Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila First Division EDWARD CULLEN Petitioner, versus G.R. No. 121212

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES And BELLA SWAN Respondents. x-----------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PETITIONER EDWARD CULLEN, through counsel and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully move for the reconsideration of the Decision dated February 29, 2012 DENYING the Petition for Review on lack of merit. Copy of the Decision was received on the same date. Petitioner has until March 15, 2012 within which to file this Motion for Reconsideration

PREFATORY STATEMENT
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."1 "It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."2 If the court observed even a slightest doubt that the whole proof will be left to any mind the certainty of guilt, the accused should be acquitted and be set free. It is always better to err in acquitting that in punishing it.3
1 2

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1760) Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin, Works 293 (1970) 3 People vs Lizada (1993)

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

In support of the motion for reconsideration, petitioner allege:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE

DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH XXX RELYING ONLY TO THE TESTOMINY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
II.

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE

CORROBORATIVE

PETITIONER TO PROVE THE DEFENSE OF CONSENSUAL SEX III. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THE

GUILT OF THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS
I THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH XXX RELYING ONLY TO THE TESTOMINY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT

The petition for review filed by the petitioners shall not be denied for the reason that in the assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court ruled that the petitioner RAPED the victim solely on the basis of her testimony. In laying down its decision, the trial court gave full weight and credence to the testimony of Bella Swan, the private complainant.

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

We reiterate the ruling of your Honorable Court in People vs. Padilla, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.4 (emphasis supplied) Based on the records of the court, it shows that the private complainant Bella Swans statement in relation to the event after the alleged consummation of the crime is questionable.5 While the time in reporting the crime of rape is not essential element to prove a crime of rape, the records and the evidence presented in this proceeding will supply what happened really during the time from November 1 incident up to November 4 report of the crime happened. Exhibits 3 and 4 (Attached herein as Annex 3 and 4) are the letters written in a piece of paper of Ms. Swan to the appellant dated November 2, 2011 and November 3, 2011.6 Xxx November 2, 20117 Dearest Edward, I miss you. Hope we can do it again. Lets do it again after our class with TLC or after our class with Magsi. Love you much! Yours Bella Babes (Sgd)8 Xxx The above letter presented shows that Ms. Swan was actually having an affair with Mr. Cullen and based on the letter, it shows the reason why Ms. Swan will never report an incident of rape after the November 1 incident. xxx
4 5

People of the Philippines v. Porferio Masagca Jr. y Padilla, G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011 TSN Dated January 4, 2011 pp.25-26 6 Exhibit 4-B 7 Exhibit 4-A 8 Exhibit 3-B

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

November 3, 20119 Edward, You havent replied to any of my text messages, or facebook messages, I feel so used by our Sogo night. If you dont date me, bahala ka! We didnt use condoms so I might get buntis. Panagutan mo ito or you will regret it. (heart sign) Bella Swan(sgd)10 xxx The above presented letter shows the reason why Ms. Swan could only report an incident of rape three days after the incident. The letter shows some stern warning of revenge if Mr. Cullen failed to heed from her demand. However, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the witness of its claim that no decent and sensible woman would ever publicly admit that she was raped since she would run the risk of public contempt, unless she was in fact a rape victim. The said court merely rely on the basis of her being a law student with a bright future not to mention the fact that the accused, also a law student with a promising future now appearing before the court and presenting these letters as solid evidence to prove that there is a reason why Ms. Bella Swan accused the petitioner of rape. Moreover, the court gives credence to testimony of the victim not only because it is corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses, but also because the victim did not have any motive to falsely implicate the accused.11 (emphasis supplied) In the case presented, there is clear and undisputable belief that the private complainant had its dire motive to falsely accuse the petitioner of the crime charge

I feel so used by our Sogo night. If you dont date me, bahala ka! We didnt use
condoms so I might get buntis. Panagutan mo ito or you will regret it. (heart sign) Bella Swan(sgd)12
9

Exhibit 4-B Exhibit 4-A 11 People v. Valdez, 150 SCRA 405. 12 Ibid.
10

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

Said letters were timely presented and offered before the court and the prosecution did not object on the matter of its credibility and purpose. In fact, the prosecution during the trial also presented letters of the petitioner to the private complainant in their attempt to establish some fact that Mr. Cullen is a stalker of Ms. Swan.13 THE THE TO HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS ERRED IN DISREGARDING CORROBORATIVE PROVE THE EVIDENCE OF PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER DEFENSE CONSENSUAL SEX

