainant as well as testimonies of other
prosecution witness clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

III. The testimonial evidence of the private complainant as well as applicable laws and
jurisprudence clearly established conspiracy among the accused-appellants.

IV. The testimony of the private complainant as well as the applicable laws and
jurisprudence clearly established that the accused-appellant conspired with the
other accused in the commission of the crime.

V. Positive identification by the private complainant as well as applicable

jurisprudence clearly negates the accused-appellants defense of alibi even if
corroborated by another witness.

VI. The court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nighttime in the
commission of the crime.

VII. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as the clear and
credible testimony of the private complainant satisfied the crucible test of
reasonable doubt to overthrow the Constitutional guaranty of presumption of
innocence and clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

Discussion

I. The clear and convincing testimony of the private complainant is credible enough to
establish the commission of the crime.

It must be emphasized that the trial courts conviction of accused-appellant

Sarmiento was based heavily on the victims testimony. In laying down its decision,
the trial court gave full weight and credence to the testimony of Wanda Rivera, the
private complainant.

In crimes were rape is involved, it is a well-settled rule that conviction may stand on
the credible and accurate testimony of the victim alone. 2 Ms. Rivera clearly testified
that after she was robbed then afterwards one of the accused took her to a grassy
area and while pointing a gun successfully ravished her.

xxx xxx xxx

Atty. Makarate
Q: After they took your material possessions, what happened
next?

A: They removed their mask, and then one of them pointed a

gun at me. He then took me to the talahib beside my car,
removed my clothes and started to kiss me while caressing
my breast. The others were cheering him on while he was
raping me. I was so scared that I could not move my whole
body.3
xxx xxx xxx (Italics supplied)

2 People v. Mendoza, 292 SCRA 168, July 9, 1998.

3 TSN dated March 12, 2006 pp. 18-19.
 Furthermore, no decent and sensible woman would ever publicly admit that she was
raped since she would run the risk of public contempt, unless she was in fact a rape
victim.4 Ms. Rivera is a well known professional who did not have any criminal records
in the past. If she was not raped at all, she would not run the risk of public trial and
admit that she was indeed a rape victim.

Moreover, motive against the accused is out of the question since Ms. Rivera had
never seen any of the accused before in her entire life. The court gives credence to
testimony of the victim not only because it is corroborated by the testimonies of other
witnesses, but also because the victim did not have any motive to falsely implicate
the accused.5

II. The testimony of the private complainant as well as testimonies of other

prosecution witness clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

It must be noted that the prosecution presented four (4) credible witnesses to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve the highest
respect,6 when there is nothing to point out that the witnesses had improper motives
against the accused.7 Sometimes even the most truthful witnesses make mistakes, 8
but these minor inaccuracies only strengthen the veracity of their testimonies on the
ground that it erases the suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.9

The victim Wanda Rivera clearly identified the accused-appellant as the one who was
carrying a knife while the others took her belongings inside the car. According to her
testimony the accused Sarmiento was also the one who held her while the other
accused Yhapp was raping her. As what was declared in People v. Mendoza, 10 a clear
and accurate testimony of the victim herself is enough to warrant a conviction of rape
against the offenders.

Moreover, Ms Wandas testimony was corroborated by the testimonies by the other

prosecution witnesses the prosecution presented during the trial.

Dr. Ma. Anna Mae Quinto positively affirmed in court that there was a presence of
spermatozoa in Ms. Wandas genitalia several hours later after the incident occurred.
The Doctor also submitted to the court, as evidence, her findings after medically
examining Ms. Wanda after she was brought to the police station. The findings states:

xxx xxx xxx

Genitalia: external examination= abundant pubic hair, nulliparous
outlet, no bleeding note.
= hymen (+) complete, old healed .aceration at 4 and 7 oclock.
Speculum= vaginal wall no erosion/laceration.
Cervix= pinkish, (+) whitish discharge.

4 People v. Ching, 240 SCRA 267.

5 People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405.
6 People v. Ancheta, 419 SCRA 307.
7 People v. Abes, 420 SCRA 259.
8 People v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 98, April 15, 1988.
9 Aportadera v. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 695.
10 292 SCRA 168.
 Internal examination= admist 1 finger with ease,
Cervix= closed, small midline, firm, non-tender on wriggling,
Uterus= small,
Adnexae= negative for tenderness.
Positive for spermatozoa.11
xxx xxx xxx (Italics supplied)

The prosecution also presented as witnesses a couple, Demek and Angela

Catindoyok, who testified before seeing Ms. Rivera at the side of the road, saw three
men running towards their direction and one of them was even carrying a laptop
computer. As Mrs. Catindoyok stated in her testimony:

xxx xxx xxx

Atty Makarate:
Q: What did you see at the road while walking on the night of
February 15, 2007?

