Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
CA GR CR No. 38981
-versus- Crim. Case No. 150683
For: Child Abuse [under Sec. 10
MARIAN ANGCAHAS, (a) RA 7610 in rel. to Sec. 5(a) of
Accused- Appellant. RA 8369]

X-------------------------------------------X

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Appellant MARIAN ANGCAHAS, by counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully files her Appellant’s Brief assailing,
on both questions of fact and law, the Decision of the Honorable
Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 163, dated June 22, 2015
(promulgated on September 7, 2015), as well as the Order dated October
12, 2015 denying her Motion for Reconsideration and the Order dated
March 4, 2016 denying her Motion for New Trial.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“x x x not all denials and alibis should be regarded as fabricated.

Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can have no other defense but
denial and alibi. So how can such accused penetrate a mind that has
been made cynical by the rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi
is a hangmans noose in the face of a witness positively swearing, I saw
him do it? Most judges believe that such assertion automatically dooms
an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This quick stereotype thinking,
however, is distressing. For how else can the truth that the accused is
really innocent have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast
tenet?

There is only one way. A judge must keep an open mind. He must
guard against slipping into hasty conclusion, often arising from a desire
to quickly finish the job of deciding a case. A positive declaration from a
 Page 2 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

witness that he saw the accused commit the crime should not
automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not do it. A
lying witness can make as positive an identification as a truthful witness
can. The lying witness can also say as forthrightly and unequivocally,
He did it! without blinking an eye.1

This Honorable Court is invited to look closely at the sequence of

events and the evidence and test whether they are in harmony with
normal human experience. After all, for “evidence to be believed, it must
both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself tested by
human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted
conduct that has evolved through the years”2.

“In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond

reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the
complicity or participation of the accused. While a lone witness
testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the
testimony must be clear, consistent, and credible - qualities we cannot
ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial
evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and
be credible in itself tested by human experience, observation, common
knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.

xxx

x x x Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway

judgment. x x x “3

This Honorable Court is implored to be guided by the above

precepts and to consider this case with compassion as it involves the
possible incarceration of no less than a mother of six (6) children
presently aged between one (1) to eighteen (18) years old.

It is common experience that being separated from a close family

member alone can be emotionally fraught. It can be especially
challenging when that person is incarcerated. And the situation becomes

1 Lejano vs. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010

2 People of the Philippines vs. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012
3 People of the Philippines vs. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012
 Page 3 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

even more devastating when children are deprived of their primary

carer. This is what can happen when a mother is sent to prison.

Imprisonment involves a removal from society that does not only

punish the individual being sentenced. It will always have a serious
knock-on effect on their families, and for a mother, this includes her
children. The domestic upheaval can also mean these children are more
vulnerable to emotional and psychological risks, on top of the potential
stigma and economic strain associated with their mothers being in
prison. When a mother is sent to prison, the repercussions on her
children can be considerable.

TIMELINESS
The assailed Decision4 of the Honorable Regional Trial Court of
Taguig City, Branch 163 dated June 22, 2015 convicting the appellant
was promulgated in open court on September 7, 2015. Accused
thereafter timely filed her Motion for Reconsideration5 dated September
15, 2015. After hearing the motion on September 21, 2015, the
Honorable Regional Trial Court, in an Order6 dated October 12, 2015
denied the appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration which the appellant
received on November 9, 2015.

Accused thereafter filed a Motion for New Trial7 on November 13,

2015 and the same was heard on December 11, 2015. Unfortunately, the
Honorable Regional Trial Court, in an Order8 dated March 4, 2016,
likewise denied the said motion. The appellant received the Order
denying her Motion for New Trial on April 26, 2016.

Left with no other recourse, Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal9

on April 28, 2016 which the Honorable Regional Trial Court gave due
course in an Order10 dated May 2, 2016.

4 Annex “A”
5 Annex “B”
6 Annex “C”
7 Annex “D”
8 Annex “E”
9 Annex “F”
10 Annex “G”
 Page 4 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

On October 10, 2016, undersigned counsel received a Resolution

from this Honorable Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2016, thus
giving him thirty (30) days therefrom11, or until November 9, 2016
within which to file this Brief.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant Marian Angcahas was charged for child abuse before
the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City under Section 10 of R.A. 7610 in
relation to Section 5(a) of R.A. 8369, in an Information12 dated March 13,
2013, stating as follows:

“That on or about the 13th day of February 2011, in the

City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts
of child abuse and cruelty upon one MA. AMELIA
PINEDA, thirteen (13) years of age, a minor, that is by then
and there punching the victim and pulling the latter’s hair,
thereby subjecting her to fear, mental anguish and other
conditions prejudicial to her development as a normal
human being.”

When arraigned, the appellant pleaded “Not Guilty”.

On June 11, 2013, a Pre-trial Order was issued. Thereafter trial on

the merits ensued. After presentation of evidence for the defense, the
appellant filed her Memoranda13, after which the case was submitted for
resolution.

