AMEMORANDUMTHATWONANAPPEALATCOURTOFAPPEALS

AMEMORANDUMTHATWON
ANAPPEALATCOURTOFAPPEALS

Tothosewhoaremindedtoreadthewisdombehindmystyleofarguingforthecasesofmy
clients,IampostingthisWINNINGMEMORANDUM.

Youwilllearnfromme,forsure.

TheWinningMemorandumispostedbelow:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RepublicofthePhilippines
Court of Appeals
Manila

RANDELTORRESyMAGALONA,
Petitioner,

versusC.A.G.R.CRNo.34934

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
xx
RANDELTORRESyMAGALONA
andROWENAyBONDOC,
Petitioners,

versus

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
xx

Memorandum

Thepetitioner,bytheundersignedcounsel,respectfullysubmitsthisMemorandum.

The Prologue

Whywillamanrunawayfromameleeheisinvolvedin?

Thisisthequestionofindispensableimportanceinthiscase.Inattemptingtoanswer
this,itneedstoanalyzecircumstancesoftenhappeningasahumanexperience.
 Inarumbleamongfratmen,thoseyoungmenwhorunawayareeither:(a)overwhelmed
byfear;(b)havingcommittedaseriouscrimeofmurderorhomicideorseriousphysicalinjury
uponanopponent;or(c)becausepoliceofficersarrivedtocausethearrest.

Thisisthenaturalbehaviorofanypersonplacedinasimilarsituation.

Intheinstantcase,onethingisundisputed:AccusedRandelTorresranaway.

Whatwasthecauseofhisrunningaway?

Therewasnopoliceman.Therewasnomurder.Therewasnohomicide.Therewasno
seriousphysicalinjury.

Assuch,theonlyreasonis:FEAR.

SothatiftheonlypossiblereasonleftisFEAR,whatwasthatfearallabout? What
causedthefear?

Theanswercanbefoundbyretracingallthetestimoniesofwitnessesfrombothsidesas
towhathappenedpriortotherunningaway.

Ifweweretoconsideronlythetestimoniesoftheprosecution,notoneallegationofany
prosecutionwitnesscanjibewithtoexplainwhyaccusedRandelTorresranaway.

If we were to consider the testimonies of the defense witnesses, their consistent

collaboratingtestimoniesthatRobertoCruzaliasObetKabayopokedagunandfireditatRandel
TorresaretheonlyversionofthestorythatcanexplainwhyaccusedRandelTorresranaway.

ThesearediscussedfurtherbelowtoknowwhetherthecourtaquoandtheRegionalTrial
Courtarecorrectingivingbelieftotheclaimsoftheprosecutionwitnesses.

Amazingly,theconclusionwillshow:THEPROSECUTIONWITNESSESLIEDTO
THEIRTEETH.

SothatitisincorrectforboththeMetropolitanTrialCourtofManilaandtheRegional
TrialCourtofManilainbelievinginthetestimoniesofthewitnessesoftheprosecution.

The Facts

Innarratingthefactsbasedontheclaimsofrespectivewitnesses,commentsorremarks
areplacedinitalicsandenclosedbybrackets.

[TheimpossiblestoryofprivatecomplainantEilleenD.Cruz(Eileen,forbrevity)that
wasstronglydeniedbythepetitioneristhat,fornoreasonatallandwithoutexplainingwhat
wasthemotive.]

AccordingtoEileen,fornoreasonatallshewaspushedbyaccusedpetitionerRowena
Torres(Rowena,forbrevity).Thepush,shesaid,nearlycausedthebabyshewascarryingtofall
offherhands.[Canithappenthatonewouldjustattackanybodywithoutanyreasonormotive?
It is contrary to human experience to assault somebody without any reason at all. For not
submittinganyproofofmotivethisclaimshouldnotbegivenanycredence.]

At this juncture, Eileen said she then turned her head toward the direction of her
back.SheaddedthatatthispointshesawpetitioneraccusedRandelTorres(Randel,forbrevity)
smashingachaironherforehead.[Canthishappenwhenthereisnoevidenceofanymotiveon
thepartofaccusedpetitionerRandelTorres?Allthroughoutthehearingnoevidenceofmotive
onthepartofRowenaandRandelwaspresented.Forthis,thesecannotbegivenweight.]

Eileencontinuedthatthissmashingcausedherreadingglasstocrashtotheground.She
claimedfurthertherewasnodamageonherreadingglass.Thatreadingglasshasneverbeen
presentedtothecourt.[Thisisunbelievable.Thenatureoflifeisthatitismostlikelythatthe
readingglasseswouldbreakintopieces.]

Eileenalsoneversaidwhathappenedtoherchildwhileshewasbeinghitbyasmashof
thechair.[Isitpossibletohappenthatnothingbadhappenedtothechild?]

At that juncture, Eileen claimed she handed her baby to her sisterinlaw Mariedel
Villegastoavoidharmonthechild.

Aftersayingshewassmashedwithachairontheforehead,Eileenclaimedsheengaged
RowenaandRandelinabrawl.[Twoagainstone?Wasshebravethatshecouldstandagainst
two?Is this not consistent with the later claimthat she feared Randel for allegedly issuing
threats?]

In that ensuing melee, Eileen also claimed that Randels wife Rowena pulled her
hair.EileendidnotsaywhatwastheparticipationofRandelwhileEileenwasengagingRowena
inpullingofhairs.ShenevertoldwhereRandelwasatthattimeorwhathappenedtothealleged
unreasonable rage of Randel or what Randel did after smashing of the monobloc chair.[If
RandelindeedsmashedachaironEileenhemustbestillinragetocontinuetheassault.But
Eileen never said about what Randel did while she was battling it out with Rowena?The
inactionisimpossibleinthenatureofmanunderunreasonablerageandmoreonamanwho
wasallegedlyfearedbytheprivatecomplainant.]

EileenalsoclaimedthatwhilefightingagainstRandelandRowena,Eileenwashavinga
pambunoonlywithRowenaontheroad.[Theinconsistencyofthestorycomparedtohuman
experienceisnoticeable.]

Thereafter, Eileen claimed that Randy, brother of Rowena, embraced her.[This is

unbelievablebecauseinthefirstplaceEileenneverfiledanycaseagainsthim.Eileennever
explainedwhyshesparedRandyfromthecases.]