A: While me and Demek were walking along the road, it was

our first wedding anniversary then, we saw three men
running towards us, the tall one was even carrying a laptop
computer. Then we continued walking and suddenly saw Ms.
Rivera on the side of the road walking weakly and breathing
heavily. She cannot speak then that is why we brought her to
the police. Demek insisted that we first take her to the police
but upon seeing her only wearing a skirt we took her to the
hospital.12
xxx xxx xxx (Italics supplied)

III. The testimonial evidence of the private complainant as well as applicable laws and
jurisprudence clearly established conspiracy among the accused-appellants.

The prosecution presented the victim, Ms. Rivera, who testified that the three
accused were only using hand signals and head nods to give instruction to each and
everyone of them during the robbery. Afterwards the one whom she identified as the
apparent leader, Timeo Yhapp barked at the others telling them that she was too
beautiful to be true and thus Yhapp must taste her. Upon kissing her the two (2)
other accused jeered. 13 Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, when the crime is
already committed, conspiracy will not be appreciated as a separate offense but as a
manner of incurring criminal liability, the act of one is the act of all, regardless of the
extent of the participation of the other offenders. 14

Furthermore, in a long line of cases it is declared that the existence of conspiracy

need not be expressed by direct evidence it may be implied from the acts of the
accused although they dont even know each other, as what was declared in People v.
Aguilos:

xxx xxx xxx

Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. After all, secrecy
and concealment are essential features of a successful conspiracy. It
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with

11 TSN dated April 14, 2006 p. 27.

12 TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 22.
13 TSN dated March 12, 2006 p. 15.
14 Citing Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code Book 1, 16th Ed., 124(2006).
 a common purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is
proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each
other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
There may be conspiracy even if an offender does not know the
identities of the other offenders, and even though he is not aware of
all the details of the plan of operation or was not in on the scheme
from the beginning. One need only to knowingly contribute his efforts
in furtherance of it. One who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect
adopts as his own the criminal designs of his co-conspirators. 15
xxx xxx xxx (Italics supplied)

IV. The testimony of the private complainant as well as the applicable laws and
jurisprudence clearly established that the accused-appellant conspired with the
other accused in the commission of the crime.

When the prosecution presented Ms. Wanda, the victim, she positively identified the
accused-appellant Pedro Sarmiento as the one who carried the knife while opening
the door of the car, and also she identified Sarmiento as the one who held her hand
while Yhapp was raping her, and all the while the accused-appellant was jeering and
clapping his hand.16

Since Robbery with Rape17 was committed, all those who committed robbery will also
be liable for the rape committed; the conspiracy to rob is all that is needed to punish
them all as principals in the commission of the crime. 18

Although the accused-appellant testified that he was not the one who committed the
rape, he did not say that he prevented the commission of rape done by his
companion.19 The accused to be exonerated of liability in the rape must prove that he
prevented the commission of rape.20

The accused-appellant said in his testimony that he did not know the other accused.
Granting for the sake of argument that this is true, under the Doctrine of Implied
Conspiracy, the Honorable Supreme Court declared in the Aguilos case, 21 conspiracy
may exist although the offenders do not know each other as long as their acts show a
common design.

V. Positive identification by the private complainant as well as applicable

jurisprudence clearly negates the accused-appellants defense of alibi even if
corroborated by another witness.

The accused-appellant used the defense of alibi. In his testimony, he said that he
slept early that night in his house somewhere in Cubao, Quezon City. He also
presented his uncle, Dominodor Burao, as a witness to corroborate his alibi. 22 But his
allege uncles testimony is self serving then after the victim positively identified him

15 GR. 121828, June 27, 2003.

16 TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 23.
17 Revised Penal Code, Art 294.
18 People v. Mendoza, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 168.
19 TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 24.
20 People v. Mendoza, 292 SCRA 168.
21 GR. 121828, June 27, 2003
22 TSN dated March 31, 2006 p. 24.
 as one of the robbers after all of them removed their mask. As it was declared in
People v. Corpuz,23 if the alibi of the accused can only be confirmed by his relatives,
his denial of culpability deserves scant consideration, especially, in the face of
affirmative testimony of the victim as to his presence in the crime scene.

Furthermore, in order for the court to appreciate the accused-appellants defense of

alibi, it must be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during
its commission.24 Sarmiento was only said he was at his house in Cubao which is only
two (2) corners away from Lubayong Street, the area where the crime took place.