11 Rule 124, Section 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. – Within thirty (30) days
from receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of
the Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to
the record, the appellant shall file seven (7) copies to his brief with the clerk of court
which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the
appellee.
12 Annex “H”
13 Annex “I”
 Page 5 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

On September 7, 2015, the Honorable Regional Trial Court

promulgated in open court the assailed Decision dated June 22, 2015
convicting the appellant as charged, the dispositive portion of which
read:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

hereby rendered finding the accused Marian Angcahas
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged
and hereby sentences her to suffer the indeterminate penalty
of from four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days
of prison correctional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of prison mayor, as maximum.
Accused is further ordered to pay the offended party the
sums of:

a) Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) by way of moral damages;

and

b) Fine of five Thousand Pesos (P5,000), conformably with

section 31 (f) of R.A. 7610.

SO ORDERED.”

Accused thereafter timely filed her Motion for Reconsideration

dated September 15, 2015. After hearing the motion on September 21,
2015, the Honorable Regional Trial Court, in an Order dated October 12,
2015 denied the appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration which the
appellant received on November 9, 2015.

Accused then filed a Motion for New Trial on November 13, 2015
and the same was heard on December 11, 2015. In her Motion, accused
attached the letter of the supposed minor victim herself and her family
beseeching the Honorable Regional Trial Court to reconsider its’ now
assailed Decision in the interest of the then six (6) minor children of the
accused.

Unfortunately, the Honorable Regional Trial Court, denied the

same in an Order dated March 4, 2016, on the claim that the retraction/
recantation of the private complainant was unreliable and looked by
 Page 6 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

disfavor by the Courts. The appellant received the Order denying her
Motion for New Trial on April 26, 2016.

Left with no other recourse, Appellant filed her Notice of Appeal

on April 28, 2016 which the Honorable Regional Trial Court gave due
course in an Order dated May 2, 2016.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of

Ma. Amiela B. Pineda (herein referred to as AMIELA for brevity), Cecile
Pineda (herein referred to as CECILE), Medical Record Clerk Sandra
Respal and Percival Ocampo (herein referred to as OCAMPO) plus
Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” with sub-markings.

The prosecution presented its first witness AMIELA, who, on

direct-examination, testified that, on February 13, 2011 at around 8:30
o’clock in the evening, she and her grandmother who was carrying a
child, Cassandra Pineda, boarded a passenger jeepney going to Pasig to
attend a Fiesta. They saw accused Marian Angcahas (herein referred to
as MARIAN) and her sister Ma. Victoria Angcahas (VICTORIA) inside
the jeepney who were talking (nagpaparinig). VICTORIA was seated at
the right side while Marian Angcahas was on the left, both at the end
part of the jeep (estribo). Seated beside VICTORIA was her grandmother
by the name of Violeta Bunghanoy, herself, and her sister Cassandra
Pineda seated on her lap.

AMIELA testified that upon reaching Mercury Drug Store along

General Luna St., Tuktukan, Taguig City, the jeep was caught in a traffic
jam. Thereafter, accused MARIAN then alighted, went around the jeep,
punched her back, and pulled her hair, saying “pokpok daw po kami ng
mama ko. At ako rin daw po, pokpok rin daw po ako ng Munisipal”.
Thereafter, VICTORIA allegedly told accused MARIAN, “sige ate ako ang
bahala dito”. Thereafter, the jeep moved on.
 Page 7 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Thence, upon reaching Levi Mariano Street, VICTORIA alighted,

punched her and pulled the hair of her grandmother who at that time
was carrying Cassandra.

AMIELA then texted her mother, CELCILE, to inform her of the

alleged incident. At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, her parents
CECILE and Christopher Pineda, who was driving a passenger jeep,
arrived. They then proceeded to the Ususan Police Station where she
was instructed her to proceed to Taguig Pateros District Hospital for
medical examination. AMIELA was then issued a medico legal
certificate (Exhibit “B” of the Prosecution).

Thereafter, AMIELA went to the Women’s Desk, Police Station at

the City Hall, where she executed her Salaysay (Exhibit “A” of the
Prosecution) assisted by her father.

AMIELA then charged both accused MARIAN and the latter’s

sister VICTORIA of child abuse. The case against VICTORIA, however,
was dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Taguig City.

On cross-examination, AMIELA testified that she was not able to

get the plate number of the jeep and the name of the driver nor did she
file any complaint against the jeepney driver in connection with the said
incident.

AMIELA then clarified that the jeep had negotiated the distance
from the place where they boarded up to the time accused MARIAN
alighted therefrom for approximately ten (10) minutes before accused
MARIAN allegedly punched her at the back only once, pointing to a
portion below her left shoulder where she allegedly sustained injuries.

It must be pointed out, however, that AMIELA did not take a

picture of the said injury. And when confronted with her medical
certificate, AMIELA stated that she did not incur any open wound
contrary to the injuries in the medical certificate that she sustained
injuries at the arm and the back and abrasions that penetrate up to
thoracic tissue.

