REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA CITY

FIFTEENTH (15) DIVISION

JERRY LAMPANERO,
Accused-appellant, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390
RTC Br. 63 BAYAWAN CITY
RTC Criminal Case No. 204
-versus- FOR: VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC
ACT No. 7610 otherwise known as
the Special Protection of Children
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation
Plaintiff-appellee.
and Discrimination Act, as
amended by R.A. 7658.
x/

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT JERRY LAMPANERO

MARIA AURORA CAMILLE V. BAYANI

Counsel for Accused Jerry Lampanero
2F Lyceum of the Philippines University-College of Law,
109 L.P. Leviste St., Makati City
Appellants Brief Page 2!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

3
PREFATORY
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 5

II. THE FACTS 9

III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 11

IV. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS 12

V. PRAYER 26
VI. ANNEXES 27

Judgment dated 21 December 2005 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City
Notice of Appeal dated 27 December 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City
Order dated 27 December 2005 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 63, Bayawan City

VII. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 28

VIII. CASES CITED 29
Appellants Brief Page 3!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

PREFATORY

Every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent. Only by proof beyond all
reasonable doubt of guilt will the presumption be overturned.

The presumption of innocence stands as the primary principle of our constitution and
criminal laws. Hence, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact establishing
guilt. Every indication of doubt must be removed. The defense of the accused, however weak, is
no reason to convict. The defense need not even speak and present its case at all. The standard of
proof required must never be diluted especially where the extreme penalty is imposed. The guilt
of the accused must be established with utmost certainty.

In our criminal justice, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Where there
is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence
may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can
only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.1

Under the above principles, it is the prosecutions burden to prove, by evidence that is
admissible and credible, beyond all reasonable doubt, that appellant Lampanero cocked and
pointed the barrel of his armalite at the minor, Lourence Christopher Valero, and thereafter boxed
him which. Dr. Vivian L. Aurelia, the physician that examined Valero at the night of the incident,
appreciated that there were no physical injuries. The statement given by the complainant, the
lone witness, is insufficient and does not establish Lampaneros guilt.

Yet, the Trial Court found that appellant Lampanero guilty beyond all reasonable guilt.

Lampanero was able to present witnesses who corroborated his statements denying the
allegations of the complainant, as evident in the record.

Regrettably, the decision of the Trial Court similarly exposed an effort not to examine and
evaluate the statements of the witnesses for the appellant, and whether Lampanero must be
convicted or acquitted.

1 People of the Philippines vs. Baulite, G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001
Appellants Brief Page 4!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

In this Brief, appellant Lampanera will demonstrate that the records of the case show,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the Trial Court was wrong; what is shown beyond all reasonable
doubt is that appellant Dela Riva is innocent of the crime charged.

Presently languishing behind bars, unjustifiably separated from his family, appellant
Lampanero implores swift and decisive vindication.
Appellants Brief Page 5!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal interposed by the accused-appellant Jerry Lampanero (Lampanero) in his

bid for the reversal of the Judgment dated 21 December 2005 of Regional Trial Court Branch 63
of Bayawan City, a certified true copy of which is attached herein as Annex A, which found
accused-appellant Lampanero guilty beyond reasonable doubt for committing child abuse in
violation of Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 7610 otherwise known as
the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.

The Charge

The information reads as follows:

That on or about the 17th day of August 2003, in the City of Bayawan,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said caused
armed with the service rifle to one Lourence Christopher Valero, a minor thirteen
(13) years of age, and thereafter boxed said Lourence Christopher Valero four (4)
times thus causing this injury, to wit: COLIC, and which acts and circumstances
would endanger the normal development of said Lourence Christopher Valero.

Contrary to Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section

10, Article VI of Republic Act 7610.

Antecedent Proceedings

The instant case was raffled before Branch 63, Regional Trial Court of Bayawan City, Oriental
Negros and was docketed as Criminal Case No 204 for committing Child Abuse in violation of
the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act 7610.

Article 263 of the Revised Penal Code reads as follows:

Serious physical injuries. Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be
guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
Appellants Brief Page 6!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted,

the injured person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind; 2. The penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the
power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or
shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for
the work in which he was therefor habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become
deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use
thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in
which he as habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or
incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.chanrobles
virtual law library

If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in
Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 248,
the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this Article shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case covered by
subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by
subdivision number 4 by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who
shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.

