REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 4, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant, Case No. 123456

- versus - For: Violaton of RA 8353

PAULO LINO
Respondent.
x---------------------------------x

PLEADING

The respondent was charged in Criminal Case No. 123456 for Qualified Rape with
Homicide before Branch 4 of the RTC of Manila. The accusatory portion of the
Information reads, to quote:
"That on or about the 8th day of December, 2018 in the Municipality of
Cuenca, Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Court, said
respondent, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and by
means of force, violence and intimidation, to wit: by then and there pinning down
one [AAA], a minor, fifteen years of age, succeeded in having carnal knowledge
with her and as a result thereof she suffered fractured cervical vertebra and
lacerations of the vaginal and rectal openings causing profuse hemorrhages and
other injuries which are necessarily fatal and which were the direct cause of
her death thereafter.”

THE PARTIES

The Complainant in this case is the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

represented by the City Prosecutor of Manila, Lorenzo Dela Rosa, where he
could be served with summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.

The Respondent is PAULO LINO, lawyer with postal address at 2646 Green
Meadows Village, Prudencio St., Sampaloc, Manila, where he could be served with
summons and other legal processes of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In order that this Honorable Court may be enlightened and guided in the disposition of
the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material, relevant and pertinent facts of the
case to wit:

1. On December 10, 2018, Agnes U. Lino filed a criminal complaint against the
accused.

2. In her complaint, she alleged the following:

a. The victim [AAA], 15 years of age, is the daughter of the complainant.

b. The accused is the husband of the complainant and the step-father of the
victim.
 c. On December 8, 2018, both [AAA] and Kiko P. Lino, son of the accused, were
at their residence at 2646 Green Meadows Village, Prudencio St., Sampaloc,
Manila given that such date is a holiday.

d. At that time, the complainant was out of town on official business.

e. [AAA] later confessed to the complainant, her mother, all the acts committed
by her step-father as well as her step-brother and his friends that day at the
Manila Doctor’s Hospital.

f. In a statement given by [AAA] to the police while she was admitted in the
hospital, it was stated that she saw Kiko coming out of the master’s bedroom
counting money. Thereafter, she confronted him but the latter ignored her.
After approximately 30 minutes, her bedroom door suddenly opened.
Consequently, Kiko and his three other friends namely, John Legaspi, George
Pascua and Ringo Honasan, then and there took turns in raping her. Her
mouth was covered and she was also threatened with a knife. Unsatisfied, they
forced her and took the family’s extra car and went to the rest house of the
family in Cuenca, Batangas. Upon arrival, Kiko and his friends took turns in
raping her again and brought out their drug paraphernalia. She lost her
consciousness while lying in the bed naked. When she regained her
consciousness, the accused is already raping her but any efforts of resistance
on her part proved futile. She fell unconscious and the next time she regained
her consciousness, she was already at the hospital.

g. Jose Borja, the Security of the Green Meadows Village, arrived at their
residence and saw that the drawers were open and the computer and other
valuables were missing. He also stated that she saw [AAA] placed on the bed.

h. On December 9, 2019, [AAA] died.

i. In a postmortem examination conducted by Dr. Angela Bagumbayan, the

medico-legal officer of Manila Doctor's Hospital, the findings show that the
victim suffered fractured cervical vertebra and lacerations of the vaginal and
rectal openings causing profuse hemorrhages and other injuries which are
necessarily fatal and which were the direct cause of her death. The Medico
Legal Certificate is also attached hereto as Annex “A”.

3. On December 11, 2018, the accused filed a counter-affidavit where he alleged

that:

a. On December 8, 2018, he was at a client meeting in Quezon City.

b. After which, he went back to their law firm office in Makati City and worked
on a case together with his co-workers.

c. Later on, he learned that a robbery took place at their home as reported by the
Security of the Village and his step-daughter was brought to the hospital.

d. He denied that he went to their rest house in Batangas and raped [AAA].

4. The City Prosecution Office of Manila filed with the RTC an Information charging
the accused of the complex crime of qualified rape with homicide.

5. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

 ISSUES

1. Whether or not respondent violated Republic Act 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of
1997.

2. Whether or not respondent’s guilt was established by evidence beyond reasonable

doubt.

DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

QUALIFIED RAPE WITH HOMICIDE

In this case, the accused is charged with violation of Article 266-A of RA 8353 or
the "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997." Rape under such provision, reads, insofar as pertinent,
as follows:
“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;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.”
The same Act further provides that rape becomes qualified when committed by a
parent or step-parent against his child less than 18 years of age. This is provided for under
Article 266-B, paragraph 1:
“Article 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx xxx xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim[.]” (underscoring supplied)
In People v. Balisong1, the elements of the special complex crime of rape with
homicide are enumerated as follows:
(1) the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) the carnal knowledge of the woman was achieved by means of force,
threat or intimidation; and
(3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by mean of force,
threat or intimidation, the accused killed the woman.

1
People v. Balisong, G.R. No. 218086, [August 10, 2016]
 As to the circumstances qualifying rape, the prosecution alleged that AAA was 15
years old when she was raped by the accused. Although her age has already been
established, the identity of the perpetrator is not proven. Although the accused was her
stepfather, being legally married to her mother, the accused could not be convicted of
qualified rape since the first element of rape is wanting.
Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual
bodily connections with a woman. For this purpose, it is enough if there was even the
slightest contact of the male sex organ with the labia of the victim's genitalia. 2 However,
there must be proof, by direct or indirect evidence, of such contact on the part of the
accused, which is clearly lacking in this case.
This Court bears in mind that due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime
bereft of witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself. Thus,
in the resolution of rape cases, the victim's credibility becomes the primordial
consideration. When the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or
significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof.3
By the very nature of the crime of rape, conviction or acquittal depends almost
entirely on the credibility of the complainant's testimony because of the fact that, usually,
only the participants can directly testify as to its occurrence. Since normally only two
persons are privy to the commission of rape, the evaluation of the evidence thereof
ultimately revolves around the credibility of the complaining witness.4|||
Although the lone testimony of the supposed victim is enough to sustain a
conviction, such testimony must first meet the test of credibility.5 Unfortunately, the
admissions and confessions made by the victim [AAA] were never put into the test due to
her death. It becomes physically and legally impossible for the court to ascertain the
imputations made by her.
Time and again, the Court has ruled that when a victim says she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and if her
testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. 6
In doing so, the Courts have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of
decent repute would publicly admit that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the
truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However, this misconception,
particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but
creates a travesty of justice. The "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our
jurisprudence sometime in 1960. This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor.
And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural
for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be
stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. Thus,
we should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's dynamic
role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and
confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.7
The Courts have been guided by three well-established principles in the
prosecution for the crime of rape. These principles are:
(1) that an accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove, and even
more difficult to disprove;
(2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only two persons
are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
utmost caution; and

