REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-

Criminal Case No. 1234-2010

JIMMY CHUA
Accused-Appellant
x------------------------------------------x

APPELLEES BRIEF
SUBMITTED BY
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
123 1st Street No One Village,
Quezon City
By
Gil M. Camaymayan
Associate Solicitor General

People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 1

SUBJECT INDEX
Page No.
1
2
3
4
7

Contents
Cover Page
Subject Index
Prefatory Statement
Statement of Facts
Counter Argument
Discussion
Prayer

Cases Cited (Order of Appearance)

People vs. Corpuz
People vs. Las Pinas Jr, G.R. No. 133444, February 20, 2002
People vs. Sending, G.R. Nos. 141773-76 January 20, 2003
People vs. Landicho, C.A., 43 O.G. 3767
People vs. Mendoza, 292 SCRA 168

Law and Annotations Cited

Revised Penal Code, Article 266-A (1)
Reyes, Revised Penal Code Book II 18th Edition (2012)

People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-

Criminal Case No. 1234-2010

JIMMY CHUA
Accused-Appellant
x------------------------------------------x
APPELLEES BRIEF
Plaintiff-appellee PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General in answer to the allegations raised by the
accused-appellant in his Brief, respectfully states:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Through this appeal, accused-appellant assails the judgment dated 9
February 2015 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 62,
finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Article 266-A(1)
of the Revised Penal Code.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The appellee accepts the statement of facts in the appellants brief.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff-Appellee raises the following counter-arguments to the
assignment of errors raised by the accused-appellant:
I.

The Trial Court erroneously ruled that the Accused-Appellant is

guilty for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art.
266-A (1), of the Revised Penal Code.

People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 3

Discussion
I.

The Trial Court erroneously ruled that the Accused-Appellant is

guilty for the crime of Rape as defined and penalized under Art.
266-A (1), of the Revised Penal Code.

Under Article 266-A (1) of the Revise Penal Code it provides that:
xxx
xxx
xxx
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. Rape is committed
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
A. Through force, threat or intimidation
xxx
xxx
xxx
It must be noted under the statement of facts of the appellant that there
was an admission that the appellant Jimmy Chua had carnal knowledge
against the victim AAA on the night of March 7, 2012 at the apartment
resident of the victims brother located in Barangay Palanan, Makati City
through the use of threat by pointing a knife against the victim and
threatening to kill her if she would not have sex with him. It was also
stated in the facts of the appellant that that the victim AAA was
sexually assaulted by the appellant. Intimidation was also applied by the
appellant, soon after he has consummated the horrendous act he has
threatened to kill AAA if she would report the matter to the authorities.
All of these undisputed facts were contained on the appellants statement
of facts which was admitted by the appellant on his brief.
In the argument raised by the accused-appellant that the court did not
considered the testimonies of the accused and his common law wife
Maria Tengco. It was even admitted by the accused-appellant on his brief
that the defense of alibi is known to be the weakest defense, as it is easy
to concoct and difficult to disprove. In the testimony of the accusedappellant he said that between 6 in the evening up to 1 in the early
morning, he was drinking beer with his buddies at the far end of the street
which was about 200 meters away from the apartment. The defense of
alibi would only be valid if there was physical impossibility for the
person to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. Given that
the distance from the place where accused-appellant and his bodies were
drinking as against the apartment of the brother of the victim was only
200 meters, it does not establish the physical impossibility of the
accused-appellant not to be on the scene of the scene of the crime during
its commission. It is a possibility that the accused-appellant has excused
himself or had left the drinking session for several minutes in order to
commit the crime given that as stated on the facts that it only took him 10
minutes to consummate the crime. Worse more was that his alibi was not
People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 4

corroborated by his buddies to whom he mentioned that he was with

during the commission of the crime. The only person who had
corroborated his testimony was his common law wife Maria Tengco who
was not even on the place of the said drinking spree attended to by the
accused-appellant and his buddies, which is considered only to be selfserving in favor of the accused-appellant. As declared in the case of
People vs. Corpuz that if an alibi of the accused can only be confirmed
by his relatives, his denial of culpability deserves scant consideration,
especially in the face of an affirmative testimony of the victim as to his
presence in the crime scene, which was clearly established by the AAA
as she was able to recognize the accused-appellant at the time he entered
the apartment through the kitchen.
It is a well settled ruled that the defense of alibi is worthless in the face of
positive identification of the offended party. AAA was able to
positively identify Jimmy Chua as the person who sexually assaulted her
at the night of March 7, 2012 for the accused-appelant was known by
AAA for his brother always calls upon him to repair the kitchen sink.
She even asked the accused-appellant if he was there to repair the kitchen
sink from which the latter replied to.
As for the matters raised by the accused-appellant that he did not rape
AAA because otherwise the latter could have shouted for help, that the
children of his brother Jose would have noticed the sexual attack, that
there were many people along the street where the apartment was located
and that the houses were near that any person could have practically
knew, saw or heard what was going around in the neighborhood.
It is provided for in the testimony of the victim AAA that naunahan
ako ng takot kaya hindi po ako nakasigaw agad for the accusedappellant took out a knife and threatened to kill her if she would not have
sex with him, then soon after the sexual assault done by the latter, he
threatened to kill her if she reported the matter to authorities. It was held
in the case of People vs. Las Pinas Jr. that the test is whether the threat or
intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if
she resisted or does not yield to the desires of the accused the threat
would be carried out. There was actual and immediate threat on the life
of the victim which amounted to fear when the accused-appellant pulled
a knife point it against her and threatened to kill her. Where resistance
would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the
sexual assault. In the case of People vs. Sending provides that the burden
of proving resistance is not imposed as a burden to the victim but it is
enough that the intercourse took place against her will or if she yields
because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not to so.
In most cases of rape the testimony of the rape victim is the only one
available to prove the direct commission of the crime; corroboration by
other witness is seldom available. In fact the presence of such other
People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 5

witness could even cast serious doubts on the possibility of its

commission. As provided for in the case of People vs. Landicho that the
testimony of the victim must be conclusive, logical and probable then
rape can be proved by uncorroborated testimony. It is also provided for in
the case of People vs. Mendoza that a clear and accurate testimony of the
victim herself is enough to warrant a conviction of the rape against the
offenders. Victim AAA was able to identify the accused-appellant
clearly as the person who has sexually assaulted her. She was even able
to narrate the events that has transpired before, during and after the
commission of the crime concisely and in a straightforward manner
which was even supplemented and corroborated by a Medico Legal
Report on March 8, 2012 prepared by Dr. Judy Tan who was a City
Medical Officer which states that:
AAAs vaginal injuries are consistent with a sexual assault committed
against her in the past 24 hours prior to the medical examination
Motive against the accused is out of the question for the victim does not
knew the accused-appellant personally and just recognize him as a person
called upon by his brother to repair their kitchen sink.

People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 6

PRAYER
Viewed in the foregoing light, it is respectfully prayed for that the
instant appealed be DENIED for lack of merit
Other relief and remedies as are just and equitable, are likewise
prayed for.
May 23, 2015 Quezon City, Philippines

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

123 1st Street No One Village,
Quezon City
By
Gil M. Camaymayan
Associate Solicitor General

Copy Furnished
Isha Soriano
Soriano and Associates Law Firm
Room 1009 Richville Corporate Tower,
Madrigal Business Park, Muntinlupa City
Counsel of the Accussed-Appelant

People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Chua; Appellees Brief; Page 7