Further, AMIELA stated that her Lola Violeta Bunghanoy was

seated two (2) spaces away from VICTORIA inside the jeep and she was
 Page 8 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

at the distance of one (1) arm length from VICTORIA with her Lola
between them. She claimed that VICTORIA hit her below the right
shoulder. After VICTORIA alighted from the jeep, she pulled the hair of
her Lola and while she was protecting her, VICTORIA pulled and
punched her, “hinablot at sinuntok po ako”.

On cross-examination, however, it was established that the above

allegations regarding the alleged participation of VICTORIA had not
been reflected in her Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit “1”). When
confronted of this omission, AMIELA tried to refer to her reply-affidavit
(Exhibit “2”) as her supplemental affidavit. Upon examination of same,
however, the said affidavit did not contain any allegation regarding the
participation of VICTORIA. Thus, the charge against VICTORIA for
child abuse was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office of Taguig.

However, when asked as to what was her reaction after being

allegedly mauled by the accused, AMIELA stated that they just fell
silent.

Next, the prosecution presented CECILE as its second witness. On

direct examination, CECILE testified that on February 13, 2011, she
received a text message (sms) from her daughter AMIELA regarding the
incident. Resultantly, she, together with her husband, brought AMIELA
to the police station and hospital respectively.

On cross, CECILE testified that no one from them took pictures of

the injuries allegedly sustained by AMIELA.

Medial Record Clerk Sandra Respal, the supposed third witness of

the prosecution was dispensed with in view of the stipulation regarding
the factual existence of the medical certificate (Exhibit “B” of the
Prosecution).

OCAMPO, the last witness for the prosecution, testified among

others on direct examination that he was also a passenger of the said
jeep. He stated that after the accused MARIAN alighted from the
passenger jeep, she went to the back of AMIELA and punched her at the
back and pulled her hair. AMIELA just cried and her grandmother then
told accused MARIAN “Bakit mo sinaktan and apo ko?” But MARIAN
challenged them.
 Page 9 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

When the jeep reached Levi Mariano Street, VICTORIA suddenly

punched AMIELA on the arm and pulled the hair of the latter’s
grandmother who at that time was carrying a child (Cassandra).

When asked what was the reaction of the AMIELA after MARIAN
allegedly hit her, he answered that they wanted to fight back and even
uttered words “putang ina nyo”, contrary to the statement of AMIELA
that they just fell silent.

VERSION OF THE ACCUSED

The evidence for the defense consisted of the lone testimony of the
accused herself plus exhibits “3”, “4”, and “5”. In her testimony,
through her Judicial Affidavit, accused MARIAN sated that AMIELA
was her neighbor for more than four (4) years. AMIELA’s mother
CECILE was her friend who often went to her house seeking assistance
from her husband to send CECILE’s husband Christopher to work
abroad. Accused MARIAN further stated that CECILE also borrowed
money from her.

Unfortunately, since her husband failed to send Christopher

abroad, CECILE became envious and started to harbor a grudge against
her resulting to filing fabricated cases against her. Finally, accused
MARIAN testified that there was no truth to the charge against her for
child abuse. In fact, there was no such incident that took place on
February 13, 2011 and the present charge was a mere fabrication.

In support of this claim, accused MARIAN argued that the

medical certificate did not even jibe with the injuries allegedly sustained
by AMIELA.

Moreover, accused MARIAN argued that prosecution witness

OCAMPO is a false witness as he was not even present inside the jeep.

Accused MARIAN maintained that she just went to the Mercury

Drug Store to buy medicine for her sick child. During that time, she was
very much chaotic, rushing to go home immediately in order to provide
medicine for her sick daughter. Accused MARIAN further contended
that there was no incident of punching and pulling of hair that took
 Page 10 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

place on February 13, 2011. On the contrary, she was alone when she
bought the medicine from the Mercury Drug Store.

Accused MARIAN then stated that she was surprised why a case
of child abuse was filed against her and her sister, VICTORIA.
Nonetheless, the case against VICTORIA was dismissed as shown by the
resolution (Exhibit “3”) issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Taguig. In connection with this case, she executed a Sinumpaang
Salaysay (Exhibit “4”). She then pleaded the Honorable Court to dismiss
the case against her.