EileenclaimedshewasfightingagainstRandelandRowenabutsheneversaidwhatdid
her inlaw Mariedel Villegas do to help Eileen while Eileen was battling with Randel and
Rowena.[This is against the nature of man to just leave your sisterinlaw fighting alone
againstthreepersons,includingRandy.]

EileenclaimedthatwhilehavingpambunowithRowena(orwhetherRandelwasalso
grapplingwithherisconfusing),EileenclaimedsheheardRandyhurlinvectivesandthatRandy
was calling for backup.She never said what words were uttered to constitute the
invectives.[Thisisagainunbelievablecomparedtohumanexperience.Whycallforabackup
whenthefightappearedtobeone(1)againstthree(3)?Whyshecannotspecificallystatewhat
invectivesutteredbyRandy.]

EileenalsoclaimedshesawRandelintheactofsmashingonherachair(secondtimeof
smashingthechair?).SheclaimedsheparriedawaythesmashanditinsteadhitPaul.Shenever
saidwherePaulwashit.SheneversaidPaulfiledacaseagainstRandel.[Thisagainisclearly
unbelievable.Eileendidnotsayspecificallyhowithappenedshemanagedtoparryawaythe
smashasifsheactedlikesuperwomanandwherewasPaulhit.]

Atthispoint,EileenclaimedthatRandelranaway.[Whyranawaywhenthebattleisone
againstthree?Itisagainsthumannaturetospeakthatthepetitionerranawaywhenthebattleis
againstoneandawomanatthat.Impossible!Thisisthenailthenailedtocoffinofobviouslies
forEileen.]
Eileen claimed Randel shouted Putang ina ninyo! Babalikan ko kayo! Papatayin ko
kayonglahatwhilehewasrunningaway.[WhywillRandelrunawaywhenhiswifeRowena
washavingabrawlwithEileen?Havingshowntherewasnoreasontorunawayifwewereto
believeinEileen,itcannotnowbebelievedinthatRandelranawayandissuedthreatening
words.Inthefirstplace,itisnotclearastowhomthesekayowasreferredto. Wasitfor
Eileenalone?Thisstoryisthereforeimpossibletohappeninthissituation.Humannaturetells
usthatamanrunsawayfromafightishewhoisoutnumberedorfeelsimpossibilitytowin. But
itisimpossibletolosewhenthestreetfightisoneagainsttwoorthree,orwhenthestreetfightis
betweenamanandawomanononeteamandonewomanintheotherteam.]

Moreover,Eileendidnotmentionthatallofthewitnessesshepresentedwerepresent
when the alleged brawl and runningaway incidents occurred.She also did not say in her
narrationthathermotherBernarditaCruzwaswatchingherfightwithRowenaandRandelor
whenRandyembracedherduringthebrawl.Shealsodidnotexplainwhyhermotherdidnot
jointhefightwhennaturallawdictatesthatnomothercanstomachwatchingadaughterbeing
mauled.[Thus,itisclearlyunbelievableforthisclaimtohappen.]

Eileendidnotpresentthedoctorwhoallegedlyexaminedhertostatewhattheinjuries
were,toexplainiftheinjurieswereindeedcausedbyaplasticchair,andtostatethefindingsas
tohowmanydaysthatEileenwouldsufferincapacitatedtolabororwouldneedtoundergo
medicationthataretheelementsofslightphysicalinjuries.[Itisthereforeveryclearthatthe
stories of Eileen are unbelievable.This constituted a reasonable doubt whether it was the
accusedwhoalsocausedherallegedinjuries.]

Shealsodidnotpresentmedicalproofofinjuriesduetoactsofpulling,pushing,and
pambuno,orwrestling,orpunching,orscratchingthatiscommontoawomensfight.[If
Eileensmedicalcertificatedoesnotshowinjuriesotherthanontheforehead,thenitfollowsthat
itwasfalseforhertotellastorythatherhairswerepulled,thatshewaspushed,thatshewas
punched,thatshewasscratchedandthatshewrestledwith.]

ProsecutionWitnessMariedelVillegas

Eileens witness, Mariedel Villegas (Mariedel, for brevity), executed a Sinumpaang

Salaysayandtestifiedalsoincourt.

Mariedel said that at 5:30 p.m. of March 23, 2006 she was eating and exchanging
pleasantrieswithherfamilyattheirhouse.Fromthere,shesaidshenoticedEileencarryingher
fourmontholdbabywhilegoingoutofEileenshouseandproceedingtoanearbystoretopay
forthehalohaloEileenboughtfromthere.

MariedelsaidthatafewminuteslaterEileenapproachedherandhandedtohersonto
Mariedel.Atthispoint,MariedelsaidshenoticedalumpontheforeheadofEileen.

[Itmustbestressedthatatthispoint,itisasifMariedelwasnarratingabouteventsthat
occurredafterthetimethatEileensaidshewassmashedwithamonoblocchairbyaccused
petitioner Randel.But ifthesetestimoniesofMariedelwerecomparedtothe testimoniesof
Eileen, there difference is glaring and diametrical against each other.For one, Eileens
testimoniesclaimthattherewasnointervalofpeacefromthetimeEileenwaspushedby
Rowenaandsmashedwithamonoblocchair;butinthisstoryofMariedel,itisclearthatEilen
was cool and was even paying her debts to the sarisari store on the halohalo she
bought.ThisalonemustbeenoughtodiscreditthestoriesofEileen.IfindeedEileenalready
hadalumponherforeheadatthattimeshewasseenbyMariedel,itisalsopossiblethatthere
wasnoaltercationyetthattookplacewhenthelumpinjurywasseenbyMariedelandthatthe
coolnessinwalkingtothesarisaristoreandthepayingofhalohalocansupportthetheory
thatpriorthecommotionthelumpintheforeheadwasalreadythere.]
Mariedel said that what happened after noticing the lump on the forehead of Eileen,
MariedelputthechilddownandshefollowedEileen.MariedelsaidthatalongthewayEileen
chanced upon accusedpetitioner Randel holding a chair.Mariedel claimed that Randel then
rushedtowardEileenhavinganaltercationwithRowena.Mariedelfourthclaimedthatatthis
pointMariedeltoldRandeltopacifyEileenandRowenabutthatinsteadRandelthrewinvectives
ather(withoutclarifyingwhowasreferredtoasher)andthreatenedthem(withoutsaying
whowerereferredtoasthem).MariedelsaidthatatthisjunctureaccusedpetitionerRandel
hurledthechairagainstEileenandfledwhileshoutingPUTANGINANINYO!!!BABALIKAN
KOKAYO!!!PAPATAYINKOKAYONGLAHAT!!!.