Section 10, Article VI of Republic Act 7610 reads as follows:

Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
Child's Development.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or
to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development including
Appellants Brief Page 7!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered
by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or
under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach
and/or other tourist resort or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided,
That this provision shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree
of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or
acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited by this
Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Forty
thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an
ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision
mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and
the loss of parental authority over the minor.
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any public or
private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise,
including residential places, who allows any person to take along with him to such place
or places any minor herein described shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its
medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of
the license to operate such a place or establishment.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other child
to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Articles
248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and
serious physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is
Appellants Brief Page 8!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under
Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for
the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended
party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree
higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under twelve (12) years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the care of the
Department of Social Welfare and Development.

1. RTC convicts:

On 21 December 2005, the Regional Trial Court convicted appellant. The court applied
the indeterminate sentence law. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the prosecution having proved the guilty of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 10, Article VI of R.A.
7610, as amended, accused Jerry Lampanero is convicted. Applying the
provisions of the indeterminate sentence law he is hereby sentenced to
four (4) months and one (1) day of prison correctional in its medium
period as minimum, to six (6) years one (1) day of prison mayor in its
minimum period as maximum.

On 21 December 2005, appellant through the Public Attorneys Office and counsel Atty.
Jaime Ro. Miraflor filed Notice of Appeal last 27 December 2005. Said notice was
granted and bond was posted for the temporary liberty of the accused Jerry Lampanero,
the jail warden of BJMP Bayawan City, in an Order dated 27 December 2005.
Appellants Brief Page 9!
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

II. THE FACTS

On August 17, 2003 at 3:30 oclock in the afternoon together with his friends Christian, Harry
and Tonton wanted to play basketball inside the City of Bayawan, but they were denied entry
because detainee-prisoners had their physical exercise therein, so they played outside. While
playing, the ball hit the side mirror of the motorcycle owned by the accused Jerry Lampanero
which was parked nearby. As said side mirror was detached, he picked it up and put it on top of
the speedometer. They moved away and played at the basketball court located at the plaza.
Accused Jeery Lampanero locked the door and ordered one of the prisoners to get an armalite.
As the firearm was handed to him, he tucked in the magazine, cocked and pointed the barrel to
complainants neck, who parried the same, as demonstrated by the latter in open court.
Thereafter, accused leveled the armalite to complainants friend, Harry, Christian and Tonton,
and asked who of them hit the side mirror of his motorcycle. Harry pointed to Laurence and the
latter admitted responsibility. They agreed to repair the damage but accused informed them it
cannot be welded as the side mirror is made of stainless steel. Thereupon, accused boxed
Laurence at the stomach thrice and once on his back. Therefrom, complainant was brought to
the police station in Bayawan City until his grandmother arrived. In the evening, he was brought
to Bayawan District Hospital for medical examination. Upon cross-examination, Laurence
Christopher Valero declared he ate his dinner that evening but havent slept well, apprehensive
something might happen to him the following morning if he is seen by the accused. He attended
his schoolings except in the afternoon of that day when his affidavit was prepared. He furthered
declared he is in good relation with his grandmother without problem in the community,
although it took him weeks to play basketball again, and this time at Banga basketball court no
longer at the gymnasium of Bayawan City.

Dr. Vivian L. Aurelia testified that on August 17, 2003 at 8:00 in the evening, she examined
Lourence Christopher Valero who complained of stomach pains. Upon examination, no physical
injuries were appreciated.

In his defense, Jerry Lampanero declared that on August 17, 2003 at 3:00 in the afternoon, he
was on duty armed with his .45 caliber service pistol and guarded 53 inmates of Bayawan
District Jail who had their physical fitness inside the city gym located inside the Bayawan City
Hall Compound. Lourence Christopher Valero, together with his three friends, wanted to play
basketball inside the gym but he refused them. Later, he found out that the side mirror of his
Appellants Brief Page 1! 0
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

motorcycle which was parked outside was detached and suspected the group of Lourence
Christopher Valero as responsible thereto. He looked for and found them playing basketball near
the city plaza so he brought them inside the gymnasium and after the interrogation, Lourence
Christopher Valero admitted hitting the side mirror of the motorcycle while playing basketball.
Accused denied having leveled his armalite to the complainant because he was only armed with
a .45 service pistol. He denied having boxed complainant Lourence Christopher Valero.
Appellants Brief Page 1! 1
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. Whether or not the RTC judge committed a reversible error when he found accused guilty
despite of the fact that the complainant did not present any witness and despite the fact that
the physicians findings that the stomach pain that the complainant suffered was due to colic
and not because of any physical injuries.

