Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch XXX
Makati City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

CRIMINAL CASE No. 15-

XX
FOR: RAPE
ALBERTO MIAGAO,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
PRIVATE COMPLAINANT, by counsel, to this Honorable Court,
respectfully submits this memorandum and avers:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The accused was charged with the crime of rape committed against his
stepdaughter, Bernadette. On his defense, the accused contends that it was
physically impossible for him to be the culprit as he was in Davao City. The
accused further claims that
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On April 16, 2015, around 10 o'clock in the morning, then seventeenyear old Bernadette, upon her arrival in their house situated in Makati City,
saw the accused, her stepfather, then wearing a black mask. He suddenly
held her and raped her several times. As she was being raped, she knew that
the rapist was her stepfather for he is wearing a perfume similar to that of
her stepfather frequently uses. She cried for help. Luckily, Franco arrived
and brought her to the hospital and reported the incident to the police.
Bernadette immediately informed her mother, Ysabel, about the sexual
assault upon the latters return from Davao City.
ISSUES
I

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page

WHETHER
ACCUSED
ALBERTO
MIAGAO RAPED BERNADETTE.
II
WHETHER ALBERTOS DENIAL AND
ALIBI
DESERVES
SCANT
CONSIDERATION.
III
WHETHER
OR
NOT
THE
TESTIMONIES OF BERNADETTE
DESERVE CREDENCE.
IV
WHETHER
THE
QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
MINORITY CAN BE APPRECIATED
AGAINST THE ACCUSED.

DISCUSSION
Whether accused Alberto Miagao
raped Bernadette
The accused argues that his identification by Bernadette as her rapist
is doubtful and cannot serve as the basis of his conviction, as it was settled
that her ravisher was wearing a black mask. Hence, it was improbable for
her to positively identify him as her assailant. She only presumed that it was
him on account of his perfume.
When there are no eyewitnesses to a crime, resort to circumstantial
evidence become almost certainly unavoidable (People v. Rayos, G.R. No.
133823, February 7, 2001). Taking the pieces of evidence in the case at bar
in their entirety unmistakably points to the guilt, not innocence, of the
accused.

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page

In People v. Besmonte, G. R. Nos. 137278-79 February 17, 2003, the

Supreme Court held that the sense of smell, in the right circumstances, might
be a reliable mode of identification, but it could also prove to be tenuous if it
were the sole source of identification under circumstances that leave much
room for other probabilities to contend with.
In the instant case, it was not disputed that Bernadette had lived in the
same house with Alberto for years prior to the incident. As her stepfather, it
can be inferred that Alberto had treated her almost like a daughter. Thus, the
basis for her identification was her long familiarity with Alberto prior to the
sexual assault. Bernadette was familiar with his perfume. No doubt she
could perceive and recognize that smell at the time of sexual contact. At that
time, Bernadette was as close to Alberto as was physically possible, for a
man and a woman cannot be physically closer to each other than during a
sexual act (People v. Paldo, G.R. No. 200515, December 11, 2013).
Under the circumstances, Bernadette was able to perceive who her
rapist was and to make known that perception. Nor is there any reason to
doubt her sincerity to tell the truth, for there is no showing at all by the
defense that she charged Alberto with rape due to an evil or corrupt motive.
In view of the foregoing, there is not much room to doubt the positive
identification on account of the victims olfactory faculties.

Whether Albertos denial and alibi

deserves scant consideration
Accused Alberto vehemently denies the accusation and interposed the
defense of alibi that he was in Davao on April 16, 2015, and the incident
happened on a Thursday, when he usually leaves to Davao.
The accused is clutching at straws.
It is an oft-repeated principle that alibi is an inherently weak argument
that can be easily fabricated to suit the ends of those who seek its recourse.
Thus, an alibi must be supported by the most convincing evidence a
credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses. (People v. Tolentino,
G.R. No. 187740, April 10, 2013). To merit approbation the burden of proof
is shifted to the accused. The accused must adduce clear and convincing
evidence that he was in a place other than the situs criminis at the time the
crime was committed, such that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime when it was committed. (People v. Rosales,
G.R. No. 197537, July 24, 2013).
In the present case, appellant failed to prove that it was physically

