Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fifth Judicial Region
Branch 16
Tabaco City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. 09999
For: Abduction with
Rape

- versus MELCHOR DE LOS REYES,

GAZPAR DE LA PENA and
BALTHASAR DELA CRUZ,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
The undersigned Public Prosecutor and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits this Memorandum in compliance with the Order of the Honorable
Court, dated _____________.

PREFATORY STATEMENT
The above-named accused were charged for Violations of R.A. 8352 in relation to
RA 7610, and Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information dated August 4,
2015 and hereunder reproduced, to wit:
CRIM. CASE NO. 09999
That on or about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of August 2, 2015
the incident transpired at Barangay Tigbi, Tiwi, Albay, Philippines, and
within the preliminary jurisdiction of this Honorable Office, the abovenamed accused , conspiring together and mutually aiding one another, and
by means of force, violence, intimidation, and threats, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take and carry away PIA ARIADNE,
18 years old, without her consent, and on the occasion thereof all of the
aforementioned accused by means of force, threat, violence and
intimidation the accused, with lewd and unchaste design, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have repeated carnal knowledge
with Pia Ariadne, against her will and consent, to her damage and
prejudice. And accordingly the accused lacerated the forehead of the
victim during the said commission of sexual abuse.
CONTRARY TO LAW

Factual Issues
1. The place where the accused were arrested
2. The residence address of the accused
Legal Issues
1. Whether the private offended party was sexually abused by the three accused
2. Whether there was a consensual sexual intercourse between accused Dela Cruz and
private offended party
3. Whether Dela Pena and Delos Reyes participated in abusing the private offended
party.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

PIA ARIADNE (Pia for brevity), 18 years old and a resident of Brgy. Uyama,
Tiwi, Albay. On the night of August 2, 2015, she was at AA Internet Caf at Brgy Tigbi,
Tiwi, Albay. While surfing the internet, she suddenly had the urge to pee and
consequently, she went to the nearby CR of the market. However, that time it was
already closed as well as the market stalls. Thus, she directly went to the CR of St.
Lawrence Parish and there she was able to empty her bladder.
While making her back to the computer shop thru the dark road and closed pot
stores, someone took her from behind. Her mouth and nose were covered making her not
able to cry for help and immediately lost her consciousness. When she woke up, she
found herself in a room with three men around her. One of the men above her was
lacerating her forehead with a green cutter while laughter. The other two were in charge
of gripping her by her hands and feet. She was threatened of her life and her family if she
would attempt to utter anything or report the incident. Due to fright, Pia again passed
out. When she again regain her consciousness, she found herself without her pedal and
underwear on and saw them inserting their own penis on her vagina while the other two
guarding my hands and feet, taking turns on raping her. At the height of the abuse, one of
the men left while the other two continued with their pervert acts.
After abusing her, Pia was made to put her clothes underneath on. Further, she
was made to wear a helmet and was sandwiched by the two in a motorcycle. It was only
when she wiped her bleeding forehead when she noticed that they were already in the
poblacion area. It was also the time when she was able to see the other accused when the
motorcycle they were boarding passed by a convenience store where said accused was
seen by her. Thereafter, she was dropped helplessly at the side of the road few meters
near our house and the two left her. When she tried to walk back to their house, she saw
her father outside and thereafter, her father learned of the sexual abuse. Her father opted
to apply her first aid so she accompanied by her father went to the poblacion to buy
medicine at a convenience store. It happened that it was the same store where saw the
other accused. Her father immediately asked the storekeeper about the identification of
the person Pia had described. The storekeeper identified the man as Balthasar Dela Cruz
and according the mans friends Gazpar Dela Pena and Melchor Delos Reyes, as frequent
customers of the convenience store. Thereafter, Pia and her father went home where her
mother treated her wounded forehead and immediately proceeded to the Tiwi Police
Station to report the sexual abuse, submitted herself for medical examination and file the
case.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
BALTHASAR DELA CRUZ (Balthasar for brevity), single and a resident of
Brgy Uyama, Tiwi, Albay. He identified himself as the caretaker of St. Lawrence Parish.
In addition, he alleged that Pia was his girlfriend. That on the said incident, Pia was never
sexually abused nor abducted. In contrast, according to him, Pia had sexual intercourse
with him at the comfort room of the church. Also, during the alleged sexual intercourse,
Pia bumped her head in the corner of the sink and even helped her clean the blood with
water.
After Pia decided to go home, he received a call for an invitation from Gazpar
Dela Pena, asking him to go to Melchor De los Reyes house because it was the latters
fathers birthday.There, they sang, eat and drank to their hearts content until it was 12:30
in the morning when he decided to go home. It was later at around 3:30 to 4:00 in the
morning when the police arrested him and was brought to the police station and learned
that Pia was accusing him of rape.
MELCHOR DE LOS REYES (Melchor for brevity), Filipino citizen, of legal
age, married and a resident of Brgy Kuro-kuro, Tiwi, Albay. That on date of incident, he

was at his house all along for it was his fathers birthday. He corroborated Balthasars
testimony that as to the matter of celebrating his fathers birthday. That at around 5 o
clock in the morning, he and Gazpar Dela Pena were arrested at his house. They were
brought to the police station and learned that a certain Pia Ariadne charged them with
rape. According to him, when Pia was asked by the police to identify them, the victim
could not point them and did not even bother to glimpse on their faces but instead turned
her back covering her face as if she was crying.
GAZPAR DELA PENA (Gazpar for brevity), single and a resident of Brgy. Cale,
Tiwi, Albay. He vehemently denies having known or even meet Pia before. Also, that on
the date of incident, he was at Melchors house. He further corroborated the testimony of
Balthazar and Melchor with regards to the celebration of birthday of latters father.
Furthermore, that he did not leave the place after the celebration since his friend opted
not let him go home for he was already drunk. Lastly, he corroborated Melchors
testimony that Pia was not able point them and did not even bother to glimpse on their
faces.
BALDO DELOS REYES, married and a resident of Brgy Kuro-kuro, Tiwi, Albay. He
was the father of Melchor Delos Reyes. He corroborated the testimony that his son and the other
accused were present at his house celebrating his birthday during the alleged incident.