2. Whether or not the RTC judge committed reversible error when the judge found that the
accused was guilty and considered his defense as alibi when the complainant was not able to
produce a witness other than himself.
Appellants Brief Page 1! 2
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

IV. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

On the first error that RTC judge committed a reversible error when he found accused
guilty despite of the fact that the complainant did not present any witness and despite the
fact that the physicians findings that the stomach pain that the complainant suffered was
due to colic and not because of any physical injuries.

1. In the instant case, Jarry Lamparero, accused was convicted of violation of Article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code in relation with Section 10, Article VI of Republic Act 7610. Serious
physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code states that:

Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. Any person who shall wound, beat,
or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries
and shall suffer:

xxx

3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods,

if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall
have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or
shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he as habitually engaged for a
period of more than ninety days;

4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall
have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for
more than thirty days.

Xxx

In the instant case, the Honorable Court convicted the accused without taking into consideration
that Laurence Christopher Valero did not suffer serious physical injuries as he alleged in his
statement that he was boxed four times (thrice on the stomach and once on the back). The crime
of Serious Physical Injuries is committed by wounding, beating, assaulting, or administering
injurious substances
Appellants Brief Page 1! 3
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

There isillness if for a certain period of time, the wound did not heal within the period
mentioned in Art. 263 (3 and 4) of the RPC which is more than 30 days as stated in the case of
People v Penesa.

2. In paragraph 4, it is to be noted that although medical attendance is not important in serious

physical injuries as stated in People v Obia for it only requires illness and capacity it is material
in this case to prove whether or not the complainant have suffered an injury that could not been
entirely cured in 30 days. The records of the transcript of the direct examination to Dr. Vivian
Aurelia tell otherwise:

Q. When you conducted your physical examination on Laurence

Christopher Valero on August 17, 2003, did you observe any physical
injuries outside the intestinal wall of said Laurence Christopher Valero?

A. NO! I wasnt able to appreciate any physical injuries in the abdominal wall of this patient
or outside the abdomen (Transcript of stenographic notes of Dr. Vivian Aurelia for Crim. Case
No. 204 for Child Abuse dated 24 October 2004, pp. 4-6)

The doctor who accommodated Laurence Christopher Valero on the night he was allegedly
boxed by the accused explicitly said that no external signs of injuries caused by boxing or hitting
of a gun were found in the body of the said Laurence Christopher Valero. The time that Laurence
Christopher Valero seek a doctor as stated in his direct examination was:

Q. Did you request yourself for medical examination, Mr. witness?

(Laurence Christopher Valero)

A. No. it was only during night time that we went

Xxx

Q. and did the hospital issue to you a medico legal report or the
certification?

A. Yes

(Transcript of stenographic notes of Laurence Christopher Valero for Crim. Case No. 204 for
Child Abuse dated 21 September 2004, pp. 14-16)

Clearly, the span of time between the alleged inflictions of injuries to Laurence Christopher
Valero and the time the same went to seek medical examination is merely 5 hours for as stated in
Appellants Brief Page 1! 4
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

the information filed it was 3:30 pm of August 17, 2003 that Laurence Christopher Valero was
allegedly box by the accused and it was at 8:00pm of the same day that the former seek medical
examination thus if he was indeed boxed or injured by the accused, Laurence Christopher Valero
should have visible signs on his body that he was indeed injured which does not exists in this
case.

3. Laurence Christopher Valero suffered a phobia that the accused might harm him again is
bereft of merit

In determining the incapacity to work, it refers to which theretofore he is habitually engaged. The
term work includes studies or preparation for a profession (Reyes p. 543).

In the case of US v Bugarin, the Supreme Court stressed that the incapacity must show that the
physical injury has rendered the offended party incapable of working in the fields which was the
occupation in which at the time he had been habitually engaged.

In this case, Laurence Christopher is not incapacitated to neither go to school nor play basketball
but a merely temporarily refrained from playing basketball because of fear of damaging another
property of another person as likewise he returned to playing basketball a few weeks later.

4. The conviction of the accused under Section 10 of Republic Act 7610 must be reversed.

Section 10 of RA 7610 states that:

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and

Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development.

