July 12, 2019

Rolando De Guzman y Villanueva

Tarlac City, Philippines

Dear Mr. Villanueva,

Here is the legal opinion you requested regarding the case at hand. I will reinstate the facts of the
case, then I will provide an explanation of the law as to whether you are convicted of the charge
“qualified rape.”

The version of the prosecution states that on the night of May 13, 2006, your daughter whose
identity was not disclosed by the prosecution, at that time was 14 years old, was in your home at Tarlac
City, together with you and her two brothers. At around 10:30 pm, she was awakened from her sleep thus
finding out that you were on the top of her and alleged in kissing her neck. The prosecution further stated
that you allegedly kissed her chest and beasts and her genitals and that she kept quiet due to the presence
of a bladed weapon pointed on her side. Thus, you threatened her as she asked you to stop, but to no avail.
The prosecution testified following from the statement of the victim that there was an insertion of the
genitals and the execution of push-and-pull movements which was accordingly followed by an
ejaculation.

Sometime in the first week of April 2007, the former incident was followed by the same instance
as the victim was watching television and that she was pulled towards the bedroom. After the incident, the
brother of the victim reported the incident to their mother that something happened to the victim thus, the
victim herself confessed to them that you indeed raped her.

The accusations against you was attested by the medical examination of the victim which states
that she had “deep laceration at 7 [o’] clock position (+) complete healed laceration at 5 [o’] clock
position.

In your efforts to deny the said allegations, my opinion is that the court may rule to convict you
will two counts of qualified rape as it follows that the qualifying circumstances were present beyond
reasonable doubt. Considering that there was an element of force and intimidation and carnal knowledge
of the victim. It may be further stated that the victim, in her confidence, identified your identity as she
described vividly the incident as it appeared in two occasions which, in consequence, will deny any future
appeal.

This is based on the provisions of the Republic Act No. 8353 or also known as “The Anti-Rape
Law of 1997”, which penalizes rape with the presence of the following elements based on the Article
266-A of the said act: 1) by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any
circumstances: a) through force, threat, or intimidation; b) when the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d)
when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances above be present; 2) by any person under any circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1
hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal
orifice of another person.
 The success of this case for the benefit of your defense relies on your effort in persuading the
court that the facts presented are not true by presenting strong evidences which will falsify the
aforementioned statements of the victim.

If you have clarifications or if there are any misstatements of facts in this letter, please don’t
hesitate to contact me when possible.

Most Sincerely,

Jhon Leamarch R. Baliguat