2
People v. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, [May 11, 1999]
3
People v. Wile, G.R. No. 208066, [April 12, 2016]
4
People v. Villaflores y Virginia, G.R. Nos. 135063-64, [December 5, 2001]
5
People v. Villaflores y Virginia, G.R. Nos. 135063-64, [December 5, 2001]
6
People v. Balacano, G.R. No. 127156, [July 31, 2000]
7
People v. Amarela, G.R. Nos. 225642-43, [January 17, 2018]
 (3) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand on its own merits and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.8
(underscoring supplied)
As to the medical findings, hymenal laceration is not necessary to prove rape;
neither does its presence prove its commission. As held in People v. Ulili, a physician's
finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. It is only
when this is corroborated by other evidence proving carnal knowledge that rape may be
deemed to have been established.9
The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime, that is, two or more
crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product
of a single criminal impulse.10 Even assuming that [AAA] had been raped, there is no
sufficient proof that it was accused who had raped her. In this case, the accused did not
confess to having raped the victim. In the special complex crime of rape with homicide,
both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.11
The Court is aware of the difficulty of prosecuting cases of rape with homicide. The
nature of the crime of rape, where it is usually only the victim and the rapist who are
present at the scene of the crime, makes prosecutions for the complex crime
of rape with homicide particularly difficult since the victim can no longer testify against
the perpetrator of the crime. In these cases, the evidence against the accused is usually
circumstantial.12 |||
This Court has sustained a number of convictions for rape with homicide based on
purely circumstantial evidence.13Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence provides the requirements for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to sustain
a conviction:
SECTION 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. —
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In the case at bar, not one of these requisites is present in the case at bar. There is
no convincing circumstantial evidence from which we might establish beyond reasonable
doubt that accused raped the victim. There is no evidence that the victim was naked when
found, that her undergarments were torn or missing, and other such evidence from which
we might infer that rape was committed.14|||
In the present case, the only evidence offered by the prosecution which has any
connection with a finding that the victim has been raped is the medico-legal report of Dr.
Angela Bagumbayan which stated that there were fractured cervical vertebra and
lacerations of the vaginal and rectal openings causing profuse hemorrhages and other
injuries.
The police was able to obtain [AAA]’s version of the case while she was admitted
in Manila Doctor’s Hospital. However, the said testimony failed to establish the guilt of
the accused as no documentary evidence such as a sworn statement was adduced by the
prosecution.
The prosecution failed to prove the crime of rape with homicide in this case. In the
same vein, it failed to establish the identity of the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt.
Here, there was no eyewitness to the same; there was no convincing circumstantial

8
People v. Sanchez y Labitag, G.R. Nos. 98402-04, [November 16, 1995]
9
People v. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, [May 11, 1999]
10
People v. Balisong, G.R. No. 218086, [August 10, 2016]
11
People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, [August 21, 2001]
12
People v. Cristobal y Albarin, G.R. No. 100912, [July 6, 1995]
13
People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 228828, [July 24, 2019]
14
People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, [August 21, 2001]
evidence; there was only an inadequate medical report. It must also be noted that
although the police was able to obtain the testimony of [AAA], such would not be
appreciated in court since no sworn statement was presented. As such, there can be no
conviction for the accused. Well-settled is the principle that the court must uphold the
primacy of the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, when the
evidence at hand miserably falls short of the quantum required to support conviction.15
In retrospect, even if we take into account [AAA’s] testimony, the same would not
have established an unbroken chain of circumstances proving beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused was the perpetrator of the heinous crime. The testimony of [AAA] is
likewise disappointingly unreliable to establish a logical relationship between the
commission of the crime and complicity of the accused therein. This is also further
corroborated by counter-affidavit of the accused stating that he was at work together with
his co-workers at the time of the crime and that he only learned of what had happened
that day by the report of the security of the village and that there were no evidence
pointing to him being present at their rest house in Batangas and raped [AAA].

15
(People v. Velarde y Bandojo, G.R. No. 139333, [July 18, 2002]; People v. Villaflores y Virginia, G.R. Nos.
135063-64, [December 5, 2001]
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office, that decision be rendered, to wit:

1. That the existing case be dismissed because the acts of the respondent does not
prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt which means, he must be acquitted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City, Philippines. November 2019

Signature
ATTY. CASTOR SHIN
Counsel for Respondent
243 Pag-asa Street, East Avenue, Quezon City
IBP Lifetime No.: 98765; Quezon City
PTR No. 1234567
Roll of Attorney No. 23456

Copy furnished through personal service:

ATTY. CASTOR SHIN

Counsel for Respondent
JM and JT Law Services
113 Suites, Ayala Avenue, Makati City
 VERIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila ) s.s

RESPONDENT, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes and
states:

1. He is the respondent in the pleading/document entitled People of the Philippines

vs. Paolo Lino.
2. He has read it and the allegations therein are not true and he was maliciously and
unfairly accused by the complainant.

SIGNATURE
ATTY. CASTOR SHIN

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of November 2019,

affiant personally appearing and known to me to be the same person who executed the
foregoing instrument and exhibiting to me her IBP ID with IBP Lifetime No.: 98765,
issued on November 9, 2000. Affiant avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the
contents of the instrument of document.

Notary Public

Doc. No. 29;

Page No. 94;
Book No.203;
Series of 2019