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential
Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period

In the case of Bongalon v People, a case of physical injuries, the Supreme Court ruled to
wit;

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime
of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when
the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by
Appellants Brief Page 1! 5
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and

dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child
abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in the same case, to wit:

The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of
hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and
dignity" of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to
humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands
on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm
at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he
lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in
the crime of child abuse.

Applying such ruling to the instant case, the Honorable Court failed to realized that the accused,
assuming that he boxed Laurence, should not be punished under RA 7610 because he admitted
that he was a little bit mad about what happened to his motorcycle. He apprehended Laurence
Christopher Valero and his friends to asked who damaged his side mirror but no one answered
him. The ordinary response of man is to get furious to what have transpired that none of these
three children admitted who damaged his side mirror. The accused scared them in telling the
truth without any specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse but rather to
know who damaged his property and make him pay for the damages.

Assuming that injuries was inflicted to Laurence Christopher Valero, these injuries are not
serious as defined above as to constitute serious physical injuries which was the crime convicted
to the accused for the records shows when Dra. Vivian Aurelia, the physician of Laurence, was
put in the witness stand for direct examination she said:

Q. And what was your findings when you conducted the examination on
said patient (Laurence), doctor?
Appellants Brief Page 1! 6
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

A. When I examine the patient I diagnosed him as having intestinal colic

because he complained of abdominal pain

Q. For the information of this honorable court, will you kindly explain
what colic means?

A. Colic means its more of spasm of the muscle and intestine which causes
abdominal pain

Q. Now, as an expert doctor, will you kindly tell this Honorable Court
what are the possible cause of colic?

A. The most common cause of intestinal colic in this age group is

parasitism

Xxx

A. Parasitism are the worms or bitok or bulate which invade into the
intestinal cavity of a person and which causes abdominal pain.

Q. Now, is it not possible doctor that this colic could also be a result of an
external force exerted in an abdomen of a person?

A. Colic can be cause by external force. If there are physical injuries a

physician appreciate on the examination on the abdominal wall outside
the abdomen

Q. When you conducted your physical examination on Laurence

Christopher Valero on August 17, 2003, did you observe any physical
injuries outside the intestinal wall of said Laurence Christopher Valero?

A. NO! I wasnt able to appreciate any physical injuries in the

abdominal wall of this patient or outside the abdomen

Xxx

(Transcript of stenographic notes of Dr. Vivian Aurelia for Crim. Case No. 204 for Child Abuse
dated 24 October 2004, pp. 4-6)

Records of the case clearly illustrated that there was a sign of boxing nor bruise nor that he was
indeed injured by the rifle or bare hands of the accused as evidenced by the testimony of the
Appellants Brief Page 1! 7
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

doctor who examined him the night of the incident. Furthermore, the medical doctor also told the
Honorable Court that the common case of Colic is Parasitism but if it was caused by an external
force, the doctor could appreciate on the body if external force is the cause of the colic which is
ABSENT in this instant case.

5. Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Villanueva v. People,iIt is not
trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor
of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all possible circumstances in his
favor.

The Honorable Court failed to appreciate the testimonies of the medical doctor as to the medical
examination she performed to Laurence Christopher Valero. As in the case of People v. Palijon,
the Supreme Court held that physical evidence is mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth and
rates highly in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. Contrary to the case at bar, the physical
evidence that was presented, the medical examination certificate shows that Laurence
Christopher Valero does not have any marks or bruises that can be considered as serious physical
injuries as what the Honorable Court convicted the accused.

In the case of Rabanal v. People, the Supreme Court has ruled that when serious and inexplicable
discrepancies in important details are found in a witness's testimony, his/her testimony may be
disregarded. Also, when discrepancies pervade the testimonies of prosecution witnesses such that
the totality of the prosecution evidence fails to constitute a coherent account, the conviction of
petitioner cannot be justified. In this case, where the testimony of the lone witness may be the
sole basis for conviction, the serious discrepancies in his testimony hardly lend credence to his
supposed positive testimony and cast a serious doubt as to the credibility of his charge.

Applying the said ruling in the case at bar, the lone testimony of Laurence Christopher Valero
does not justify the conviction for it did not prove the crime of Serious Physical Injuries.
Laurence Christopher Valero said that he was boxed four (4) times (pp 14-16 of his statement), it
did not transpire to a more than 30-day healing period to constitute serious Physical injuries
based on the testimony of his doctor, Dr. Vivian Aurelia.

