Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 40, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee ,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 13-296415

For: Slander by Deed

MARIA TERESA RAMOS a.k.a

“TESSIE”,
Accused-Appellant.
x-------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

ACCUSED, by the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

most respectfully submit this memorandum in compliance with the Order
dated April 23, 2013 and further states THAT:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the
court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open
mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a
reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. xxx “ Lejano vs. People, G.R.
No. 176389, December 14, 2010 (Underscoring Ours)
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Accused was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 6,

Manila of Slander by Deed. However Accused, through counsel, filed a Motion
for Inhibition and it was granted and the case was raffled to Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 21, Manila and the Accused pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge.

On March 19, 2013, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 21, Manila

rendered a Decision finding the Accused guilty of the offense charged and
was sentenced to pay a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) plus TEN
PESOS (P10.00) as cost, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,

MARIA TERESA RAMOS is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No.
 448651-CR for Slander by Deed and is hereby
sentenced to pay a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS
(P500.00) plus TEN PESOS (P10.00) as cost,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Xxx “

SO ORDERED.

Accused-Appellant filed a notice of appeal on March 22, 2013.

On May 7, 2013, Accused-appellant received an order from this

Honorable Court to file her memorandum.

ISSUE

WHETHER ACCUSED CAN BE HELD GUILTY OF SLANDER BY

DEEDS

DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS

The Honorable Court in its Decision convicting the Accused of Slander

by Deeds relied only on the testimonies of Complainant GUIJUAN DY GO and
BLANDINO DIONES, an employee of the former, since SPO3 JULIO TOLEDO,
although a witness for Complainant GO stated that he did not notice any
mark or sign on Go’s face to indicate that he had been slapped.

The transcript of Stenographic Notes reveals that SPO3 JULIO TOLEDO

has no knowledge about the alleged slapping incident. We quote:

ATTY. ANTONANO:
Q:
In this sworn statement, you mentioned in
paragraph 3 thereof: “Upon arrival at the scene
of the dispute, a lady later known as Maria
Teresa Ramos, stood beside me and pointed to a
certain person later known as Guijuan Go and
said, “Sinampal niya ako”, and in paragraph 4
thereof: “Spontaneously, Guijuan Go vehemently
denied the accusation and instead claimed that
it was Maria Teresa Ramos who slapped him.”
Now Mr. Witness in connection with this
 statement, have you observed whether there
was something in the face of Guijuan Go?

WITNESS:
A:
I did not notice any.

ATTY. ANTONANO:
Q:
Any marked of slapping incident or what? Do
you able to notice?

WITNESS:
A:
I did not see any sign.1

This is despite the testimony of BLANDINO DIONES that he saw redness

on the right side of the cheek of Guijan Dy Go. We quote:

ATTY. ANTONANO:
Q:
Did you see any effect on him due to the
slapping incident?

WITNESS:
A:
It showed redness on the right side of the cheek
of Guijuan.2

And this slapping was proved by Complainant Go through a Medical

Certificate issued immediately after the incident, according to him. This was
despite the testimony of their witness SPO3 JULIO TOLEDO that he did not
see any sign of a slapping incident in Complainant Go’s face. It should be
noted that SPO3 JULIO TOLEDO can be considered an impartial witness unlike
BLANDINO DIONES who is working for Complainant Go.

1
Page 5 and 6 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated January 5, 2011, Direct Examination of SPO3
JULIO TOLEDO
2
Page 8 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated March 4, 2011, Direct Examination of BLANDINO
DIONES
 It should also be emphasized that BLANDINO DIONES testified that he
personally saw the slapping incident and seeing the redness in Complainant
Go’s face is no longer necessary.

The Honorable Court in its Decision considered that the fact that
Accused is right-handed does not necessarily disprove the fact that she
slapped Complainant Go on the right cheek. As against BLANDINO DIONES’
positive testimony that Accused slapped Complainant Go using her left
hand, Ramos’ theory that she could not have slapped Complainant Go
because she is right-handed is nothing but pure conjecture.

The Honorable Court did not see the inconsistency in the statements of
Complainant Go and his Witness BLANDINO DIONES. It is Complainant Go
who is in the best position to know the circumstances surrounding his alleged
slapping incident. The transcript of Stenographic Notes will reveal that
according to Complainant Go he was slapped by the Accused using her right
hand. We quote:

ATTY. LAPUZ:
Q:
Did she slap you with your right or left hand?
WITNESS:
A:
She slapped my right cheek so she used
her right hand.3

Such inconsistency creates doubt as to the guilt of the Accused.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the
Decision of the Metropolitan Trail Court Branch 21, Manila be REVERSED
and Accused be AQUITTED.

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

Manila, May __, 2013.

3
Page 22 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated November 19, 2010, Direct Examination of
Guijuan Dy Go
Copy Furnished:
GUIJUAN DY GO
818 CM Recto Avenue, Binondo,
Manila