[ Now, Mariedel added confusion.Was the chair indeed smashed on Elieen?In

Mariedelsversion,shesaidthatthechairwasHURLEDATEILEEN.InEileenstestimony,
shesaidthatthechairwassmashedatherwhenEileenturnedtowardherback.Onethingis
certain until here: THE DOUBT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ACCUSED RANDEL DID NOT
SMASHTHECHAIRONEILEEN.)

ProsecutionWitnessBernarditaDavidCruz

ProsecutionwitnessBernarditaDavidCruz(Bernardita,forbrevity),motherofEileen,
executedSinumpaangSalaysayandtestifiedincourt.

Bernarditaclaimedthatat5:30intheafternoonofMarch23,2006,shewasinsideher
housewhenshesawMariedelandPaulAnthonyVillegas(Paul,forbrevity)rushingoutoftheir
house while her grandson Justine (was this the fouryearold baby of Eileen?) was left
inside.Curious,BenarditasaidshealsolefttheirhouseandshesawRandelholdingachairand
rushingtowardRowenawho,atthattime,wasinanaltercationwithEileen.Bernarditasaidthat
RandelattemptedtohitEileenwiththechairbutEileenwasabletoevadeandthereafterRandel
fledwhilethreateningthem.

[The plot to lie becomes clear with the testimonies of Bernardita.For her part,
BernarditaclaimedthatRandelattemptedtohitEileenwiththechairbutthatEileenwasnot
hit.IfEileenwasnothit,thatmeansthatthelumpontheforeheadofEileenwasalreadythere
beforethealtercationoccurred.Also,BernarditasversionsaidthatitwasonlyMariedland
PaulwhowererushingoutofthehouseandshedidnotseeherdaughterEileen.Thistherefore
contradictedMariedelstestimonyandEileenstestimonyonmaterialpoints.]

ProsecutionWitnessPaulAnthonyVillegas

ThetestimonyofPaulAnthonyVillegaswasstipulateduponascorroborativeinnatureso
thathewasdispensedwith.

DefenseWitnessRowenaTorres

RowenasaidthatonMarch23,2006shewentoutoftheirhomeat1953EJuanLunaSt.,
Tondo,ManilaandsheaccidentallybumpedEilleenatanearbycarinderia.Shesaidthisangered
Eileenwhowasthencarryingherfourmontholdson.Becauseofthatbump,Rowenasaidthat
Eileen threw invectives at her.After that, Rowena said that Eileen called her sisterinlaw
MariedelandhandedthebabytoMariedel.AfterhandingthebabytoMariedel,Rowenasaidthat
EileenpulledthehairofRowena.Atthatinstance,RowenasaidthatMariedelcalledherbrother,
PaulAnthonyVillegas,whojoinedthemeleeandgangeduponRowena.

RowenasaidthatherhusbandRandelcametopacify.Instead,shesaidthatRandelwas
boxedbyPaulAnthony.Atthatinstance,RowenasaidthatBernardita,themotherofEileen,
cameheldthehandsofRandel.

Thereafter,Rowenasaidthatthefatherofthecomplainant,RobertoCruzaliasObet
Kabayo,pulledoutagunfromabrowntowelandpokeditatRandel.

 Atthesametime,RowenasaidshewastryingtofreeherselffromthegripofEileenand
Mariedelwhileshewasbeingkickedandherhairswerebeingpulled.RowenasaidthatObet
Kabayo,thefatherofEileen,thenfiredhisguntwiceandshesawherhusbandRandelRowena
runningtowardthecornerwhilebeingchased.Afterthat,Rowenasaidthatsheandherhusband
werethreatenednottosetfootonthesaidplaceornottothinkofleavingtheirhouse.

[WithoutsayingwhetherthesetestimoniesofRowenaaretrue,analysiswillshowthatall
what she narrated, particularly the flow of the story, are consistent with human
experience.Further,thestoryofRowenathatthefatherofEileenfiredthegunonRandelis
consistentwiththenatureofmantorunaway.Assuch,thedeclarationsofRowenaaremore
consistentwiththenatureofman.]

The prosecution did not crossexamine Rowena.[This amounted to the prosecution

admittingallthetestimoniesofRowena,whichtestimonies,afterall,areconsistentwiththe
possiblereasonwhyRandelranawayandcoherentwiththenaturalbehaviorofman.]

DefenseWitnessRandelTorres

RandelTorresexecutedSinumpaangSalaysayandPinagsamangKontraSalaysayand
affirmedthecontentsduringhistestimonies.

Duringthecrossexam,RandelinsisteditwasnottruethatheinflictedinjuriesonEileen
andhealsodidnotthreatenher.Randelsaidthattherewasaheatedargumentbetweenhiswife
RowenaandEileen.Healsoinsistedthattheinstantchargeswereonlycounterchargesbecause
hefiledacomplaintforattemptedhomicideagainstObetKabayo,thefatherofEileen.

Duringtheredirect,RandelsaidthatRowenawasgangedupbyPaul,Maredieland
Bernarditaandthiswaswitnessedbyseveralneighbours.Randelsaidthatwhenheattemptedto
intervenetopacifyhewasmauledbyBernarditaandPaul.

Uponrecross,RandelsaidthatKagawadRobertoCruzaliasObetKabayopulledouta
gunfromatowelandfireditathimbutthebulletmissedandRandelwasabletoescape.

Hesaidhedidnotknowthereasonwhythecomplaintforattemptedhomicidethathe
filedagainstRobertowasdismissed.