Time and time again, as stated in the ruling in People vs Dramavo, the requirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt is a necessary corollary of the Constitutional right to be presumed
innocent. Also in the case of Malana vs People, Supreme Court ruled to wit;
Appellants Brief Page 1! 8
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

In criminal cases, the prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing

the guilt of the accused. Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He who
asserts - not he who denies - must prove. The burden must be discharged
by the prosecution on the strength of its own evidence, not on the
weakness of that for the defense. Hence, circumstantial evidence that has
not been adequately established, much less corroborated, cannot be the
basis of conviction. Suspicion alone is insufficient, the required quantum
of evidence being proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, "the sea of
suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without
rudder or compass."

It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system, the overriding

consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the
accused, but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
Where there is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they must be
acquitted even though their innocence may be questionable. The
constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be
overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In people vs Dacasin, the Supreme Court warned that

Before we condemn x x x the crime must first be positively established and

that the accused is guilty sans any scintilla of doubt. This is elementary
and fundamental in our criminal justice systems. Any suspicion or belief
that that accused is guilty no matter how strong cannot substitute for the
quantum of evidence that is required to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Accused-appellant should not be punished for the failure of the

prosecution to dispose of its burden to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence and to establish his guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. This Court has always stood by the rule that it is better
to acquit a guilty person than to convict an innocent one.

Based on the long line of jurisprudence that time and time again proved that proof beyond
reasonable doubt is essential to convict a person otherwise he should be acquitted. In the instant
case, the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries, if any, of Laurence Christopher Valero was
Appellants Brief Page 1! 9
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

caused by the accused own doing as no evidence was presented to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the conviction of the accused.

On the second error that the RTC judge committed reversible error when the judge found
that the accused was guilty and considered his defense as alibi

1. In the instant case, the court considered the accused Lampareros defense as an alibi. In the
case of People vs Mosquerra, the Court held:

Alibi is a defense that places the accused at the relevant time of crime in
a different place than the scene involved and so removed therefrom as to
render it impossible for him to be the guilty party. x x x Essential to a valid
defense of alibi is the physical impossibility of presence at the scene of the
crime at the time of commission thereof, x x x The house of the accused is
near the scene of the crime and accused are neighbors of the victim, the
proximity of the house of the accused to the place of the crime wholly
negates their defense of alibi. Moreover, alibi cannot prevail over positive
identification. x x x Accused was positively identified by the prosecution
witnesses as the perpetrators of the crime. Their defense of alibi must
perforce be rejected. Against the case for the prosecution, accused could
only muster the weak defense of alibi. It is well settled that courts have
always looked upon this defense with caution, if not suspicion not only
because it is inherently reliable but likewise because it is rather easy to
fabricate. For alibi to prosper, it would not be enough for the accused to
prove that he has been elsewhere when the crime is committed but that he
must further demonstrated that it would have been physically impossible
for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. x x x

Accused Lamparero did not use alibi as his defense because he did not deny being in the same
place as that of the Complainant in the gym located inside Bayawan City Hall.

2. As can be gleaned from the counter affidavit of the accused Jerry Lamparero, he only denied
having leveled his armalite to the complainant because he was only armed with a .45 service
pistol. He also denied having boxed complainant Laurence Christopher Valero. His counter
affidavit alleged among others, as follows:

2. That I deny vehemently some of the allegations in the sworn state,ent of the herein
Complainant in the person of LOURENCE CHRISTOPHER VALERO as purely
Appellants Brief Page 2! 0
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

imaginary and fabricated and were done by and thru the orchestration of third persons
who are driven by malice and bad fate to malign my person;

3. That the allegations respecting the damage of the side mirror of my motorcycle which
was parked along side of the Bayawan City, Philippines Gymnasium last August 17, 2003
in the afternoon is true and that further I also admit that the damage to my motorcycle
which is the left side mirror thereof is also admitted;

4.That to my honest judgment and through the statement of other playmates of the said
LOURENCE CHRISTOPHER VALERO, the same LOURENCE CHRISTOPHER
VALERO had caused the damage of the side mirror of my motorcycle;

5. That due to the attitude of the said Complainant I was a little mad but I did not lay a
hand to him neither did I threaten him as what is embodied in his Affidavit;

6. That I have no ascendency whatsoever on the Complainant neither had I taken

improper advantage of my strength and position and finally I never abused the
complainant in his capacity as a minor;

7. And finally it was only on that day, August 17, 2003 that I known the complainant,

(Found in Annex 1)

3. Crystal clear is the responsibility of the prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

4. In Macayan, Jr. Y Malana vs People it was held that requiring proof beyond reasonable
doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right
of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." Undoubtedly, it is the
constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution. Should the
prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be
acquitted. As explained in Basilio v. People of the Philippines:

We ruled in People v. Ganguso:

An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill
of Rights guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt,
he must be acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the
due process clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from
conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
Appellants Brief Page 2! 1
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of

proof is on the prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden the
accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf, and he would be
entitled to an acquittal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of
course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error,
produce absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The
conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense
charged.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the accused must rest, not on
the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the prosecution. The burden is on the
prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence.