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page

impossible for him to be at the crime scene on April 16, 2015, a Thursday,
the date of the sexual abuse. While it is settled that he regularly leaves
Manila to Davao City during Thursdays and returns during Sundays, he
failed to show clear and convincing evidence that he was not in their home
during that day. His dastardly acts could have been committed before or
when he is about to leave on that day. Moreover, his testimony that he was in
Davao on July 18, 2015 and that it was a Thursday; when in fact July 18,
2015 was a Saturday and that the sexual assault was committed on April 16,
2015, is indicative of an inconsistency and casts serious doubts as to the
veracity of his alibi. To which, the same must be rejected as a shallow alibi
of a person desperate in exculpating himself from liability.
At any rate, it is settled that alibi cannot prevail over the victim's
positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime,
particularly when there is no plausible imputation of ill motive on the
victims part to falsely implicate the accused.
Whether or not the testimonies of
Bernadette deserve credence.
The accused essentially assails the credibility of Bernadette. He
argues that the testimonies of Bernadette do not deserve credence. However,
in this case, the testimonies of Bernadette is credible for being categorical,
straightforward, and consistent.
Indeed, courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl
who fell victim to sexual assault, especially a minor, particularly in rape as
in this case, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial
and bear the concomitant shame, humiliation, and dishonor of exposing her
own degradation were it not for the purpose of condemning injustice and
ensuring that the offender is punished (People v. Garte, G.R. No. 176152,
November 25, 2008).
It bears emphasis that Bernadette was only seventeen (17) years old
when she was raped. In a litany of cases, the Supreme Court has applied the
well-settled rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she
has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape
was committed, for as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. No
young girl, indeed, would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape
at the hands of a close kin and then subject herself to the stigma and
embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive were other than an earnest
desire to seek justice. Certainly, Bernadettes testimony is entitled to great
weight especially when she accuses Alberto of having ravished her. For
there can be ascribed no greater motivation for a woman abused by her own

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page

kin than that innate yearning of the human spirit to declare the truth to
obtain justice (People v. Capareda, G.R. No. 128363, May 27, 2004).
At any rate, even without the corroborative evidence of a medical
examination or medical certificate, the Supreme Court has consistently held
in a long line of cases that the credible disclosure of a minor that the accused
raped her is the most important proof of sexual abuse (People v. De Jesus,
G.R. No. 190622, October 7, 2013).
Notably, Bernadettes failure to stop the rape did not weaken her
testimony and enfeeble the case for the prosecution. Besides, Bernadette
immediately informed Ysabel upon the latters return of the horrible ordeal
suffered by her in the hands of the accused.
Neither can it be said that Bernadette was merely coached as a witness
by her mother. It is highly unthinkable that a mother would draw her minor
child into a rape story with all its attendant scandal and humiliation if the
rape did not really happen. No mother in her right mind would possibly
stoop so low as to subject her daughter with the stigma that follows the
despicable crime of rape. It is unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as
an engine of malice, especially if it will subject her daughter to
embarrassment and hardships. It is hard to believe that a mother would
sacrifice her own daughter and present her to be the subject of a public trial
if she, in fact, has not been motivated by an honest desire to have the culprit
punished (People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 186533, August 9, 2010).
Whether the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of minority can be
appreciated against the accused.
In People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002, the Supreme
Court formulated a set of guidelines that will serve as jurisprudential
benchmark in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifying circumstance in order to address the seemingly conflicting court
decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the victim's age in rape
cases. The Pruna guidelines are as follows:
1.
The best evidence to prove the age of the offended
party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live
birth of such party.
2.
In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar
authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school
records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice
to prove age.

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page

3.
If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is
shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a
member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient
under the following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7
years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
12 years old.;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age
and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
18 years old.

4.
In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives
concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will
suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the
accused.
5.
It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the
age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to
the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against
him.
6.
The trial court should always make a categorical
finding as to the age of the victim.

In this case, the accused has been living with the victim for years. In
fact, he even testified that he has shown special affection to her. Hence, it is
beyond dispute that the age of Bernadette was known to him.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that Bernadettes certificate of live
birth is spurious, accuseds personal knowledge that Bernadette was below
eighteen (18) years old around the time of the rape incident, taken with
supporting testimonies, sufficiently proved Bernadettes minority.
All told, the accused can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The
defense of denial and alibi as well as the other points raised by appellant
failed to cast even a scintilla of doubt on his culpability.

PRAYER

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

accused...
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are also prayed for.
City of Manila for Makati City, September 8, 2015.

Associate
Roll of Attorneys No. 00001
IBP Lifetime No. 00001
MCLE Compliance N. III-0000001
September 8, 2015

HEZRON BRUL
MARK DUNGO
IRISH GARCIA
HILATE GUERRA
ROMY M. JABIAR
REDENTOR LOMIBAO
ANDY MATULA
ANTONIO VITAN
BRUDUGAGUJALOMAVI LAW OFFICE
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Tel No. 8-7000
EXPLANATION
Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
service on the adverse counsel is being done by registered mail due to lack
of manpower to effect personal service.

Senior State Solicitor

MEMORANDUM
People vs. Alberto Miagao
Criminal Case No. 15-XX
x-----------------------------x

page