[Lookingathistestimonies,theseareconsistentwiththetestimoniesofhiswifeRowena
andalsoconsistentwithnature.Atthesametime,theflowofthethoughtsofhistestimoniesis
coherent,endingwithhimrunningaway.ThestoryofRandelisappropriateastheexplanation
whyheranaway.]
DefenseWitnessRowenaAguilarWaniwan

Witness Rowena Aguilar Waniwan (Waniwan, for brevity) executed Pinagsamang

SalaysayPagTestigoandconfirmedthecontentstherein.

WaniwansaidthatshesawEileenstartingthealtercationwithRowena.Waniwansaid
thatafterRandelwitnessedtheincident,Randeltriedtointervenetopacify.Notlongafterthis,
Waniwan said he saw Kagawad Roberto Cruz alias Obet Kambing, the father of Eileen,
approachedEileen,RowenaandRandelwhileRobertowascarryinginhishandabrowntowel
thatturnedouttobecoveringagun.WaniwanaddedthatRobertothenfiredthegunatRandel.

During the crossexamination, Waniwan said that she witnessed Kagawad Roberto
attempting to kill Randel.She said there is nothing in her affidavit that she state that she
witnessedRowenaandRandelthreatenedandinflictedbodilyinjuriesonEileen.

[Again, the testimonies of Waniwanis consistent with the plausible explanationwhy

Randelranaway.ShecorroboratedthetestimoniesofRowenaandRandelalthoughWaniwan
wasnotpresentincourtwhenRandelandRowenatestified.]
 DefenseWitnessMarivicAguilar

MarivicAguilar(Marivic,forbrevity)executedPinagsamangSinumpaangSalaysayPag
Testigo.

MarivicsaidthatonMarch23,2006shewasstandingoutsideherhousewhenshesaw
RowenaandEileeninanaltercation.Thereafter,MarivicsaidshesawRandelapproachandtry
topacifythetwo.MarivicaddedthatPaulVillegasthenapproachedRandelandhitRandelon
thenape.Thereafter,MarivicsaidshesawObetKambingattemptingtokillRandelbysurprising
the latter with a shout: PUTANG INA MO PAPATAYIN KITA, KATAGAL KA NG
NAMUMUROSAAKIN,PUTANGINAMO.Then,Marivicsaid,Obetpokedhisgunon
Randel.ButbeforeObetcouldfirethegun,Randelranaway,therebyevadingthebulletsfiredby
Obet.MarivicfurthersaidthatshedidnothearorseeRandelinflictinganyinjuryorthreatening
Eileen.

During the crossexamination, Marivic said that the confrontation at first was only
betweenEileenandRowena.SherepeatedthatthereafterRandelapproachedtopacifythetwo
women.Afterthat,Marivicsaid,PaulVillegascameandhitRandelfrombehind.Marivicalso
saidthatitwasnottruethatRandelhitEileenwithachairbecausetherewasnoplasticchairin
thevicinity.MarivicalsosaidthatafterfailingtokillRandel,acasewasfiledagainstKagawad
RobertoCruzbutshedidnotknowwhathappenedwiththecase.

[Again,thetestimoniesofMarivicwereconsistentwithhumanexperience,consistent
withthetestimoniesofthefirstwitnessesofthedefense,coherentonthebasisofhumanlogic,
straightforwardandaplausibleexplanation,too,whyRandelranaway.Thatisdespitethefact
thatshewasnotaroundwhentheearlierwitnessestestified.]

ThesetestimoniesrestatedherewereculledfromtheDecisionoftheMetropolitanTrial
CourtofManila,Branch3.

Nevertheless,theyarevividenoughtoshowthattheprosecutionwitnessesaretestifying
onlies.

The Issues

1. TheHonorableRTCerredinrulingthatpresumptionofregularityofthecertificatetofileaction
wassufficienttoovercomethepresumptionofinnocence;

2. TheHonorableRTCerredingivingpresumptionofregularityinthecertificatetofileaction
whenthereisnoproofofcompliancewiththeproceduresrequiredbythelawonLuponng
TagapamayapaorKatarungangPambarangay;

3. TheHonorableRTCerredinadoptingthepurportedcertificatetofileactionastheevidencefor
theprosecutionwhenthatcertificatetofileactionwasactuallyissuedforthecomplaintofthe
accusedagainsttheprivatecomplainantandhercohortsinaseparatecomplaint;

4. TheHonorableRTCerredinaffirmingtheconvictionforslightphysicalinjurieswhenthereis
noproofofferedfortheexistenceofincapacitytolabor;

5. TheHonorableRTCerredinaffirmingtheconvictionforslightphysicalinjurieswhenthereis
noproofofferedwhoactuallycommittedtheactofhittingthemonoblocchairontheprivate
complainant;

6. TheHonorableRTCerredinnotcreditingthefindingofthetrialcourtaquothattherewasno
intentiontocommitthethreat,suchthatitshouldbeanevidenceoflackofmalice;
7. TheHonorableRTCerredinnotnoticingtheevidenceoflackofmalicefromallegationsitself
ofthecriminalinformationofotherlightthreats;

8. TheHonorableRTCerredinviolatingtheconstitutionalrightstodueprocessandagainstdouble
jeopardy;

9. The Honorable RTC erred in assuming the facts by the prosecution were true, there is no
evidencethattheaccusedbemetedtheharshpenalty,butmerefinesshouldbeenough;and

10. TheHonorableRTCerredinrulingthattheinconsistenciesandthelackofcorroboration
aswellastheinconsistencieswiththehabitoflifearenotsufficienttooverturnthefindingsof
facts.

Discussions

ErrorNo.1

Can the presumption of innocence be defeated by another presumption that is the

presumptionofregularityintheissuanceofthecertificatetofileaction?

Thisisthecruxofthefirstcitederror.

InitsDecisionandOrderdenyingthemotionforreconsideration,theHonorableCourt
rejectedthedefensetheorythattheaccusedshouldbeacquittedbecausethecertificatetofile
actionissuedbythebarangaywasnotissuedonthebasisofcompliancewiththerequirements.

The Honorable Court relied heavily on the mistaken belief in the presumption of
regularityofthecertificatetofileaction.

Itishighlyanomalous.

The presumption of innocence cannot be defeated by another presumption. The

prosecution must go beyond the presumption to cross over the bar of the presumption of
innocence.

Thepresumptionofregularityintheperformanceofofficialfunctioncangalvanizeintoa
higherdegreeofproofifitisnotquestioned.