5. In People vs Besmonte, the Court held that moral certainty is required to overcome the
conviction of the accused.

The settled rule is that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its
own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. In the case at bar, it
is true that the appellant's alibi was not adequately shown by the defense
since the employment records and the testimony of a co-employee do not
in any way show that it was impossible for Efren Besmonte to have been at
the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. However, the inability
of the appellant Efren Besmonte to present a valid alibi does not relieve
the prosecution of the burden of proving his guilt with the moral certainty
required to overcome the constitutional presumption of his innocence.

6. The Court defined moral certainty in the case of People vs Edgardo Ng Y Doane. Moral
certainty has been defined as such proof to the satisfaction of the court, keeping in mind the
presumption of innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is given
to support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the
fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to a
reasonable and moral certainty-a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the
conscience of those who are to act upon it.
Appellants Brief Page 2! 2
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

7. Moral certainty cannot just be proven by the positive declarations of the prosecution witness,
complainant Lourence Christopher Valero. The defenses denial was corroborated by defense
witness named, Giovanie Gorospe and by one Mario Val Vista, who both declared that accused
Jerry Lamparero only brought his .45 caliber pistol. It was not further proven that an armalite
was poked at lone witness complainant and that the latter suffered fist blows from the accused.
Mario Val Vista testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. LEMUEL NACITA for the accused

xxx

Q: You also mentioned that Jerry Lamparero was inside, was he a member
of the BJMP?

A: Yes.

Q: Was he armed at the time?

A: 9 mm.

Q: Short or long?

A: Short.

xxx

Q: This Jerry Lamparero was bringing 9 mm, was he bringing any other
firearm at the time?

A: No, sir, he did not bring any other firearm.

(Testimony of Mario Val Vista dated July 1, 2005, pages 10-11)

As held in Astorga vs People, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral
certainty, the presumption of innocence of the accused must be sustained and his exoneration be
granted as a matter of right. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man.
Appellants Brief Page 2! 3
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

8. The conviction of Jerry Lamparero was not justifiable because there was lack of proof in the
part of the prosecution. The scanty evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the
guilt of the accuse. The Regional Trial Court erred in holding that like alibi, denial is a weak
defense which must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. In Amanquiton vs
People, the Court held:

We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where
the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which
side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused. If inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and
the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test
of moral certainty and will not justify a conviction.

Time and again, we have held that:

Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the implementation of
a national comprehensive program for the survival of the most vulnerable
members of the population, the Filipino children, in keeping with the
Constitutional mandate under Article XV, Section 3, paragraph 2, that The
State shall defend the right of the children to assistance, including proper
care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their
development. This piece of legislation supplies the inadequacies of
existing laws treating crimes committed against children, namely, the
Revised Penal Code and Presidential Decree No. 603 or the Child and
Youth Welfare Code. As a statute that provides for a mechanism for strong
deterrence against the commission of child abuse and exploitation, the law
has stiffer penalties for their commission, and a means by which child
traffickers could easily be prosecuted and penalized. Also, the definition of
child abuse is expanded to encompass not only those specific acts of child
abuse under existing laws but includes also other acts of neglect, abuse,
cruelty or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the childs
development.

However, this noble statute should not be used as a sharp sword, ready to be brandished against
an accused even if there is a patent lack of proof to convict him of the crime. The right of an
Appellants Brief Page 2! 4
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

accused to liberty is as important as a minors right not to be subjected to any form of abuse. Both
are enshrined in the Constitution. One need not be sacrificed for the other. There is no dearth of
law, rules and regulations protecting a child from any and all forms of abuse. While
unfortunately, incidents of maltreatment of children abound amidst social ills, care has to be
likewise taken that wayward youths should not be cuddled by a misapplication of the law.
Society, through its laws, should correct the deviant conduct of the youth rather than take the
cudgels for them. Lest we regress to a culture of juvenile delinquency and errant behavior, laws
for the protection of children against abuse should be applied only and strictly to actual abusers.
The objective of this seemingly catch-all provision on abuses against children will be best
achieved if parameters are set in the law itself, if only to prevent baseless accusations against
innocent individuals. Perhaps the time has come for Congress to review this matter and institute
the safeguards necessary for the attainment of its laudable ends.

