Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila Region
Manila, Branch 001

People of the Philippines and

NAGPA LOKO,

Criminal Case No. 16-123456-7

(Serious Illegal Detention in relation
to Section 5 (par. A,D,E,F and I) of
Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence
against Women and their Children
Act of 2004)

-versusTAY LOKO
Defendant
x----------------------------------x
DEFENDANT'S POSITION PAPER
DEFENDANT unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit
this position Paper:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On 15 June 2016, plaintiff filed its complaint before the Regional Trial
Court Manila Branch 1 against Manlo Loko, Nay Loko and herein defendant
for Serious Illegal Detention in relation to RA 9262 or otherwise known as
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT, the
same docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-123456-7.
In its complaint, plaintiff admitted that she and Manlo Loko were
husband and wife and has begotten a daughter named Luko Loko who is
afflicted with Mild Autism. The marriage according to the plaintiff was a
peaceful one until the time Manlo started gambling and alcohol addiction
and later lost his job. Consequently, due to incapacity to provide for his own
family, Manlo, Nagpa and Luko had to live with the former's parents, Nay
Loko, and herein defendant, to be given support for indeterminate period.
The offense allegedly committed by the accused originated at the
time the plaintiff and her daughter began living with her parents-in-law (thus
includes defendant). That she was allegedly maltreated by them and was
forced to resign from her previous employment as a maid in Getz Hotel.

This incident prompted plaintiff to change residence and subsequently filed

a Child Support case against all three accused. The incident that happened
thereafter, brought the case at hand; plaintiff asserted that a heated
argument between her and all the accused ensued which caused the latter
to illegally detain her and her daughter from May 16, 2016 to June 15,
2016.
That on June 15, 2016, Nay Loko voluntarily surrendered implicating
defendant on the crime of Illegal Detention and her son Manlo Loko for
allegedly witnessing the latter on the act of raping his daughter Luko Loko.
A warrant of arrest was immediately issued against defendant and Manlo,
however, the latter evaded arrest and presently remains at large.
Defendant is now facing criminal charges for allegedly committing a
crime of Serious Illegal Detention and violation of RA 9262 or the AntiViolence against Women and their Children on the ground of conspiracy.
On the Arraignment proceeding held on 30 June 2016, defendant
pleaded NOT GUILTY, the Honorable Court thereby directed the parties to
file their respective position paper, hence, the submission of this position
paper
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant intends to be represented solely by his counsels and to
have a separate trial from the other accused.
Sometime in February 2014, defendant while taking a nap in his
bedroom woke up on the sound of a group of 3 or 4 people having
conversation at the dining area. A few moments later, his wife, Nay Loko,
emerged at the said room and informed him that his son Manlo arrived
together with his wife (plaintiff) and their daughter Luko. She added that
they were carrying with them all their things and would like to ask
permission if they could stay at the defendant's residence temporarily.
Knowing that Manlo just got laid off from work and has no savings to
provide a decent living for his family, he agreed and suggested that Manlo's
family can occupy the only vacant room situated on the basement.
Defendant was not oblivious about Manlo's behavior and tainted
relationship with plaintiff. He heard shouts and invectives coming from the
basement every now and then so he would tell his wife to pacify the couple
for the sake of their daughter Luko.
In 2010, defendant suffered from stroke and his left arm and both
legs have been severely affected by paralysis. Since then, he could only do
minor and light movement from his right upper and lower extremities. His
bedroom is located on the ground floor and he never had an opportunity to

go down the basement due to his physical condition and on the fact that he
rely on a wheel chair for movement, thus he cannot traverse the stairs
going down the basement.
Living under the same roof, defendant admitted that he expected the
plaintiff to do household chore for it is customary for women, especially a
wife and a mother, to help in doing chores. However, plaintiff seemed to
have no initiative and willingness to extend help at home. He have seen her
wife several times on the act of giving orders to plaintiff to clean the house,
take care of Luko and wash their clothes and dishes. But little did he know
that the plaintiff considered this as a form of abuse and maltreatment.
Neither he nor his wife treated her like a "kasambahay".
Plaintiff's contention that defendant and the other accused forced her
to resign from work had no solid basis. It must be remembered that Manlo
at that time had no source of income and the fact that plaintiff was the only
one employed and for her to let her lose her job and take care of Luko full
time would be outright impractical. Regardless of how meager her salary
was, still, it should be noted that her salary can lessen their financial
burden. What defendant remembered were plaintiff's incessant complaints
about not being well compensated and one day he heard about her
intention of resigning and planning to look for a new job. She did resign
from her work at Getz Hotel according to her own volition.
Fights and arguments between Manlo and plaintiff had become more
frequent leading to that day in November 2014 that Manlo informed
defendant and Nay that plaintiff and Luko left their house. Nay found out
that plaintiff and Luko's items were gone as well.
Defendant only came to know about the decision on Child Support
against him and the other accused during his arraignment. Contrary to what
the plaintiff contends, defendant had no idea that a decision for Child
Support has been instigated and that he was included in the prayer for
specific performance. He questioned the evidence presented by the
prosecution which is the decision for Child Support (EXHIBIT A) in favor of
the plaintiff was dated 15 June 2014, whereas, in her answer to question
No. 21 of her judicial affidavit (EXHIBIT B) she mentioned that she applied
the petition for Child Support in December 2014. Clearly, there is
inconsistency with the facts and evidence presented. The validity and
credibility of these documents should be doubted against the plaintiff and
not be given weight.
Defendant heard from one neighbor that plaintiff and Luko were living
in an apartment in a nearby Barangay. The neighbor said that she had a
chance to speak with plaintiff when she saw her at a wet market.
Concerned about the welfare of his grandchild, defendant in fact deposited
some money to plaintiff's bank account. He was able to get hold of her
bank details upon requesting the said neighbor to obtain it from plaintiff on
his behalf. It was through the same neighbor who defendant requested to