Butwhenthecertificatetofileactionwasquestionedasinthiscase,thequestionmust
havebeenenoughtocreatedoubt.

As such, to remove the doubt is the burden of proof on the one relying on the
presumptionofthecertificatetofileaction.

Sadly,theprosecutiondidnotevenattempttogiveexplanationtoanswerthequestions
raisedbythedefense.

Anexplanationorproofsofcompliancewiththeprocedureslaiddownbylawshouldbe
presentedtogalvanizethepresumptionintoaconclusiveproofofcompliancewiththeprocedures
laiddownbylaw.

Thelackofexplanationmadethepresumptionofregularityofthecertificatetofileaction
failtoovercomethebarofthepresumptionofinnocence.

Thisistheessenceofdueprocessandtheessenceoftheconstitutionalpresumptionof
innocence.
 The presumption of innocence is vested by the Highest Law of the land that is the
Constitution.

Whereas,thepresumptionofregularitymerelyproceedsfromtheRulesofEvidencethat
CANNOTBEHIGHERthantheConstitution.

Now,itisnotindisputethattheonlyevidenceofferedastocompliancewiththeLupon
ngTagapamayapaorKatarungangPambarangaylawisamerecertificate.

Ergo,bythisalonetheinstantcriminalcaseschargedagainsttheaccusedmustfail.

Moreover,WHYSHOULDPRESUMPTIONBEATTACHEDtothecertificatetofile
actionwhenitwasissuedforaccusedRandelandRowenabecausetheyweretheonlyoneswho
filedacomplaintbeforethebarangay?

First,itisveryclearthatthesamecertificatewasissuedbytheBarangayChairmanin
favorofRandelMagalonaTorresandRowenaBondocTorres.

Simply,itmeantthataccusedRandelandRowenawenttotheBarangayandrespected
theauthorityofthebarangayluponunderRepublicAct7160.

Second, it is also very clear that the same certificate was not issued for the private
complainant.

Forwhyshouldtherebeacertificatetobeofferedinfavoroftheprivatecomplainant
whenTHECOMPLAINANTHERSELFDIDNOTRESPECTTHEBARANGAY?

Whyshouldthecertificatebegiventhepresumptioninfavorofthepersonwhodidnot
evenrespectthebarangayproceedingsanddidnotseekthebarangayintervention?

Canthepersonwhorejectedthebarangayremediesbepermittedtobenefitfromthe
barangaycertificateissuednotforthatperson?

Thisishighlyanomalous.

FURTHER,thecertificatetofileactionmustbesignedbytheLuponofficerconcerned
NOTTHEBARANGAYCHAIRMAN.

ThelawisveryclearthatitistheLuponChairmanwhoshouldissuethecertificatetofile
actionandnotthebarangaychairman.

Sothatifthecertificateissignedbythebarangaychairman,itwasanexerciseofan
authority as the barangay chairman and NOT the exercise of the authority as thebarangay
luponchairman.

ItisthereforeclearthatTHEREISNOPRESUMPTIONTHATCANBEGIVENTO
THECERTIFICATETOFILEACTIONISSUEDFOROTHERPURPOSE.

ThecertificatetofileactionwasissuedforthepurposeofRandelsandRowenasfiling
ofactionincourt.ItwasNOTissuedforthepurposeoftheprivatecomplainantsfilingofher
case WHEN SHE HERSELF DISRESPECTED THE BARANGAY PROCEEDINGS BY
GOINGDIRECTLYTOTHEPROSECUTIONSOFFICE.

SERIOUSIRREGULARITIESaresufficienttodiminishthepresumptionofregularity.
Thisiswhatthejurisprudencehassettled.

Inthiscase,theIRREGULARITIESARENOLESSTHANSERIOUS.
ErrorNo.2

ItisthebasicprincipleoftheConstitutionalDueProcessthatbeforeanactcanprejudice
anyperson,theburdenofproofofcompliancewiththeprocessorprocedureshouldbeoffered
firstbeforethatactcanoperatetodivestthatpersonoftherighttolife,libertyorproperty.

WhentheConstitutionspeaks:Nopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyorproperty
withoutdueprocessoflaw...,theConstitutionrequiresNOLESSTHANDUEPROCESS.It
meansthathalfprocessisnotallowed.Itmeansthatthreefourthsprocessisnotallowed.It
mustbetheWHOLEortheENTIREprocesstobefollowedbeforeitcanbesaidasDUE
PROCESS.

IftheConstitutiondoesnotrequirefullcompliancewithdueprocess,ITCOULDHAVE
NOTAFFIXEDTHEQUALIFICATIONDUEBEFORETHEWORDPROCESS.

This is succinct in the case of extrajudicial confession.Before an extrajudicial

confessioncanattachagainsttheconfessor,theremustbewrittenaproofofcompliancewiththe
procedures laid down by the law or the Constitution: (a) There must be a written proof of
compliancewiththewaiveroftherighttoremainsilent;(b)Theremustbeawrittenproofof
compliancewiththerequirementofthepresenceofanindependentcounselwhenthewaiverwas
executed;and(c)Theremustbeawrittenproofofcompliancewiththerequirementthatthe
counselassistedinthenarrationofallegationsintheextrajudicialconfession.

Intheinstantcase,despitethechallengebytheaccused,theprosecutionsatidlyby.

Theprosecutiondidnotsubmitanyproofofcompliancewithprocedureslaiddownby
theLuponlawbeforeacertificatetofileactioncanbeissued.

Thecompliance,torepeat,requiresthatitshouldbetheLUPONCHAIRMANwhoshall
signthecertificateandNOTtheBARANGAYCHAIRMAN.

ACTINGinthecapacityasLuponChairmanisonethingandactinginthecapacityas
BarangayChairmanisanotherthing.

Ergo,bythisalone,theaccusedmustbeacquittedonreasonabledoubtthatthecertificate
tofileactionwasissuedwithsufficientregularitytomeritapresumptionofregularity.

ErrorNo.3

WhatmoremadetheinstantDecisionclearlyunconvincingisthefactthatthereisno
disputethatthecertificatetotheactionissuedwasISSUEDFORTHEACCUSEDandNOT
fortheprivatecomplainant.

