Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Province of Surigao Del Norte
Surigao City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 324

-versus- For: RAPE (Art. 335, par(3),
Revised Penal Code

JOSE P. GONZALEZ,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
(For the Respondent)

RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this
Memorandum in the above-entitled case and aver that:

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

The prosecution failed to establish the elements for

the crime of rape under Art.335, par. (3) of the Revised
Penal Code and failed to present clear and convincing
evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
respondent herein named committed the offense as
charged.
II.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
1. That Jose A. Gonzales, Filipino, of legal age, married a
police officer residing at barangay taft baybay parola,
Surigao City
2. That the precise year allege in the complaint, that was
2016 to 2018, respondent PO1 JOSE A. GONZALEZ was
being assigned in the Office of Police Station PNP PRO 13
CARAGA in Butuan City.
3. That there is no basis that the said victim was a minor at
the
time of the commission of an offense.
4. That the lady name Ms. Areola Marrie L. Malibugan is not
a minor looking but a claimed lady during that time.
5. That the respondent haven't done anything wrong against
the said woman. On the other hand, He has shown his
sincere regard to the lady and very well performed his
responsibilities like that of a true friend to her. And that
was the only time that JOSE and ARIOLA MARRIE
meet and see each other.
6. That during December 15, 2016, March 3, 2017, and
September 17, 2018, the respondent was being
assigned in Butuan City, living in the apartment together
with respondent’s wife and it was physically impossible for
the respondent to commit a crime of rape in the allege year
against the said minor allege in the herein complaint.
7. That there is no sufficient evidence was submitted to
support that the respondent committed sexual encounters
against the allege minor that would constitute probable
cause to endanger a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that herein respondent is probably
guilty thereof.
8. The prosecution failed to establish the elements for
the crime of Statutory Rape and failed to present clear
and convincing evidence to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the respondent herein named committed the
offense as charged.
9. One who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it,
sincere
mere allegations is not evidence. Equally, it is a basic rule in
evidence that he who alleges must prove his case or claim by
degree of evidence required.
III.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the defendant is guilty of Statutory

Rape?

IV.
ARGUMENTS

THE DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF

ARTICLE(Art. 335, par (3), Revised Penal Code)FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:

I. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISHED ALL THE

ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE
1. Revised Penal Code defines RAPE:
Article 335. When and how Rape is committed.
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1) By using force or intimidation;
2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3) When the woman is under (12) twelve years of age or
is demented.

2.The elements that would constitute the crime of RAPE

under Art. 266-A, par. 1 (a) of RA 8353 are:
A) Carnal knowledge
B) Force or intimidation and the commission of the act
without consent, or
C) Against the will of the victim

A careful examination of the evidence presented shows

that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the
crime of rape.

Evidently, the complainant is creating a whole story of

lies. For one, she alleged that she was raped by the
respondent at the night of their first bonding together In
Surigao.

The testimony of the complainant clearly showed that

her allegations are mere manipulations of facts that cannot
be supported by her own testimony. For once, how can a
person commit rape to the allege victim when the repondent
shown his sincere regard to the lady and very well
performed his responsibilities like that of a true friend to
her?

It must be noted that this is a criminal case, hence,

speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for proof
required to established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In criminal case, every circumstance
favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken
into account.

On the whole then, the scanty evidence for the

prosecution casts serious doubts as to the guilt of the
accused. It does not pass the test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence which
the Bill of Rights guarantees the accused. It is apropos to
repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to
the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the
prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence
with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

II. RAPE WAS NOT PROVED BY THE CORROBORATIVE

TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT

The testimony of the offended party most often is the

only one available to prove directly the commission of rape.
The testimony, however, must be conclusive, logical and
probable. (People vs. Landicho, C.A. O.G. 3767)

In reviewing the evidence adduced in the prosecution for

the crime of rape, a well-known principle that the evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of
the evidence for the defense. (People vs. Villapana, 101
SCRA)

I. MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND MEDICAL CERTIFICATE

ARE MERELY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE
 A medical examination and a medical certificate are
merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the
prosecution of a rape case. (People vs. Orilla, G.R. 148939,
February 13, 2004)

V. CONCLUSION

Mr. JOSE A. GONZALEZ reiterates his plea of not

guilty and the dismissal of the case. From the foregoing, it
is clear that this case cannot prosper. And so, Respondent,
prays that this case be dismissed for utter lack of basis, and
all other equitable reliefs prayed for.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Defense

respectfully requests that the Trial accept the foregoing
request as fully dismissed under the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence.

VI.PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, it

is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in
favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff by
finding JOSE GONZALEZ not guilty for the commission
of the crime of rape under Art. 335 par. 3 or the
Revised Penal Code.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Surigao City, August 28, 2020.

ATTY. JINGLE MERRY G. GERANDOY

Counsel of the Defendant
IBP lifetime Member No. 088516
PTR No. 6554392, Jan. 2, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 52976, 3/20/19
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0036549 valid until April 2020
P. Reyes, Surigao City

And
 ATTY. BEMAR F. CARANAY
Co-Counsel of the Defendant
IBP lifetime Member No. 675893
PTR No. 6554392, Jan. 10, 2020
Roll of Attorney No. 53671, 3/20/19
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0036549 valid until April 2020
Magallanes street, Surigao City

Copy Furnished:

ROGER DIMAAMPAO
Purok 6, brgy. San Juan
Surigao City, Surigao Del Norte

JOSE ROLLY B. GONZAGA

Assistant City Prosecutor
IBP No. 534585; 03/10/2015- Quezon City
PTR No. 64936; 03/10/2015- Quezon City
Roll No. 061793; 02/17/2015
MCLE No. 5-321; 01/15/17