The main argument in this case is that the incident happened between the appellant and Ms. Swan is consensual sex and not rape as provided by the Revised Penal Code. In People vs. Toriaga, The defense of consensual sexual intercourse, like the sweetheart defense, demands corroboration.14

Before such a defense can even be considered as having credence, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.15 The text messages recorded under the electronic evidence rule (Marked as Exhibit 2) and the letters dated November 2, 2011 and November 3, 2011( Exhibits 3 and 4) presented as corroborative evidence before the honorable lower court will support the argument of consensual sex between the appellant and Mr. Swan. This pieces of evidence presented by the petitioner before the honorable appellate court was given a lesser weight versus the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution. In fact, the prosecution challenged the credibility and authenticity of all these presented pieces of evidence; however, they failed to destroy said presented
13 14

TSN dated February 2, 2012 page 30 People of the Philippines v. Joey Toriaga, G.R. No. 177145, February 9, 2011 15 Philippines v. Reynaldo Olesco y Ondayang, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011.

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

evidence credibility. They even presented before the court as evidence a love letter sent by Mr. Cullen to Ms. Swan. Said letter of the prosecution as a matter of fact established the proof that Mr. Cullen and Ms. Swan have a special relation with each other that will support the argument of consensual sex. In addition, the Court of Appeals erred for ignoring the testimony of Mr. Philip Cartagena, the manager of the SOGO Hotel Malate when he testified before the honorable lower court to prove that Mr. Cullen and Ms. Swan leave the SOGO premises without any commotion or unusual thing happened as the prosecution claiming. His testimony supported the testimony of Mr. Cullen that he never drugged and brought the private complainant unconscious to the hotel, hence, no rape based on the claim of deprivation of consciousness should be charged against the petitioner.16 The testimony of the witness Mr. Cartagena should be given weight considering the fact that the prosecution failed to discredit all his testimony before the court. Aside from the fact that the prosecution failed to object Mr. Cartagenas testimony, the prosecution also admitted the recordings of the CCTV camera of the SOGO Hotel dated November 1, 2011 around 12 am to 4 am.17 The recordings, based on the testimony of Mr. Cartagena shows that Mr. Cullen and Ms. Swan while holding each other, entered the SOGO hotel at around 12 midnight and leave the premises at around 4 in the morning. The footage is a compelling evidence to prove that Ms. Swan and Mr. Cullen had sex with the consent of each other. Moreover, the video does not lie as Ms. Swan was not drugged when she entered the hotel together with the appellant. In fact she is consciously aware and normal in the video while Mr. Cullen is busy transacting with the Manager and some hotel attendants.18 If these pieces of evidence and testimonies were all considered and credited by any court of this land, the decision should be an acquittal of the crime charged.

THE

HONORABLE

COURT

OF

APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING

16 17

TSN dated January 11, 2012 pp. 9-10 Ibid. page 12 18 Ibid. page 5

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT It must be stressed out that the prosecution presented only three witnesses including the offended party to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Dr. Jose Rizal, the medico-legal expert and the lone expert witness of the prosecution failed to establish the consummation of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the records of the court, he testified that he examined Ms. Bella Swan only at the time she reported the incident before the Malate Police Station which was four days after the reported incident of rape happened.19 Moreover, Dr. Rizal failed to conduct an examination that will prove that Ms. Bella Swan was drugged. He only conducted an examination on the vaginal laceration and for the positive presence of spermatozoa.20 Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353, or The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, Rape is committed by [A] a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat, or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present, or [B] by any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned above, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.21 (emphasis supplied) Lack of material evidence or well-founded testimony to prove the deprivation of consciousness will result to lack of one of the essential elements of the crime of rape under the Revised Penal Code. In the case presented, the failure of the medico-legal officer to examine if Ms. Swan was really drugged at that time will result a doubt as to whether or not the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. Such deprivation of

19

TSN dated December 7, 2011 page 20 Ibid. 21 Salvador Flordeliz y Abenojar v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010.
20