Moreover, it is a well settled rule that the defense of alibi is worthless in the face of
positive identification of prosecution witnesses 25 or the offended party.26 Ms. Rivera
positively identified Mr. Sarmiento as the one holding the knife and as the one
cheering Yhapp on while she was being ravished by the latter.27

VI. The court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nighttime in the
commission of the crime.

Aside from the fact that the crime happened during the night the victim Ms. Rivera,
testified that she always passes by Lubayong Street on her way to work. Furthermore
it is well known that Lubayong Street is one of the busiest streets in the Cubao area.
This clearly implicates that the accused would not have been successful if they carried
out their plan during the day time. That is why they waited for their victim at end of
dusk to take advantage of the silence of the night. Under the Article 14 of the Penal
Code,28 nighttime is appreciated when it was purposely sought for by the offenders.
Furthermore when the offender took advantage of nighttime or the same facilitated
the commission of the crime, nighttime need not be specifically sought for.29

VII. The pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution as well as the clear and
credible testimony of the private complainant satisfied the crucible test of
reasonable doubt to overthrow the Constitutional guaranty of presumption of
innocence and clearly established the accused-appellants guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses including the victim herself to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt withstanding the crucible test of
reasonable doubt and overthrowing the presumption of innocence of the said
appellant.

The victim Wanda Rivera positively identified all of the accused when they removed
their mask after robbing her.30 She also identified Yhapp as the one who raped her
while the accused-appellant Sarmiento was jeering her. It is a well settled rule in this
jurisdiction that an accurate and convincing testimony of the rape victim alone is

23 240 SCRA 203, (1995).

24 Ibid.
25 People v. Tansiangco, L-128164, February 28, 1964.
26 People v. Lachica, 382 SCRA 162.
27 TSN dated March 12, 2006 p. 14.
28 Revised Penal Code, Art 14, Par. 6.
29 Citing Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code Book 1, 16th Ed., 364(2006).
30 TSN dated March 12, 2006 p. 11.
 enough to warrant a conviction for rape since no decent woman would publicly admit
that she was raped and face public contempt, unless she was in fact ravished. 31

Although the victims testimony is enough to warrant conviction it was even

corroborated by the other witnesses presented by the prosecution. Dr. Quinto testified
that Ms. Rivera was positive of fresh spermatozoa and vaginal laceration upon
physical examination, after the latter was brought to her clinic. She positively stated
in her affidavit that Ms. Rivera indeed had carnal knowledge during the time when
she examined her.32

Moreover, the prosecution presented a couple, Demek and Angela Catindoyok that
found Ms. Rivera traumatized by the side walk at Lubayong Street in Cubao. 33 Angela
Catindoyok even testified that she saw the three men running towards their direction
and one of them was carrying a laptop as the place where they incidentally met was
illuminated by post lights in the said street.34
PRAYER

VIEWED IN THE FOREGOING LIGHT, it is respectfully prayed for that the instant appeal be
DENIED for lack of merit.

Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

March 31, 2006 Manila City, Philippines

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

#234 Palack St, GSIS Building,
Brgy. Vito Cruz, Manila, Philippines
By
Dioxenos Barreras Sulit
Associate Solicitor General

Copy Furnished
Atty. Zelpidio Paparan
Epal Law Office
LTA, Bldg. Salcedo Village, Makati
Counsel of the Accused-appellant
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Petitioner,

31 People v. Mendoza, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 168.

32 TSN dated March 12, 2006 pp. 8-9.
33 TSN dated March 12, 2006 pp. 14-15.
34 Ibid.
 GR NO. 11-2015
-versus-

LUCKY BAUTISTA
Respondent.

/------------------------------------------------/

PETITION FOR REVIEW

(Rule 45)

PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a petition for review pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Taguig, Branch 8, entitled MARY JANE BOGMALI vs. LUCKY BAUTISTA, which dismissed 's
(now petitioner's) complaint, upon plaintiff's (now respondent's) motion to dismiss on the ground that it stated no
valid cause of action, which dismissal was affirmed by the trial court when it denied the motion for reconsideration.
Only questions of law are raised, there being no factual issues involved.

THE PARTIES

Petitioner is of legal age and is the plaintiff in said Civil Case No. 2014-12, RTC BR. 8, Taguig
City.

Respondent is also of legal age and is the defendant in Civil Case No. 2014-12, RTC Br. 8, Taguig
City. He may be served with legal process through his counsel, Atty. TMZ, with office address at S and A Building,
Juan Luna St., Taguig City.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

On November 20, 2014, petitioner received copy of the decision of the RTC BR. 8 of Taguig City
in Criminal Case No. 2014-12. Certified true copy of said decision is attached hereto as ANNEX "A".

On December 4, 2014 or within the 15-day period from receipt of said decision stated in ANNEX
"A", petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration of said decision, copy of which motion for reconsideration is
attached hereto as ANNEX "B".

On December 8, 2014, petitioner received a copy of the order of the trial court denying said
motion for reconsideration. Certified true copy of said order is attached hereto as ANNEX "C".

