Maria Christina E.

Gaviola Legal Forms

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - GR No. 929484

For: Review of Decision
Of CA Decision Under Rule 45

MANUEL QUE,
Defendant
x------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

PETITIONER, by undersigned counsel, states that attached herein as Annex A is the certified true
copy of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Manila decision being assailed and as Annexes B1-B11 are
the copy of all pleadings and records of the case before the Regional Trial Court.

THE PARTIES

Accused-Defendant, MANUEL QUE, is of legal age with capacity to sue and be sued with
residence at 456 Silver Road, Gold Subdivision, Quezon City and may be served with court processes by
this Honorable Court through the undersigned counsel;

-Versus-

Private Complainant, SELENE LIMTONG, is a minor of twelve (12) years living with and
represented in this case by her parents and legal guardians, Sonny and Miraflor, with residence at 123
Bronze Road, Platinum Avenue, Malate, Manila.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1. Petitioner received a copy of the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
10, Manila on 7 November 2003. Accordingly, this petition is filed on time as it was filed by registered
mail with the Supreme Court on 20 November 2003 per registry receipt hereto attached in view of the
distance between the law office of the undersigned counsel and the Supreme Court.
 2. Hence, this Petition for Review, under Rule 45 is filed within the fifteen (15) day period
prescribed by Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AVERMENTS

This case revolves around the denial of the defendant of the petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court’s decision finding defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape which is bereft of legal and factual basis on the ground that the accused is convicted
on the strength of an accusation made by private complainant which she has already retracted.. Hence,
this petition for review.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ERRORS OF LAW

1. Private complainant Selene Limtong and the accused, who is her cousin, were living at
their uncle’s house at the time the alleged rape incident happened. Private Complainant’s parents were
living in a small house within their uncle’s compound.

2. In the afternoon of 8 May 2000, Accused went back to Manila to work as he was employed
there. While in Manila, he was informed through phone by his sister that he was being charged with rape
and that he needed to return to Pangasinan.

3. Accused returned to Pangasinan on 13 May 2000, the same day he was arrested by the
authorities for the alleged rape.

4. On 28 May 2000, Private Complainant recanted her previous testimony and executed an
affidavit of desistance. She affirmed that no such rape occurred and that Accused-Appellant is innocent
of the crime charged.

5. The Honorable Court erred in failing to consider Private Complainant’s recantation of her
accusation and in finding that all the elements of the offense had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

ARGUMENTS

Convictions or acquittals in prosecutions for rape almost always depend on the credibility of the
victim and her testimony. For this reason, the testimonies of alleged rape victims must be scrutinized by
the trial court to ascertain the veracity of the charges and to determine whether the guilt of the accused
has been established beyond reasonable doubt. However, it is stated in People vs. Villaflorez [G.R. No.
135063-64, 5 December 2001] that while judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that
a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is
to render justice based on law.

In the case at bar, Private Complainant recanted her accusations of rape against the accused.
Nevertheless, the trial court disregarded the same explaining that the admission of the private complainant
that the accused promised her consideration renders her recantation a farce. The trial court overlooked
the possibility that if the private complainant had the fortitude to retract her previous testimony because
of a promise of payment, it is also most likely that the Private Complainant was motivated to file the rape
case having in mind that she and her family could extort money from him. It can be inferred that her
recantation was with the approval of her parents as the alleged victim is a minor.

If the victim was truly raped yet their parents were willing to trade off their dignities for a
consideration, then, with more reason that they are capable of falsely imputing rape charges against the
accused. As aptly held in People vs. Donggoy [G.R. No. 116738, 22 March 1999] viz:
“The Supreme Court will not hesitate to reverse a judgment of conviction and acquit the
accused where there are strong indications pointing to the possibility that the rape charge was
motivated by some factors other than the truth as to its commission.”

In this jurisdiction, the overriding consideration is not whether a court has doubts on the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains doubts on his guilt. Thus, as this Honorable Court has
said in People vs. Bacalso [G.R. No. 129055, 25 September 2000] “If a human life must be taken to pay a
debt to society, let not a wrong man ever be made to account for it. The trek to justice is not a game of
chance or skill but a quest for truth, the only path by which the righteous end can be reached.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is humbly prayed of this Honorable Court that the
Decision dated 7 November 2003 of the lower court be REVERSED and a new one be rendered
acquitting Accused-Appellant of the crime charged.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 17 November 2004.

.
 MONTERO & MONTERO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
110 Zobel Street, Makati City

By:

Maria Christina E. Gaviola

Copy Furnished:

Office of the Solicitor General

132 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City

Diaz, Dominguez, Alcantara Law Office

Public Attorney’s Office
No. 66 Starboard Street, La Hista, Makati City

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

Undersigned counsel informs this Honorable Court that this Memorandum of Appeal was furnished and
filed by registered mail due to lack of messengerial services.

VERIFICATION

I, MANUEL QUE, a Filipino, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Accused-Appellant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Appellant’s Brief; and
3. I have read the contents thereof and understood the same, and attest that the allegations
contained therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic
records.

MANUEL QUE
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __________, in the City of Makati, affiant exhibiting her
Community Tax Certificate No.____________________, issued at______________ on
_____________________.

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2006.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Lin Domingo, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Maria Christina Gaviola and in that capacity I served upon the adverse
party’s counsel, the petition filed in said case, as follows:
Atty. Maria Christina E. Gaviola, counsel for defendant by registered mail by depositing the copy in the
post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the counsel at his office, with postage fully prepaid,
and with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 16 th
day of November, as shown by Registry No. 1234 dated 16 November 2003 of the post office of Makati
City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 16th day of November 2003 at Makati City.

Lin Domingo

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public, this day of 16the day of November, at
Makati City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with this CTC No. 8888888, issued on August 8,
2003 at Quezon City and presenting to me a document entitled Affidavit of Service by Registered Mail,
affiant being known to me personally as he is a friend, and who signed said document in my presence and
sworn to said document that he understood the contents thereof and that the same was her free and
voluntary act and deed.

Atty. Benedicto Esteban

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2010
IBP No. 88-88-88-88, 01/31/08, Quezon City
PTR No. 99-99-99-99, 01/31/08, Quezon City
Roll of Attorney No. 88998

Doc. No. 168

Page No. 88
Book No. 16
Series of 2009