Thesaidcertificatetofileactionwasissuedduetothecomplaintsoftheaccusedagainst
theprivatecomplainantandhercohorts.

ThesamecertificatetofileactionwassubmittedbytheaccusedtotheOfficeoftheCity
Prosecutortosupporttheirseparatecomplaintagainsttheprivatecomplainantandhercohorts.

Inshort,thesaidcertificatetofileactionwasforthecasefiledbytheaccusedandWAS
NOTFORTHECASESOFTHEPRIVATECOMPLAINANT.

Theprosecutioncannotbepermittedtobelazytogetitsowncertificate.
 Sincethereisalawthatauthorizestheuseofacertificatetofileactionforanothercase,
IT BECOMES NOW NULL AND VOID TO USE THE SAME CERTIFICATE FOR THE
CASESITWASNOTISSUEDFOR.

Ergo,bythisalone,theaccusedmustbeacquitted.

ErrorNo.4

The law on slight physical injuries is very clear. It requires the ELEMENT OF
INCAPACITYTOLABOR.

Inthiscase,theprosecutionfailedtosubmitanyproofthattheprivatecomplainantwas
incapacitatedtolabororthatsheneededmedicationforlessthannine(9)days.

Thedoctorwasnotevenpresented.Ergo,thisconstitutesareasonabledoubtastothe
existenceofinjuries.

Itwasnotevenknownwhetherthelacerationintheforeheadwascausedbyaplastic
chair.

Rememberthataplasticchairisinthenaturethatitcancauseanelongatedlaceration,
unlikeinabluntcylindricalobjectwhosebottomcancausearoundshapelaceration.

Thefailuretopresentthephysicianthereforeconstitutesreasonabledoubt.

Ergo,itiscompellingfortheHonorableCourttoacquitthetwoaccusedonthegroundof
lackofevidenceofincapacitytolaborfornine(9)daysorlesser.

ErrorNo.5

With due respect, the Honorable Court overlooked the fact that THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE who was the person who actually smashed a monobloc chair on the private
complainant.

Infact,thenarrationabovebytheMeTCofManila,Branch3,showedthatBernardita,
themotherofEileen,saidthatEileenevadedthesmashingofthechair.

InthenarrationcitedbytheMeTConMariedelstestimony,Mariedelsaidthatbeforethe
altercation with Rowena occurred, Mariedel already noticed the lump on the forehead of
Eileen.Onthechair,MariedeltestifiedthatitwasthrownatEileenbyRandelbutthatthechair
didnothither.

PaulAnthonyVillegasdidnottestifyonthechair.Sothatitisnowverycleartosaythat
theonlyevidenceaboutthechairsmashingisthetestimonyoftheprivatecomplainantherself,
Eileen.

ThemotherofEileensaidotherwise.Mariedelsaidotherwise.

The witnesses of the defense, who appear clearly coherent and straightforward and
logical based on human experience, did not say there was chairsmashing incident that
occurred.Infact,thelastwitnessofthedefenseevenflatlysaidtherewasnochairinthevicinity.
 Assuch,itisveryclearthattheRTCandtheMeTCclearlyerredinconcludingthatthe
chairsmashingincidentclaimoccurredanditwasindeedRandelwhosmashedthechair.

Letalonethetestimoniesofthewitnessesoftheprosecutionthat,asshownabove,cannot
evenjibewitheachother.

THEREWASALSONOEVIDENCEOFCONSPIRACYthatwaspresentedtobind
RowenaandRandelinamannerthattheactofoneistheactofall.

Ergo,itbecomescompellingfortheHonorableCourttoacquitbothaccusedonslight
physicalinjurycrimeaccusationonthegroundofinsufficiencyofevidence.

ErrorNo.6

Ifthereisnointentiontocommitthecrime,thereisnomalice.Forcrimesthataremala
inse,aslightthreatsorgravethreats,goodfaithisenoughtoacquit.

Intheinstantcase,thecourtaquoruledthattherewasnointentiononthepartofaccused
RandelM.Torrestocommitthecrimeofgravethreats.

To prove, let the particular acknowledgement by this Honorable Court of the lower
courtspronouncementthatstate:

Ontheotherhand,thelowercourtruledinitsDecisiondatedMarch1,2011(Recordsp.
291) that in this case, accused
Randel M. Torres, before fleeing from the incident, and perhaps in an uncontrollable anger,
uttered the threatening remarks upon complainant Eilleen D. Cruz, but in fact, (the) said
accusedhadnorealintentionofcarryingouttheideainthisthreat.

Iftherewasnointention,THENTHEREWASNOMALICE.Iftherewasnomalice,
THENTHEREWASNOCRIME.

Itshouldbesosimpleasthis.

SufficeittostatethatwhenitwasutteredINTHEHEATOFANGERtherewasno
intentiontostatethesamebutthatitspurtedoutofthemouthunconsciouslyorbyaccidentofthe
tongueasanordinaryhabitoflifeandnotmeanttobeso.

Onewhoisintheheatorangerhasnocontroloverhissanity.Nopersoncancontrolhis
wordswhenheisinthestateoffiredupemotion.

Themostwordsthatcouldbeutteredarethosethatcomequicklywithouthavingbeen
deliberateduponbyhismind.Sufficeittostatethatonlythosethatthetongueisusedtoutterin
angerarethosethatarelikelystated.

Ofcourse,itmustbedifferentifitwasstatedwithoutanyanger.Inthiscase,itwas
deliberate.

Clearly,itwasanACCIDENTofthetonguenotmeantasitshouldbe.

Assuch,itiscommontohearangrypeopleexpressinghisangstbysaying:YOUSON
OFABITCH!,orFUCKYOU!,PUTANGINAMO!,MAMAMATAYKASANA!,
TATAMAANKASAAKIN!,PUTANGINAMO,PAPATAYINKITA!,ETC.
 Thisinnocenceisreallygalvanizedbytheprooffurnishedbytheinformationitselfthat
states:butaccused,however,bysubsequentacts,didnotpersistintheideaconceivedinhis
threats.

Thelawmakersrecognizedtheserealitiesthatthepersonsimilarlysituatedshouldnotbe
punishedforgravethreatsifthesearemitigating,orexemptingornegatingcircumstancesthat
occurredduringtheutteranceofthesupposedthreats.