Much to the regret of the Accused MARIAN, and as stated earlier,

the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision finding her Guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt of the crime of Child Abuse. Her Motions for
Reconsideration and New Trial were likewise denied, prompting her to
elevate the matter before this Honorable Court to attest her innocence
and to present manifest and serious errors the Regional Trial Court
committed which, if not corrected, may affect the outcome of this case.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
The assignment of errors submitted for resolution by
this Honorable Court are:

I. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED

IN DISMISSING THE ACCUSED’S DEFENSE OF
DENIAL

II. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED

IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE MARRED AND
INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES

III. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED

IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED FOR CHILD
ABUSE WITHOUT PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED
UNDER R.A. 7610
 Page 11 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

ARGUMENTS

THE ACCUSED DID NOT COMMIT ANY

ACT OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE
SUPPOSED VICTIM MA. AMIELA PINEDA

The law under which the accused was charged, tried and found
guilty was for allegedly violating is Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic
Act No. 7610, which 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 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.”

xxxx

Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of

Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:

“Section 3. Definition of terms. –

xxxx

(b) “Child Abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether

habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the
following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty,

sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
 Page 12 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades

or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
as a human being;

(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for

survival, such as food and shelter; or

(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an

injured child resulting in serious impairment of his
growth and development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.”

xxxx

At the outset, the accused vehemently denies any accusation and

finding that she punched and pulled the hair of AMIELA on February
13, 2011. The accused most respectfully reiterates that the allegations
against her were fabricated and a complete falsehood. In this regard, it is
most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court not to instantaneously
dismiss the accused’s defense of denial but to re-examine the
Prosecution’s evidence and test whether or not the Regional Trial Court
correctly gave credence to the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses
over and above the assertions of the Accused. After all, we are all
guided by the legal precept that:

“x x x not all denials and alibis should be regarded as

fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can
have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such
accused penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the
rule drilled into his head that a defense of alibi is a
hangmans noose in the face of a witness positively swearing,
I saw him do it? Most judges believe that such assertion
automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate.
This quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For
how else can the truth that the accused is really innocent
have any chance of prevailing over such a stone-cast tenet?

There is only one way. A judge must keep an open

mind. He must guard against slipping into hasty conclusion,
often arising from a desire to quickly finish the job of
 Page 13 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

deciding a case. A positive declaration from a witness that

he saw the accused commit the crime should not
automatically cancel out the accused’s claim that he did not
do it. A lying witness can make as positive an identification
as a truthful witness can. The lying witness can also say as
forthrightly and unequivocally, He did it! without blinking
an eye.”14

In this Brief, the accused would demonstrate that a nexus of

logically related circumstances arising from the materially inconsistent
testimonies of the witnesses of the Prosecution would render them
highly suspect. The comparative testimonies are laden with
improbabilities that detract from their credibility. The totality of the
evidence for the prosecution leaves much to be desired. It is almost as if
it was merely contrived to pin criminal culpability upon the accused.

Consequently, this Honorable Court is invited to look closely at

the sequence of events and the evidence and test whether they are in
harmony with normal human experience. After all, for “evidence to be
believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in
itself tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and
accepted conduct that has evolved through the years”15.

THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION

WITNESSES ARE MARRED AND RIDDLED
WITH MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES
REVEALING THAT THEY WERE MERELY
FABRICATED

To begin, it must be emphasized that this case originated from a

complaint filed by AMIELA before the Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP for brevity) of Taguig City, docketed as I.S. No. XV-16-INV-11B-
00121. In her complaint, AMIELA charged both the accused MARIAN
and MA. VICTORIA Angcahas for allegedly mauling her. In her
affidavit, AMIELA specifically alleged that the accused MARIAN
punched her at the back and pulled her hair. Thereafter, AMIELA
alleged that MA. VICTORIA punched her on the arm and pulled the

14 Lejano vs. People, G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010

15 People of the Philippines vs. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012
 Page 14 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

hair of her grandmother. These allegations were supposedly seconded

by OCAMPO in his affidavit.

Accused MARIAN, on the other hand, submitted her Counter-

Affidavit, maintaining her innocence to the crime charged and that she
did not punch and pull the hair of AMIELA. The accused admits being
at the jeep with AMIELA but submits that no altercation happened and
that she rode the jeep to buy medicine for her youngest child. In fact, she
was carrying the doctor’s prescription and a copy of the receipt from
Mercury Drug Store to prove her statements.

The OCP, in its Resolution16 dated March 13, 2013, did not lend
credence to the hollow claims of AMIELA and her witnesses and
accordingly dismissed the case against MA. VICTORIA for insufficiency
of evidence.

In a strange twist of events, however, the OCP found probable

cause to indict the accused MARIAN before the Regional Trial Court. It
is perplexing to the accused as to why a case against her was filed when,
under the same evidence, the case against MA. VICTORIA was
dismissed. Nonetheless, a judicious reading of the testimonies of the
Prosecution witnesses would readily reveal their incredibility.

In the proceedings before the Regional Trial Court, the

Prosecution sought to establish the alleged culpability of the accused
mainly by presenting the testimonies of AMIELA and her eyewitness
OCAMPO.

However, a close scrutiny of their respective testimonies would

reveal that they are marred with several major inconsistencies on
material points effectively revealing badges of perjured testimony.

There is another thing about a lying witness: her story lacks sense
or suffers from inherent inconsistencies. An understanding of the nature
of things and the common behavior of people will help expose a lie. And
it has an abundant presence in this case.