9. It is a well-entrenched rule in our criminal justice system so much so that despite a lower
courts decision of conviction, an appellate court is empowered to purview and analyze the entire
records of the case to ensure that a persons liberty is not being unjustly denied that person as the
Supreme Court expounded upon this rule in Eusebio Calderon vs. People of the Philippines :

The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent

until the contrary is proved. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed
out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of
proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left
for the trial courts to determine. However, an appeal throws the whole
case open for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look
into the entire records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance
has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.

10. The constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent is spelled out in unequivocal
terms in Section 14 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, thus:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until

the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
Appellants Brief Page 2! 5
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after

arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear
is unjustifiable.

11. This constitutional presumption of innocence is reiterated in Section 1(a) of Rule 115 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure which states:

Rule 115, Rules on Criminal Procedure

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial.In all criminal prosecutions,

the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond

reasonable doubt

xxx

Copy Furnished:

Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo st., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

Regional Trial Court

Branch 54
Fifth Judicial Region
Gubat, Sorsogon
Appellants Brief Page 2! 6
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

V. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing discussions, after due and extensive evaluation and
consideration of the dacts and laws, the appellant respectfully prays that the Honorable Court to
render the judgment of ACQUITTAL and REVERSE the conviction of the Regional Trial
Court against the appellant. Futhermore, the Appellant prays for such other reliefs and remedies
as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Pasig for City of Manila; July 22,

By:

MARIA AURORA CAMILLE V. BAYANI

Roll No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567/1-2-13/MLA
IBP No. 123456/1-14-13/PPLM
MCLE Compliance IV: 0013663; March 22 2016
Appellants Brief Page 2! 7
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

VI. ANNEXES
Appellants Brief Page 2! 8
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

VII. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Republic of the Philippines )

Metro Manila ) S.S.
City of Makati )
xx

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Juan Dela Cruz, of legal age, single, and a resident of Manila City, Philippines, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
That I am a Legal Aide of the law office of Atty. Maria Aurora Camille V. Bayani with office
address at 109 L.P. Leviste St., Makati City, Philippines;

That in my aforementioned capacity, I had personally served a copy of the Brief for Appellant in
the case entitled Lampanero vs. People of the Philippines docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390
RTC Criminal Case No. 204 (by personal service) to the office of Plaintiff-Appellees Counsel of
Record, Atty. Jose Reyes, with address at 6750 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Philippines (by
registered mail with return card under Registry Receipt No. 876.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th of July 2017 at Makati City,
Philippines

Juan Dela Cruz

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 21th of July 2017, by Juan Dela Cruz who
exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 123465789 issued at Manila City,
Philippines on 23 January 2017.

Notary Public
Doc. No. 134;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 13;
Series of 2017;
Appellants Brief Page 2! 9
Lampanero vs. People
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 1390

VIII. CASES CITED

People v. Penesa 81 Phil. 398

People v. Obia CA, 45 O.G. 2568

US v. Bugarin (16 Phil 189)

Bongalon v People G.R. No. 169533 (2013)

Villanueva v. People G.R. No. 160351 (April 10, 2006)

People v. Palijon, 397 Phil. 545 (2000)

Rabanal v. People G. R. No. 160858

People v. Dramavo (1971)

Malana v. People G.R. No. 175842

People v. Dacasin G.R. No. 127811 (April 29, 1999)

People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Mosquerra Gr. No. 129209, August 9, 2011

Nilo Macayan, Jr. Y Malana vs. People of the Philippines Gr No. 175842, March 18, 2015

People of the Philippines vs Efren Besmonte Gr. No. 103306, April 5, 1993

Benito Astorga vs People of the Philippines Gr. No. 154130, August 20, 2004

Juluis Amanquiton vs People of the Philippines Gr No. 186080, August 14, 2009

Eusebio Calderon vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 158495, October 21, 2004

People of the Philippines vs Edgardo Ng Y Doane Gr. No. 71117, July 10, 1986