deposit the money to plaintiff's bank account as he cannot do so due to his

physical condition.
On 16 May 2016, plaintiff and Luko arrived at his residence late
afternoon. Plaintiff's disposition was quite aggressive. Witnessing an
argument between Manlo and plaintiff, defendant shouted at them to stop
quarreling, being unheard, experiencing dizziness and difficulty in breathing
he asked his wife to push the wheelchair he is sitting on into his room.
From there, he could hear shouts coming from the dining area where
plaintiff was asking Manlo for money, he heard her say "Iresponsable ka!
Walakang silbi! Tustusan mo ang anak mo!". Shouts from plaintiff soon
stopped and he heard their steps as they go down to the basement.
The following day, he suffered from difficulty in breathing and was
confined at Philippine General Hospital from May 17, 2016 until the
morning June 15, 2016. When he was discharged from the hospital, he
asked why he never got to see the plaintiff and Luko eat with them at the
dining area, Nay and Manlo would answer that plaintiff was sick or Luko
was having hostile behavior.
On the afternoon of 15 June 2016 much to the defendant's surprise, a
police officer knocked at the door and thereafter asked for Manlo. He called
Manlo to go up from the basement but there was no reply. The next thing
he knew was that he was at the back of the police officer's car with his
hands cuffed, despite his frail condition and while on a wheelchair. He saw
his wife behind the police officer crying, when she asked her what
happened she was never allowed to speak.
By reason of the foregoing, defendant was ordered to secure the
services of a lawyer to defend his case, thus, the representation of the
undersigned counsels.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION IN
CONSONANCE WITH ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
CHILDREN CASES AS CONSPIRATOR APPLYING THE SUPPLETORY
CHARACTER OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE TO SPECIAL LAWS.
DISCUSSION
Under RA 9262, Violence against women and their children is defined
as any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman
who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has
or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common

child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without

the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.
While the accused is not covered in the definition of the criminal act,
the Supreme Court in the case of Tan v. Tan (GR No. 16882) held that R.A
9262 does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under
the Revised Penal Code, thus even parents-in-law can be held liable. In
conspiracy, co-conspirators are equally liable, regardless of the extent or
nature their participation.
However, none of the affidavits and documents submitted by the
plaintiff had proven the existence of neither express nor implied conspiracy
beyond reasonable doubt.
We submit the following arguments:
1.
Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself
amount to conspiracy.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner
performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. The
evidence presented to show what had transpired on June 15, 2016 is the
Judicial Affidavit which narrated the following:
22. Q. Kailan ito nangyari?
A. May 16, 2016.
23. Q. Bakit kayo namaltrato ulit?
A. Dahil po ayaw po talaga nila makipag-ayos. Na Bakit daw po
nagpetisyon ako ng sustento, kasalanan ko naman daw pong umalis ako
sa kanila. Nagkasagutan po kami at dahil po doon, hinila nila po ako
pababa. Ipinasok po nila ako sa basement po nila. Kinadena po nila ako
sa isang kama doon, at saka isinara ang pinto. Tapos nun.
24. Q. Matapos po nun, Misis, ano ang nangyari?
A. Matapos po nun, sinunod nilang ikulong ang anak naming. Hindi na po
sila naaawa na kahit may kapansanan si Luko, ikinulong pa din nila. Wala
po silang awa. Kahit anong pagmamakaawa ko po ni isa sa kanila, wala
pong tumulong sa amin ni Luko. Papakawalan lang daw po nila kami
kapag iaatras daw po naming yung sustento. Yun lang daw po
makakatulong samin sabi nila.
25. Q. Sinong sila po ang tinutukoy niyo misis?
A. Ang asawat mga biyenan ko po.