16 Annex “J”
 Page 15 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

The first was on the point as to when the accused allegedly

punched AMIELA. On one hand, AMIELA testified that accused
MARIAN punched her at the back AFTER she alighted from the
passenger jeepney, to wit:

Q: So you claimed that when the jeepney reached in front

of Mercury Drug near the City Hall within the
Barangay Tuktukan, this Marian Angcahas alighted?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And after she alighted, you claimed that she went at

your back?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you thought that she would be going to Cruz-

Rabe?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what did she do when she went at your back?

A: She punched me, sir.

(TSN, Direct Examination of Witness Ma. Amiela Pineda dated

August 12, 2013 pp. 19)

xxx

Q: And you stated that the accused punched you at the

back?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

Q: For only once?

 Page 16 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And immediately, you turned your head around and

saw the accused?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And, thereafter, the accused hold your hair, is that

correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now could you point to this Honorable Court the

specific location where the accused hit you at the back?

A: Dito po.

COURT:

Witness pointing on the portion just below her left shoulder.

(TSN, Cross-Examination of Witness Ma. Amiela Pineda dated

September 17, 2013, pp. 5-6)

On the other hand, OCAMPO testified that the accused MARIAN

punched AMIELA BEFORE she went down the passenger jeep, viz:

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

Q: Okay, Now, again, you are telling this Honorable Court

that when Marian Angcahas, in your direct testimony,
before she alighted from the jeep, she punched Amiela
Pineda inside the jeep, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.
 Page 17 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Q: Now, at the same time after that, after accused alighted

from the jeep, according to you she went around the jeep
at the back of Amiela Pineda, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

Q: So, it is now clear to us that there were two (2) incidents,

two (2) situations that took place during that time. One,
the punching that took place inside the jeep, and the
other one, the pulling of the hair that took place outside
the jeep, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And I observed from your testimony earlier that you did

not do anything to pacify the accused inside the jeep
much less outside the jeep, is that correct?

A: No, sir.

(TSN, Cross Examination of Witness Percival Ocampo dated July

22, 2014, pp. 27-28)

What is worse, AMIELA earlier testified that the accused

MARIAN was seated at the rear portion of the jeep behind the driver
(TSN, Driect Examination of Witness Ma. Amiela Pineda dated August 12,
2013, pp. 17-18).

If the testimony of OCAMPO is to be believed, the said witness

would want this Honorable Court to believe that the accused MARIAN,
who was seated at the rear end portion of the left side of the jeep, beside
the estribo, went further inside the jeep to punch AMIELA, only to
thereafter go outside the said jeepney to pull the latter’s hair. Not only is
this contrary to the testimony of AMIELA itself, but is incredible on its
own.

“The time-honored test in determining the value of the

testimony of a witness is its compatibility with human
 Page 18 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

knowledge, observation and common experience of man.

Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human
knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible
and must lie outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the
Court has ruled that evidence to be believed must proceed
not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be
credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the
knowledge and common experience of mankind.”17

Second, AMIELA stated that it was VICTORIA, and not the

accused MARIAN, who was seated one arm length from her left side
with her Lola seated in between them, who hit her on the right
shoulder. Thus,

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

Your Honor, may we place on record that the distance of

the Lola, Violeta Bunghanoy, and Ma. Victoria is one arm
length.

Q: (to the witness)

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Then, on your lap is your…?

A: My sister, sir.

Q: Sister. Now, a distance… So you can safely say that your

distance from Ma. Victoria is more or less than one arm
length, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

17 Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003)

 Page 19 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Q: And in-between you and Ma. Victoria was your

grandmother?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, what place in your body did Ma. Victoria hit you?

COURT:

The witness is pointing to the upper right arm just below

the right shoulder.

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

Q: Now, I was trying to imagine the situation where you

claimed that you were seated at the passenger seat at the
right side, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: In-line with Ma. Victoria who was seated near the estribo,
is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, how could Ma. Victoria punched you at the right

side when she was seated at the last portion of the
passenger seat near the estribo?

A: Pumara po siya. Pagkapara po, bumaba po siya sabay sabunot

po sa lola ko. Nakayakap po ako sa lola ko, pinigilan ko po sila
kasi po ang lola ko napaupo na po sa lapag. Nung pagkapigil
ko po sa kanila, hinablot po ako ni Ma. Victoria sabay sinuntok
po ako dito.

COURT:

Place in vernacular.
 Page 20 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

(TSN, Cross Examination of Witness Ma. Amiela Pineda dated

September 17, 2013, pp. 9-11)

However, prosecution witness OCAMPO, in his testimony,

painted a very different picture, as follows:

PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ:

Q: So, what happened after the companion of Marian

Angcahas alighted from the vehicle?

A: Nagsalita po ng hindi maganda.

Q: At what point in time the companion of Marian

Angcahas said unsavory words? Before she alighted or
after she alighted?

A: Before she alighted, sir.

Q: And what did she say and to whom she said those
words?