MARIA DELA CRUZ, married, a resident of Brgy Uyama, Tiwi, Albay and the
mother of Balthasar. She testified as to the matter of his son being a caretaker of the
church and identified the victim as his sons girlfriend. She also corroborated his sons
testimony as to the time he went home at around 1 oclock in morning and the arrest
made on his son, Balthasar.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
THE ELEMENTS OF FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WERE ESTABLISHED
The following are the elements as provided in Article 342 of the Revised Penal
Code:
1) That the offended party is a woman, regardless of age, civil status and reputation.
This is non-disputable for the private offended party Pia Ariadne.
2) That the abduction is against the womans will.
This means that force or intimidation was used by the offender. In fact, Pia was
taken from behind, forcibly handled and lost her consciousness when her mouth and
nose were covered before she could even cry for help. Further, she even received a
lacerated and bleeding forehead from the accused.
3) That such was equipped with lewd designs
Pia was sexually abused by the accused. In fact, a Medico Legal Report was
issued to that effect.The evidence showed that taking of the victim against her will
was effected in the furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. Such lewd designs in
forcible abduction is established by the actual rape of the victim.(People vs Ablaned,
GR No. 131914, April 30, 2001)

THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENSES OF THE ACCUSED WERE NOT SUFFICIENT

1) Sweetheart defense raised by Balthasar Dela Cruz
To avail the sweet heart theory, the accused must prove the following: a.) accused
and victim are lovers; and b.) consent of the victim to the sexual intercourse. On the
first requisite, it is worthy to note that such accused Balthasars sexual relationship
with the victim was corroborated by his mother. However,on the thestimony of
Gazpar and Melchor, how come his own friends do not even know the victim nor
answered in the negative of meeting her before. In short, Balthasars defense and that
of his mothers testimony are just testimonial evidence to that effect and are

insufficient proofs to support the defense of accused Balthasar. This was further
reiterated in a jurisprudence:
The sweetheart theory of the accused was unavailing and self-serving where he
failed to introduce love letters, gifts, and the like to attest to his alleged amorous
affair with the victim. Hence, the defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in
support of the theory that he and the victim were sweethearts. Independent proof is
necessary, such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. (People vs. Venerable, 290
SCRA 15, 1998).
Moreover, the second requisite of consent by the victim to the sexual intercourse
shifted to affirmative defense by Balthasar. In the counter affidavit and judicial
affidavit of accused Balthasar, his testimony on the matter was only limited to matter
of his relationship with Pia and the alleged sexual intercourse and never mentioned
nor explained further details. Hence, consent was not established.
Further, even if it were true, such relationship would not, by itself, establish
consent, for love is not a license for lust. A love affair could not have justified what
accused did subjecting complainant to his carnal desires against her will. (People
vs G.R. No. 141782, December 14, 2001)
2) Alibi and plea of being elsewhere than that of the place of commission by Melchor
Delos Reyes and Gazpar Dela Pena.
The two accused assailed that they were at Melchors house all along on the date
of incident, celebrating the birthday of Melchors father. This was even corroborated
by Baldo Delos Reyes. However, there was no testimony that they never point they
left the house from the very beginning. One may affirm that he is at the house all
along making it impossible for him to be present in a crime but it is different if there
was a point when one had left for minutes or two. As in the case, it was Baldos
birthday, it is inevitable that one might be directed to buy ingredients for food in the
poblacion etc. Besides, Melchors residence is not that far from the poblacion area,
as in Brgy. Tigbi. Further, Gazpar has his own motorcycle making it possible to
drove for awhile to the poblacion.
To be given weight, accused must prove not only that he was somewhere else
when the crime was committed but that he was so far away that it was physically
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the
time of its commission.(People vs ) Hence, the alibi of accused Gazpar and Melchor
is not sufficient.
3) That Pia was not able to directly point them nor name them as the persons who
abused her when asked by the police officers.
The victim was asked by the police station if she knew the persons at the police
station (Gazpar, Melchor and Balthasar). Just because Pia did not answered
affirmatively and point at them at the police station but rather she only get a glimpse
of their faces and continued crying does not mean Pia was accusing them wrongly.
She does not have to point or name of the accused so long as she was able to identify
the accused and recognize their faces. According to Guiyab vs People (G. R. No.
152527, October 20, 2005), the weight of the eyewitness account is premised on the
fact that the said witness saw the accused commit the crime and not because he
knew his name. Thus, this defense is of immaterial matter.

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

Court that accused BALTHASAR DELA CRUZ, MELCHOR DELOS REYES and

GAZPAR DELA PENA be CONVICTED of the crime charged for establishing their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

January 29, 2016 at Tabaco City, Philippines.

CAESAR B. BONUS
DEPUTY PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Copy furnished:
ATTY. HANNA R. BARBERO
Counsel of accused Balthasar Dela Cruz
Room 7. 3/F DD Bldg,
Tabaco City, Albay
ATTY. TOM N. GERI
Counsel for accused Melchor Delos Reyes
Room 67, 3/F, MC2 Bldg.,
Tabaco City, Albay
ATTY. GANA T. ADO
Counsel for accused Gazpar Dela Pena
Room 1, 2/F, BG Bldg.,
Tabaco City, Albay