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

JASON DEROLOW
Accused-Appellant,

- versus - CA-GR. No. 3634-3600

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

JASON DEROLOW is the appellant as represented by Villarin and Associates where process
and notice from this court may be served at room Singanon Compound, Ecoland Subdivision,
Davao City while THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES is the Appellee as represented by the
CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF DAVAO CITY.

TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL

Accused-appellant received on February 9, 2020 the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
promulgated on the same date. A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on February 29, 2020.
Accused-appellant received on May 7, 2019 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 March 10, 2020. Appellee filed his Appellee’s Brief on March
12, 2020. 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.
Appellant’s Brief
People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Chua
Page 2 of 3

x-------------------------------x
II
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

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

III
ARGUMENTS

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 failed to substantiate his accusation that the victim was hiding
a relationship with proof. Thus, the same 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.
No. 141773 January 20, 2003)

Medico Legal’s testimony

corroborates that rape was
committed.

Dr. Wakwak’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.

The trial court did not commit any

substantial error in its judgment of
conviction.
Appellant’s Brief
People of the Philippines v. Jimmy Chua
Page 3 of 3

x-------------------------------x
All of the accused-appellant’s defenses are mere rehashes of his arguments 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.

March 12, 2020.

RAMON KHALIL C. ERUM IV

Regional State Prosecutor
Region XI - Davao City