A: She said that sa maglola, “Matapang kayo”.

Q: And after that she alighted from the vehicle?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And after she was already on the ground, what did she
do, if any?

A: She went around to the right side of the jeep and pulled
the hair of AMIELA.

Q: You were seated at what portion of the jeep? At the back

of the driver or the right side of the driver?

A: Left side in the middle, at the back of the driver but in

the middle part.
 Page 21 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

(TSN, Continuation of Direct Examination of Witness Percival

Ocampo dated July 22, 2014, pp. 4-5)

Observably, OCAMPO has kept on changing his answer thereby

precipitating Prosecutor Dela Cruz to comment –

PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ:

Oh my God nanaman. Nalilito ka na.

You said earlier that Marian Angcahas alighted from the

vehicle ahead of her companion, correct?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir, pero ang nanakit po si Marian.

PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ:

We are no longer… kung babasahin mo ‘yong transcript mo, we

are already through with what Marian Angcahas did.
Nandoon na tayo sa kasamahan nya.

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR DELA CRUZ:

Q: So, again, Marian Angcahas, that lady, alighted from the

vehicle ahead of her companion, correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, we are now talking about the incident when her

companion was left behind inside the jeepney, correct?

A: Yes, sir.
 Page 22 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Q: So, that companion, companion, do not think of Marian

Angcahas, that companion of Marian Angcahas, when
she alighted, she went at the back of the side where Ma.
Amiela and her Lola were seated, and what did she do?

A: She hurt Amiela.

(TSN, Continuation of Direct Examination of Witness Percival Ocampo

dated July 22, 2014, pp. 11-12)

Fourth, AMIELA lied as to who inflicted her supposed injuries,

as shown by the medical certificate (Exhibit “B” of the Prosecution). In
her Sworn Statement18 before the Police dated February 14, 2011, she
stated that:

08. TANONG: Maari mo bang isalaysay ang sinasabi

mong pambubugbog sa iyo?

SAGOT: Pumara po kami ng Lola ko at sumakay ng

jeep na pauntant Pasig. Hindi po naming napansin sa
nakasakay din palan ang magkapatid na Marian at Ma.
Victoria sa nasabing jeep. Pagtapat po ng jeep sa Mercury
Drug Store pumara si Marian at bumababa, habang
nakatigil ang jeep dahil sa traffic pinagsusuntok at
pinagkakalmot nya ako sa likod at hinablot-hablot ang
buhok ko.

09. TANONG: Ano pa ang sumunod na nangyari?

SAGOT: Umabante napo ang jeep, at pagtapat uli sa

Levi Mariano pumara naman si Ma. Victoria at bago bumba
pinagsusuntok din ako pati ang lola ko na noon ay may
kargang bata.

18 Annex “K”
 Page 23 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Before the Regional Trial Court, however, AMIELA testified that

the accused MARIAN merely allegedly punched her at the back and
pulled her hair. To be sure, AMIELA testified:

Q. Now, you said that when the jeep reached the Mercury
Drug, that was the place General Luna, in front of the
Mercury Drug, accused alighted and went around the
jeep, umikot, you said “umikot” at the back, is that
correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you stated that the accused punched you at the

back?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For only once?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And immediately, you turned your head around and

saw the accused?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And thereafter, the accused held your hair, is that

correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, could you point to this Honorable Court the

specific location where the accused hit you at the back?

A. Dito po.

COURT:

Witness pointing on the portion just below her left

shoulder.
 Page 24 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Q. And by reason of the punching at the back, you

sustained injuries, according to you?

A. Yes, sir.

(TSN, Cross Examination of Witness Ma. Amiela Pinda dated

September 17, 2013, p. 5-6)

On the other hand, the medical certificate (Exhibit “B” of the

Exhibits of the Prosecution) of AMIELA declared that the injuries she
suffered are:

“Description of injuries: Hematoma at the right posterior

arm and left scapular area. Multiple abrasion conguitudinal
at the posterior neck mid thoracic soft tissue.”

In this regard, it must be remembered that our laws require that

the testimony of the supposed victim must find support in physical
evidence. In a plethora of cases, it had been shown that physical
evidence carries more weight than testimonial evidence.

And as clearly shown above, the description of the injuries the

supposed victim AMIELA suffered are not consistent with what she
imputed against the accused. To an extent, it may even be argued that it
is more consistent with the injuries she supposedly suffered from MA.
VICTORIA, assuming her testimony against the latter was true. In this
case, however, her charge against MA. VICTORIA did not stand
scrutiny. The same must be said against the present charge against the
accused MARIAN.