This instant petition is filed within the 15-day period from receipt on December 8, 2014 denying
the motion for reconsideration.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED

The factual background and proceedings are as follows:

l.1 Lucky Bautista is a fifty seven (57) years old man who drives a passenger jeep as a means of
livelihood. The private complainant, Christine dela Cruz is the niece of the accused who was then
studying at Sampaloc Elementary School, Taguig 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 March 24 and March 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;

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 July 9, 2014.

ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE RESPONDENT FOR FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO CITE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IGNORED THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT IN
FACT AND INDEED, SIGNED VALIDLY, WITHOUT FORCE OR INTIMIDATION, THE CONTRACT OF LOAN.

III. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT GIVE COGNIZANCE TO THE
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS PRESENTED BY PETITIONER CLEARLY SHOWING THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER
WHICH RESPONDENT SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO.

ERRORS COMMITTED BY TRIAL COURT

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
RESPONDENT FOR FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO CITE A CAUSE OF ACTION.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IGNORED THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT IN FACT AND
INDEED, SIGNED VALIDLY, WITHOUT FORCE OR INTIMIDATION, THE CONTRACT OF LOAN.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DID NOT GIVE COGNIZANCE TO THE DOCUMENTARY
EXHIBITS PRESENTED BY PETITIONER CLEARLY SHOWING THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER WHICH
RESPONDENT SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO.

GROUNDS OR REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL

1. The appeal should be granted as it was filed within the reglementary period of 15 days.

2. The appeal should be granted as there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to the
petitioner.

3. The appeal should be granted as substantial injustice was committed against the rights of the petitioner,
which rights were ignored by the trial court.

4. The appeal should be granted as manifest violation of petitioner's rights to property were not protected.

DISCUSSION

1. On November 20, 2015, herein petitioner received the order to the Regional Trial Court, Br. 8 of Taguig
City denying the latter's motion for reconsideration with regards the order of the aforesaid court dated September 7,
2015, on September 20, 2015, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration as against said order which the trial
court granted on September 28, 2015, agreeing with respondents contention that petitioner failed to cite cause of
action. On October 5, 2015, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration over the same which the trial court denied in
its order received by petitioner on November 20, 2015. On December 5, 2015 or 15 days after the receipt of the
order denying the motion for reconsideration herein petitioner filed this instant petition for review under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Despite diligent efforts made by petitioner to secure all the proper documents to support his interests and
to demand payment from respondent, the trial court ruled in favor of the latter, causing great prejudice to the rights
of herein petitioner. Being that no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy is available, this petition was hereby
availed of.

3. The respondent failed to pay the loan third and last installment of the loan due on February 15, 2015 as
stipulated in the Loan Contract and duly signed by the respondent.

4. The petitioner's rights to his property were violated when the trial court ignored the substantial and
overwhelming evidence against the respondent.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that
judgment be rendered in favor of the petitioner and for the grant of the following:

1. That the petition be given due course;

2. That after due proceedings, judgment be rendered setting aside the questioned decision and
ordering annex "J" hereof be set aside and a new one be rendered.

3. Ordering the respondent to pay the petitioner the following sums:

a. The amount of ONE MILLION AND FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (1,050,000) , for
damages

b. Costs of suit.

4. Petitioner likewise prays for other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the premises are similarly
prayed for.

Taguis City, Philippines. December 5, 2015.

 Castroverde, Leonida, Enabore, Piga and Associates (C.L.E.P.)
Law and Accounting Offices
Counsel for Defendant
Suite 007, 2nd Floor, S&A Realty Building
221 Avenida Veteranos , Makati City
Tel. No. (053) 321-5180/09399267777
E-mail: clep.law@gmail.com

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, AB, of legal age, after having been duly sworn, deposes and states that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above stated case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the said complaint for collection of sum of money with damages;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and/or on the basis of the documents and records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the any tribunal,
agency or body;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending before any tribunal,
agency or body;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed before any tribunal, agency or body, I
undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

Executed this 5th day of December 2015 at Makati City, Philippines.

AB
Affiant
T.I.N. 216-777-222, Makati City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 5th day of December 2015, affiant exhibiting to me his Tax
Identification Card as shown above below her name as competent evidence of his identity.

ATTY. KERBY ENABORE

Counsel for Defendant
Roll No. 5000
IBP No. 011 Lifetime
PTR No. 70 - 1/2/14 Leyte
MCLE Compliance IV No. 001234
Issued on January 12, 2013

Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 2;
Book No. II;
Series of 2014.

Copy furnished:

Clerk of Court
RTC BR. 8, TaguigCity
Date of Receipt: ______________________
Signature: __________________________

Atty. TMZ
Counsel for Respondent
S and A Building, Juan Luna St.
Taguig City

Date of Receipt:___________________
Signature:__________________