TheserealitiesmusthaveledthelawmakersNOTtodefineasacrimetheactofuttering
threatsundertheheatofangerandthatthethreatenedactwouldamounttoacrimewhenpursued.

Simplystating,Nullumcrimenullapoenasinelege.

Sincethereisnocrimedefinedforactsofutteringthreatsunderacompulsionofanger,
THEREISNOPUNISHMENTTHATCANBEWARRANTED.

Whatispunishedisutteringthreatsunderacompulsionofangerifthethreatsdonot
amounttoacrime.

Simple.Inthiscase,theinformationallegedthattheallegedthreatswereutteredinthe
heatofangerbutthethreatsiftrueclearlyamountedtoacrimeofmurder.

ErrorNo.8

Moreover,theHonorableCourterredinfindingaccusedRandelM.Torresguiltyofa
highercrimeofgravethreatswhenheisnotchargedwiththesame.

Itbecomesaviolationofdueprocessclauseoftheaccusedifheisconvictedofthecrime
NOTSTATEDintheinformation.

Thestatementsintheinformationarereadinfrontoftheaccusedincompliancewiththe
dueprocessthattheaccusedmustbeinformedofthenatureandcauseofaccusationagainsthim.

Therefore,thosethatarenotreadcannotbeimputedagainsttheaccused.

Intheinstantcaseofotherlightthreats,theinformationstatedtheallegedthreatsas
doneintheheatofangerandwhichwerenotdoneinsubsequentactsthattheaccuseddidnot
persistinpursuingtheideaconceivedintheutteredwords.

Inthecaseofgravethreats,itpunishesthreatswithoutexistenceofheatofangerand
withouttheexistenceofthefactthattheallegedthreatswerepursued.

SothattheRegionalTrialCourt,assumingwithoutadmittingthattheaccusedisindeed
guiltyofutteringsuchwords,violatedthedueprocessclause.

Additionally,itisalsoundisputedthatitbecomesaviolationagainstthedoublejeopardy
proscriptionwhenitconvictedtheaccusedofthecrimehigherthanwhatischargedandwhatis
readtohimduringthearraignment.

ErrorNo.9

Now,assumingindeedthatthesaidactofutteringthosewordsispunishable,andby
looking at the evidence alone, there are no circumstances that would show obliteration or
depreciationoftheoffenseoftheaccusedtobemetedwithharshpenalties.
 Thelawallowsthecourttoimposeafineoranimprisonmentorboth.Sothatifthereis
reallynojustification,asinthecaseatbarthateverythingoccurredallegedlyduetotheheatof
angerandthereisnoevidencethatitishabitualonthepartoftheaccused,thenthereissound
justnesstoimposeonlyfines.

InissuingCircular082008advisingjudgestoimposeonlyfinesincaseofconvictionof
libel,theSupremeCourtjustifiedasfollows:

The judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and taking into
considerationthepeculiarcircumstancesofeachcase,determinewhethertheimpositionifafine
alonewouldbestservetheinterestsofthejusticeorwhetherforbearingtoimposeimprisonment
woulddepreciatetheseriousnessoftheoffense,workviolenceonthesocialorder,orotherwise
becontrarytotheimperativesofjustice.

Forsure,assumingthattheaccusedareindeedguilty,itissubmittedthattheimposition
offinesalonewouldbestservetheinterestofjustice.

Forsure,thereisnoevidencetostatethatremovalofimprisonmentwoulddepreciatethe
seriousnessoftheoffense,orworkviolenceonthesocialorder,orotherwisebecontrarytothe
imperativesofjustice.

NOW,theutteranceoftheaccusedcanbeconsideredasaREASONABLEMEANS
USEDASSELFDEFENSE.

Itisundisputedthatthecourtaquofoundthattheaccusedwasrunningawaywhenhe
wasutteringthesewords.

Andwhenhewasrunningaway,itmeansthattherewasapresenceofathreatto
thislife.

Andwhentherewasathreattohislife,thenthatutterancescanbegiventhefavorofthe
doubtthatitwasutteredasameansofselfdefenseTOSTOPTHEPURSUERS.

Let it be asked: WHY DID RANDEL TORRES RUN IF HE WAS IN THE

UPPERHANDINTHATBRAWL?

ErrorNo.10

Withduerespect,theaccusedareaskingtheHonorableCourttoreexaminetheevidence
presentedandmakearulingwhetherthecourtaquomadeacorrectconclusionastowhatshould
betheultimatefacts.

Asnarratedabovewithannotationswritteninitalics,itisclearlyshownthatbetweenthe
two sets of witnesses, it is the witnesses of the defense that are consistent with each other,
coherent,logicaltohumanexperience,andtheonethatcanexplainwhyRandelranaway.

Tothecontrary,thetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnessesdidnotjibewitheachother
onmaterialpoints.EileensaidRandelsmashedaplasticchaironherwhensheturnedherhead
toward her back.Mariedel said that Randel threw the chair on Eileen but did not hit
Eileen.BernarditasaidthatRandeltriedtohitEileenwiththechairbutthatEileenevadedthe
attempt.

Theyalsodifferfromoneanotherastohowthealtercationstartedandprogressed.
 Assuch,itisveryclearthatthetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnessesarenotjibing
witheachother.

Thestoriespresentedbytheprosecutionareimpossibletohappenandnotconsistentwith
the normal habits of life. The prosecution did not present any explanation how the stories
happenedtobeconsistentwithhumanexperience.

Moreover, the stories were presented in general statements or lacking in material

specificationstobebelievable.

Anybodyclaimingtobeawitnesstoacrimeistellingthetruthonlyifheorshecantell
the details of the incident in a blowbyblow manner. A reading of the affidavits of the
complainant and her witnesses and a review of their testimonies show the lack of material
specificdetails.

Itisrequiredthatthetestimoniesmustpresentthedetailsonhowtheincidentoccurredto
justifyproofbeyondreasonabledoubt.

Thesepointsareshownbythenarrationoffactsbythewitnesseswithannotationsas
presentedaboveundertheheadingTheFacts.

Thetheoryoftheprosecutionisthatfornoreasonatallshewaspushedthatnearly
causedherbabyshewascarryingtofallout.Shedidnotspecifyhowshewaspushedandhow
strongwasthepush.