As can readily be revealed, the inconsistencies in the statements of

the prosecution witnesses as opposed to their sworn statements are
glaring, substantial, not trivial. In addition, they are too many to be
ignored. As had been ruled, “the variance between their sworn statements
and their testimonies impairs their credibility.”19

19 People of the Philippines vs. Mangowal, et. al., G.R. No. L-35783 March 12, 1975
 Page 25 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

And lastly, as to what was the reaction of AMIELA and her

companions after the accused supposedly hit her, AMIELA testified
that she just kept quiet. On the other hand, their witness, OCAMPO
testified that they were very much angry to point of wanting to fight
back. This severe inconsistency is reflected in the witness’ respective
testimonies which state:

Q. So what did you do when you were punched at the

back?

A. When I looked back, sir, she also pulled my hair and

then she cursed us, saying “Pokpok daw po kami ng
mama ko. At ako rin daw po, pokpok rin daw ako ng
Munisipal.

Q. And it was seen by your grandmother Violeta?

A. Yes, sir.

PROSEC. DELA CRUZ:

Q. And what did she do, if any?

A. None sir, she just gently touched my back because I

cried because of pain.

Q. Your lola saw that and she did nothing, and she did
not say a word against Marian Angcahas?

A. None sir.

Q. Your lola did not attempt to alight also?

A. No, sir.

(TSN, Direct Examination of Witness Ma. Amiela Pineda dated

August 12, 2013 pp. 29-30)
 Page 26 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

On the other hand, OCAMPO testified that:

INTERPRETER:

Anong reaction ng kasama ni Ma. Amiela?

COURT:

Anong reaction nila? Anong rection nung kasamahan ni

Ma. Amiela?

A: They were angry; they were mad, Sir.

PROSEC. DELA CRUZ:

Q: When you said the companion of Ma. Amiela got

angry, what do you mean?

A: “Parang gustong lumaban”. They wanted to fight back,

Sir.

Q: Did the companion of Ma. Amiela utter anything?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what was the companion of Ma. Amiela said?

A: Salita ng salita ng hindi po maganda.

COURT:

Ano nga? Sabihin mo nga. Derecho mong sabihin kung ano

yun.

PROSEC. DELA CRUZ:

 Page 27 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Sige, pwedeng magmura dito, may permit. Sige, sabihin mo.

WITNESS:

Yun po, nagmura.

COURT:

Sabihin mo nga yung eksakto, yung eksaktong narining mo

kung meron man.

WITNESS:

Putang Ina n’yo, ganun.

ATTY. PUNZALAN:

Your Honor, may I make on record that the witness is

whispering. I could not hear the utterances.

COURT:

Anyway, I heard.

(TSN, Direct Examination of Witness Percival Ocampo dated June

16. 2014, pp. 14-15)

It must be remembered that AMIELA and OCAMPO’s

“contradictory statements are on important details and cannot but seriously
impair the probative value and cast serious doubt on the integrity of her
testimony.”20

Along this line, it is must respectfully submitted that:

“In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove

beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime

20 People of the Philippines vs. Fabito, G.R. No. 179933, April 16, 2009
 Page 28 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.

While a lone witness testimony is sufficient to convict an
accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear,
consistent, and credible - qualities we cannot ascribe to this
case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial
evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible
witness and be credible in itself tested by human experience,
observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that
has evolved through the years.

xxx

x x x Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong must

never sway judgment. x x x “21

“x x x defenses of denial and frame-up are concededly inherently

weak x x x. However, it must be stressed that conviction of the accused
must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the
evidence of the prosecution.”22

In conjunction, the medical certificate is purely hearsay and self-

serving since the doctor who attended to the victim was not presented
in open court and the same was not even notarized or executed under
oath. Under the Rules on Evidence, a medical certificate which is not
notarized or executed under oath, has no evidentiary weight and, for all
intents and purposes, is considered merely as hearsay, thus:

“A medical certificate would be hearsay and

inadmissible in evidence without the affirmation or
confirmation on the witness stand of the physician who
prepared it and corroborated by the testimony of the
physician who had examined the patient.”23

Further, it is curious why the prosecution failed to present Violeta

Bunghanoy, the grandmother, for unknown reasons, to shed light on the
incident. It must be remembered that she was part of the witnesses of
the private complainant in the proceedings before the OCP where she

21 People of the Philippines vs. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012
22 Prieto vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010
23 People vs. Villagracia, G.R. No. 94311, September 14, 1993, 226 SCRA 374, 379
 Page 29 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

gave evidence allegedly to support the claim of AMIELA. It is likewise

curious, if the allegations are truthful in its entirety, why Violeta
Bunghanoy did not pursue a case against MA. VICTORIA. These
circumstances taken together seriously casts doubt on the veracity of the
statements made by the Prosecution witnesses.