Further, the prosecution submitted the Record of Investigation

describing the incident as follows:

She filed a case for child support case on December 01, 2014 and won the case
sometime on May this year, days after winning the case sometime on May 16,
Manlo visited his estranged wife and daughter asking them to come back home
with him and fix things up. Nagpa, convinced that all will be well again, went with
his husband and daughter to his husbands paternal house. There, a heated
conversation transpired regarding the child support case; thus Manlo illegally
detained his wife and daughter in a basement with no communication to
anyone (emphasis ours), with Nagpa being chained to bed

As testified by the lone prosecution witness, plaintiff Nagpa, merely

accused Nay, Manlo and the defendant of illegally detaining her. She did
not specify the nature of defendants involvement in the commission of the
crime, either by a direct act of participation, a direct inducement of his coconspirator, or cooperating in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished. Apparently, the only
semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that he was
present when the crime happened.
The prosecution merely relied and pegged the defendants criminal
liability on its sweeping theory of conspiracy, which to us, was not attendant
in the commission of the crime
The failure to specify any overt act of the accused in the detention
would lead to conjectures which would negate the existence of conspiracy.
In Ledonga v. People the Supreme Court held that:
Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere
presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even
knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose.

None in any of the plaintiff's affidavit and submitted documents had

expressed a statement that defendant had an active participation neither
express nor implied when she and Luko were detained and deprived of
liberty for a period of one month. Mere presence of defendant at his abode
does not qualify a community of design with Manlo and Nay Loko. To be
part of the conspiracy the accused must be shown to have performed an
overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy, for without being
shown to do so none can be held as a co-conspirator.
2.
The testimonies of the plaintiff as to who detained her, in the
Judicial Affidavit were inconsistent with the Records of Investigation,
having the effect of discrediting her.

In the case of People vs. Crispin, the Supreme Court held that the
record of the preliminary investigation does not form part of the regional
trial court records unless introduced as evidence during the trial. Absent
such introduction, the records of preliminary investigation cannot be treated
as evidence in court; neither may the trial court be compelled to take
judicial notice of the same. A careful review of the documents of this case,
however, will show that the plaintiff presented, and formally offered as
evidence, the Records of Investigation (EXHIBIT C).
In her Judicial Affidavit (EXHIBIT B), in answering questions 22-25,
she accused the defendant, her mother-in-law and her husband to have
detained her, in stark contrast to the conclusion of the Records of
Investigation that There, a heated conversation transpired regarding the
child support case; thus Manlo illegally detained his wife and daughter in a
basement with no communication to anyone (emphasis ours), with Nagpa
being chained to bed.
This inconsistency do not refer to minor detail but it refers to the
material element of the crime, it cast doubt on whether there is participation
of the accused in the serious illegal detention.
It cannot be said that the plaintiff had no reason to falsely testify, after
the alleged abuses of the son and grudge she had on misinterpreting
household chores as maltreatment, the plaintiff would like to extend her
vengeance to the accused.
3.
The physical impossibility and lack of motive to harm his
granddaughter and daughter-in-law negates the testimony of
conspiracy on the part of plaintiff.
It should be noted again that defendant suffered stroke that rendered
both legs and right arm paralyzed, and is relying on a wheel chair for
movement since 2010. (EXHIBIT D) He could not go down to the basement
since being on a wheel chair he could not navigate going down the stairway
to the basement. Further, he was confined during the period of detention,
as evidenced by the certification of the Philippine General Hospital
(EXHIBIT D-1).
It should also be emphasized that him being a party to the child
support case is questionable. Nevertheless, he loves his granddaughter
and daughter-in-law very much that he would have no motive to hurt them.
He was actually giving support voluntarily by depositing money to plaintiffs
bank account (EXHIBIT E). He only stopped depositing when he ran out of
money due to additional expensive maintenance medicine that drained his
meager pension benefits.

When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely

circumstantial or inconclusive, motive is vital. As held in Crisostomo v.
Sandiganbayan (G.R 152398), motive is generally held to be immaterial
because it is not an element of the crime. However, motive becomes
important when the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely
circumstantial or inconclusive. Motive is thus vital in this case.
CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for prosecutions failure to prove an overt act, doubt

on the plaintiffs credibility, impossibility to participate in the detention due to
physical defect, hospitalization during the detention period and lack of
motive to harm his granddaughter and daughter-in-law, the defense prays
for dismissal of the case.

City of Manila, August 01, 2016.

GROUP FOUR & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Tay Loko, Defendant
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
By:
Andaleon, Jeomar G.
Barrera, ArisseJannah B.
Bobong, Setie Naira P.
Dulawan, Jonef D.
Kagaoan, Noami Faye Q.
Magtoles, Kristine Joyce M.
Nagallo, Fannie M.
Pitpit, Gercel
Copy Furnished:
Jethro Marion J. Aviante
Stephanie Mendoza
Celsa Faustino
Peter Zurbito
Jacques Honrales
Alvin Estareja
Albert Acobo