Right there and then she claimed she turned her head toward the direction of her
back.Note that there were no specific details presented on how the push and the fall
happened.Atthatmoment,sheclaimedthataccusedRandelTorressmashedonherforeheadto
causeherreadingglassestofallandcrashonconcreteground.Therewerenodamageonher
readingglassesthatwerepresented.TheclaimofEileenisalsoimpossibletohappenbecause
sheclaimedshewascarryingafourmontholdbaby.Infact,howshecoulddefendherbabyif
indeedtherewassmashing?

Atthatjuncture,sheclaimedshehandedherbabytohersisterinlawtoavoidharmon
thechild.Therewerenoexplanationsgivenhowithappenedthatshestillhadthetimetoprotect
herbaby.TherewasalsonoexplanationgiventoconvincehowithappenedthatRandelwould
smashachaironherwhenshewascarryingababyandwhendoingsowouldmeanRandelwould
alsobehittingRowena,hiswife.

Subsequently, the private complainant said she faced the spouses with only herself
againsttwopersons,withoutexplaininghowthiswouldhappenwhenshesaidshefearedthe
accused.

Butasshefacedtheaccused,shesaidthataccusedRowenapulledherhair.Nospecific
detailsweregivenhowthishappened.Again,shedidnotexplainhowshemanagedtoseetheact
ofpullingwhenshesaidshehadnomoreeyeglassesatthistime.Shethenaddedthatatthis
juncturesheandRowenaengagedeachotherinpambunoontheroad.

Thereafter,RowenasaidshewasembracedbyRandy,brotherofaccusedRowena.But
shedidnotprovidedetailsneithersheexplainedwhyshedidnotfileanycriminalcomplaint
againstRandynorexplainwhyherallegedwitnessMadel(Mariedel)whosheclaimedtobeher
sisterinlawdidcometoheraid.

Tothecontrary,EilleenCruzclaimedthatMadeldidanactunexpectedofasisterinlaw
thatthelattershouldhavehelpedherinthefightifindeedtherewasafightinstead.
 Untilthispointfromthetimeofallegedsmashingwithaplasticchair,Eilleendidnot
explainwhataccusedRandelwasdoing,whetherhewasjustwatching,orcheering,orholdingat
baywithonlookers.

EilleenalsodidnotexplaininheraffidavitwhyMadelonlycontendedherselftotell
Randytoletthetwowomenfight.Thereafter,whilelogicallyengagedinpambunoEilleen
claimedshestillheardRandyhurlinvectivesandsayhecalledforbackupandthattheirdays
werenumbered.EilleendidnotsayanyinvectivesfromRandy.

Subsequently,EilleenclaimedshesawaccusedRandelintheactofwhippingheronthe
headwithachair,withoutspecifyingwhetheritwasasteelorplasticchair.

ThenEilleenalsomadeaclaimthatshemanagedtowaiveawayfromtheclaimedchair
smash,thatintheprocessinsteadhitPaul.

Atthisjuncture,accuserEilleenclaimedthatRandelranawayandshouted,Putangina
ninyo!Babalikankokayo!Papatayinkokayonglahat!Ifthisistrue,whyisitthatPauldidnot
fileacomplaint?Theydidnotexplain.Eilleenalsodidnotgiveexplanationwherewasaccused
Rowenaatthispoint.

Actually,allthewitnessesshepresentedwerenotmentionedbyhertobepresentwhen
theallegedincidenthappened.

EileenalsodidnotexplainhowthisPaulrelatedtoPaulAnthony.Shealsodidnotsay
inhernarrationoftheallegedincidentthathermotherBernarditaCruzwaswatchingherfight
withaccusedRowenanorexplainwhythemotherdidnotjointhefightwhennaturallawdictates
shecannotstomachwatchingadaughterbeingmauled.

Thebelatedclaimscannotbebelievedinunlessexplainedsatisfactorily.

Eileendidnotpresentthedoctorwhoallegedlyexaminedhertoexplainiftheinjuries
wereindeedconsistentwithaplasticchair.Thus,thisconstitutedareasonabledoubtwhetherit
wastheaccusedwhocausedherallegedinjuries.

Shealsodidnotpresentmedicalproofofinjuriesduetoactsofpulling,andpambuno,
orwrestling,orpunching,orscratchingthatiscommontowomeninfight.

Thetestimoniesofherallegedwitnesseshardlycorroborateorexplainedthecontention
ofEilleen.

Bytheseunexplainedconsistencieswithlogicalnormalhabitoflife,thereisalreadyabig
doubtonherclaimsofthreatsandphysicalinjuries.

Now,becauseRandelranawayandtherunningawaywasexplainedbythecoherent
witnessestohavebeenbecausethefatherofEileenfiredhisgunonRandel,itisnowconsistent
withlogicthatRandeldidnotshoutthethreat.

Atthemomentwhileapersonisbeingfiredat,hewillneverthinkofsayinganything
becauseallwhathewouldthinkistoseekcovertosavehislife.Lifeismorepreciousthan
shoutingathreat.

Thenarrationoffactsaboveisveryclearinpresentingwhobetweenthetwogroupsof
witnessesshouldbebelievedin.

Ergo,factuallyspeaking,theaccusedmustbeacquitted.

The Prayer
ALLTOLD,thisMemorandumissubmitted.Otherreliefsjustandequitablearealso
prayedfor.Manila,February4,2012.

RENTAPECAUSINGSABARRECASTRO&ASSOCIATES
Unit1,2368JBRoxasSt.cornerLeonGuintoSt.,Malate,Manila
Emails:totocausing@yahoo.com,berteni.causing@gmail.com;TelephoneNo.:+6323105521

By:

CIRILOP.SABARREJR.
IBPNo.856677/01032012
PTRNo.117312429/01032012
RollNo.53639/MCLEComplianceNo.IV0003755

DERVINV.CASTRO
IBPNo.836900/11182010upto2012
PTRNo.0335125/01032012
RollNo.53624/MCLEComplianceNo.IV0007336

BERTENICATALUACAUSING
IBPNo.894664/03202012/Manila
PTRNo.0675267/03272012/Manila
RollNo.60944/MCLEComplianceNo.IV0007338