Appellant’s Brief

People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Chua

Page 1 of 3

x-------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
National Capital Judicial Region
Ermita, Manila
THIRD DIVISION

JIMMY CHUA
Accused-Appellant,

- versus - CA-GR. No. 1234-2010

For: Rape under Article 266 – A
Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE

Complainant-Appellee, by counsel, and to this Honorable Court
respectfully files his brief for the Appellee.

PREFATORY STATEMENT
The Trial Court did not commit any error on its decision and so must be
sustained.
THE PARTIES
JIMMY CHUA is the appellant as represented by Varela 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 CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF MAKATI.

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

Accused-appellant received on February 9, 2015 the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court promulgated on the same date. A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on
February 21, 2015. Accused-appellant received on May 7, 2015 the Order from the
Court of Appeals directing Accused-appellant to file his Appeal Brief within fifteen
(15) days from receipt. Appellee received the appellant’s brief on May 20, 2015.
Appellee filed his Appellee’s Brief on May 23, 2015. Hence, this timely compliance.

I
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.1 Appellee admits the statements of Facts in the Appellant’s Brief from statement
1.1-1.6 but denies statement 1.7.
1.2 Appellant was at the scene of the crime of rape alleged and was not drinking
beer with his buddies.
1.3 The common law wife was not aware of the whereabouts of his husband,
herein accused between 9 in the evening up to 1 in the early morning.

II
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court did not commit any error which injuriously affected the
substantial rights of the accused.

III
ARGUMENTS
Appellant’s Brief
People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Chua
Page 2 of 3

x-------------------------------x

Appellant’s failure to question

the existence of the knife is
deemed an admission to its
existence and use during the
crime.

During the trial, the accused depended heavily on his alibi and the
testimony of his common law wife. The appellant failed to question the knife used
in the crime and only raises for the first time on appeal its production. His failure
should be deemed an admission that the knife existed and that it was possessed
and used by him during the scene of the crime.
Lack of scream nor plea for help
does not amount to consensual
rape.
A victim of rape acts in different ways when confronted in such a situation.
Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual
expectations of everyone. Some may shout, some may faint; and some may be
shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. The
force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative. When applied, it need
not be overpowering or irresistible. It is enough that it has enabled the offender to
consummate his purpose to bring about the desired result. It is not even necessary
that the offender be armed with a weapon. (PEOPLE V CAMBI ,G.R. No.127131
June 8, 2000)

Appellant’s accusation that

victim had sexual intercourse
with another party and was
hiding a relationship is baseless.
Accused-Appellant’s accusation of the victim as hiding a
relationship is without proof and must be disregarded.

Evidence of bruises, attempts to

scratch are not required to
prove rape.
As already stated earlier, each victim reacts to a crime of rape
differently. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving
resistance. (People v Sending G.R. 141773 Jan 20, 2003)

Medico Legal’s testimony

corroborates that rape was
committed.

Dr Tan’s discovery that there were no other bruises nor DNA evidence of
scratches does not discount the occurrence of rape, as already stated earlier,
the victim reacts to the crime differently. Where resistance would be futile,
offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. (People v
Las Pinas G.R. 133444 Feb 20, 2002).
It is enough that Dr Tan’s testimony states that the injuries on her vagina are
consistent that a sexual assault was committed against her within 24 hours since
this is only corroborating evidence from the lone testimony of the victim.
Accused’s alibi and testimony of
the common law wife are self-
serving.
Appellant’s Brief
People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Chua
Page 3 of 3

x-------------------------------x

The alibi of the accused and the testimony of his common law wife
are self-serving and the trial court was correct in rejecting it.

The trial court did not commit

any substantial error in its
judgment of conviction.

Except for the question on the existence of the knife which was raised
only for the first time on appeal, all of the other defences of the acussed-
appellant are mere rehash of its argument in the lower court which was already
decided upon. Under Sec 10, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court “Judgment not to be
reversed or modified except for substantial error. — No judgment shall be reversed
or modified unless the Court of Appeals, after an examination of the record and
of the evidence adduced by the parties, is of the opinion that error was
committed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.

The information is sufficient in

form and substance.
Contrary to what the accused-appellant stated, the information was
sufficient in all aspects and with regards particularly to the element of force or
intimidation, it was enough that the complainant mentioned the use of a knife to
show force or intimidation. The information need not describe the weapon nor
describe further in detail how it was used. (Sec 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court)

IV
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Appellee respectfully prays that Decisions of the trial court be
sustained.
Appellee further prays for such other relief as may be just and equitable in
the premises.

May 23, 2015.

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Undersigned counsel informs this Honorable Court that this Appellant’s Brief was
furnished and filed by registered mail due to lack of messengerial services.

BY:

ATTY. JOAN M. DELATADO

Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 37884
IBP No. 56774
PTR No. 49552
Issues both in Cagayan de Oro City
MCLE Comp. No. III-53555