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

reason or consciousness should be proven by any compelling evidence, not merely relying on the testimony of the one who is accusing.22 To support a conviction for the crime of rape under Article 266-A par 1(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must only prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) that such carnal knowledge was achieved when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the victims body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape nor will prove such. The presence of hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape, albeit a healed or fresh laceration is compelling proof of defloration. The foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victims testimony, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer.23 In addition, the presumption of innocence requires that before the accused is convicted, his guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.24 (emphasis supplied) The appellate court erred in finding the guilt of the petitioner Edward Cullen beyond reasonable doubt based on the mistaken viewpoint of the lower court. As the lower court stated: xxx Although evidence may be presented to prove his innocence, he was not able to overcome the burden of proof required. xxx The petitioner was confused when the trial court made a determination that the he as the accused had the burden of proving his innocence. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting quantum of evidence required. In doing so, the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. 26
25

22 23

TSN dated December 7, 2011 page 25 People of the Philippines vs. Elmer Barberos alias EMIE, G.R. No. 187494, December 23, 2009. 24 People vs. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009. 25 Supra. 26 People vs. Angus, G.R. No. 178778, August 3, 2010

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

If the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proof, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In such cases the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.27 In the determination of the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, courts consider the following principle 1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; 2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complaint should be scrutinized with great caution; and 3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.28 Furthermore, the honorable appellate court should have been more cautious in affirming the decisions of the lower court particularly in this nature of case where there is a clear mistake of appreciation of facts and law. Moreover, if the court observed even a slightest doubt that the whole proof will be left to any mind the certainty of guilt, the accused should be acquitted and be set free. As stated in People vs. Lizada, it is always better to err in acquitting that in punishing it.29 Also, in the recent celebrated case of Lejano vs. Court of Appeals,30 records disclose that the trial court was impressed by the witness supposed detailed narration of the crime and the events surrounding it, having allegedly testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony. However, your Honorable Court found the testimony of the prosecutions main witness devoid of the credibility necessary to convict an accused not because of having observed the conduct of the witness while being examined in open court but because of discrepancies in the testimony.31 The presented case before your Honorable Court should be treated in the same way since the trial court in this case remained unfazed by significant discrepancies on the evidence and testimony presented. The constitutional presumption of innocence can be accorded to the accused in the absence of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.32
27 28

Ibid. People vs Lolos, G.R. No. 189092, August 9 2010 29 People vs Lizada G.R. No. (1993) 30 G.R. No. 176 389, December 14, 2010 31 Ibid. 32 People vs Cabacaba, G.R. No. 171310, July 9 2009

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed before the Honorable Court that: a) the Decision dated February 29, 2012 (Annex C), finding accused-appellant Edward Cullen guilty of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, be reconsidered, and instead, SET ASIDE AND REVERSED and accused-appellants be ACQUITTED; and b) such further, incidental and other relief as may be just and equitable be granted to the accused-appellants. City of Manila, 7 March 2012. DE VERA GALOS LAW OFFICE 2/F Espana Tower Espana Boulevard Blumentritt, Manila Telefax: 4121314 Mobile No. 09222222222 By:

REPA RADO B. GALOS III PTR NO. 54321/lifetime/Quezon City IBP NO. 805559/01-05-11/Quezon City ROLL NO. 54321 Admitted to the Bar April 2011 (MCLE COMPLIANCE N/A) RUSTICO DE VERA PTR NO. 31245/06-02-11/Makati City IBP NO. 989889/05-25-11/Bulacan Chapter

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212

ROLL NO. 12121 Admitted to the Bar April 2011 (MCLE COMPLIANCE N/A)

Copy furnished by registered mail: ALMENDRAL CHUA LAW OFFICE ___________________________ ___________________________ COURT OF APPEALS Padre Faura St. Ermita, Manila 1005 OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village Makati City Reg. Receipt No.______ Manila City Hall Post Office 20 February 2012 Reg. Receipt No.______ Manila City Hall Post Office 20 February 2012 Reg. Receipt No.______ Manila City Hall Post Office 20 February 2012

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Petition for Review on Certiorari and Prohibition is filed personally with the Honorable Court and copies thereof served on the other parties and/or their counsel, by registered mail because of time and personnel constraints.

RUSTICO DE VERA REPARADO B. GALOS III

Motion for Reconsideration Edward Cullen vs. People SC-G.R. No. 121212