Considering the weakness of the evidence of the Prosecution as

shown by the marred testimonies of their witnesses, it was imperative
for the Prosecution to have presented Violeta Bunghanoy. The
Prosecution’s failure to do so is fatal to its case. To be sure, it was held
that:

“While non-presentation of certain witnesses is not a

valid defense nor does it work against the prosecutions
cause, this holds true only if the evidence of the prosecution
is sufficiently strong to overcome the presumption of
innocence of the accused. If the prosecution evidence is not
strong, then it becomes mandatory for the prosecution to
present evidence which can help further its case, or explain
why such evidence is not presented. When the sole
testimony of the complainant is met by an equally credible
evidence of the defense, then the prosecution must present
credible corroborative witnesses to buttress its case. Its
failure to present corroborative witnesses, without any
explanation why they were not produced, weakens the
testimony of the witness who named those corroborating
witnesses in her testimony. In this case, the prosecutions
failure to present the corroborative witnesses, without any
explanation for their non-appearance, makes private
complainants testimony weak.24”

To overcome the presumption, the prosecution must establish the

guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. It calls for moral certainty,
which has been defined as a “certainty that convinces and satisfies the
reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. It has even been
once said that “every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be
removed” if only to accord full respect to the constitutional right. Every
hypotheses except guilt must be excluded.

24 Tin vs. People, G.R. No. 126480, August 10, 2001

 Page 30 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

“ x x x the presumption of innocence of the accused

should not be thrown out of the window and forgotten
altogether. Such presumption holds until the contrary is
proven. Every circumstance favoring it must be taken into
account in a criminal case. If the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one
of which is consistent with innocence and the other with
guilt, then the evidence does not pass the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

In order to convict the accused of a crime, the

prosecution must produce evidence showing guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. A person charged with a serious crime
stands to lose not only reputation, but also liberty and
maybe even life. Because of the gravity of the charge and the
great loss involved in the present case, the prosecution
should not have rested easy on haphazard facts and hastily
thrown-in principles, forgetting in the process their duty of
overcoming the presumption of innocence of the accused in
a criminal action.

The prosecution should take an active and direct part

in the trial of the case, since it has the onus probandi of
showing the guilt of the accused. Even if it is, perhaps, the
inadequacy of details in the prosecutions evidence rather
than the actual facts themselves that makes it difficult for
this Court to arrive at definite conclusions, still we cannot
pin responsibility on appellant. The moral conviction that
may serve as basis for a finding of guilt in a criminal case
should be that which is the logical and inevitable result of
the evidence on record, exclusive of any other consideration.
Short of this minimum requirement, it is not only the right of
the accused to be freed; it is, even more, this Courts
constitutional duty to acquit them. Only then may there be
fealty to the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The innocence of a defendant in a criminal case is

always presumed until the contrary is proven. Where two
probabilities arise from the evidence, the one compatible
 Page 31 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

with the presumption of innocence will be adopted. Mere

suspicion is not enough to take away ones liberty and
destroy ones reputation. Guilt must be proven by proof as
clear as daylight, by evidence so airtight that no room is left
for any reasonable doubt.”25

THE WITNESSES FOR THE

PROSECUTION WERE IMPELLED TO
TESTIFY FALSELY AGAINST THE
ACCUSED

In order for this Honorable Court to have a complete

understanding of submission of the accused that there exists ill motive
for the accused to testify falsely against her, it is most respectfully
submitted that facts outside of the four corners of this case.

It must be pointed out that prior to the filing of this fabricated case
against the accused, the accused had first filed a case against Cecil B.
Pineda and VIOLY BUNGHANOY, mother and grandmother of
AMIELA, respectively, before the Barangay and which was docketed as
Case No. 0493-200826. The parties in that case eventually settled – but it
seemed that it was not the end of the story between the erstwhile
friends.

In fact, in March 29, 2009, herein accused filed a report27 (blotter)

against Cecil Pineda and Christopher Pineda, the parents of AMIELA
before the Barangay, docketed as Case No. 1270, 2009 for the latters’
alleged violent acts (sinampal ang kanyang ank at sasagasaan daw silang
mag-ina) towards them. As the accused did not want the matter to
escalate further at the time, she did not pursue the case formally.

It is likewise telling that there is a present case against Violeta

Sibonghanoy for Child Abuse before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City (Lower Bicutan), Branch 69 docketed as Criminal Case No. 148214

25 People vs. Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327-29. June 5, 2002

26 Annex “L”
27 Annex “M”
 Page 32 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

wherein a Warrant for her Arrest28 was issued by the Regional Trial
Court.

It might be well to state that, prior to the filing of the Information in

Court, Sibonghanoy, in defending herself against the charge before the
OCP, Violeta Sibonghanoy presented an affidavit of her granddaughter,
no less than the child Kassandra Mae B. Pinda. The OCP, however, saw
how Sibonghanoy may use her grandchildren to fabricate witnesses and
dismissed the said affidavit29, rationing in its Resolution30 dated April
30, 2012 that:

“Respondent also brought her granddaughter to

attest to her defense that she did not slap the victim,
however, upon clarificatory questioning, her
granddaughter manifested that she did not know anything
about it.”

Clearly, in light of the above circumstances, the credibility of the

witness(es) for the prosecution is highly suspect and must be scrutinized
in order to see through their web of lies.

Ultimately, it is only but logical to conclude that these

circumstances were the ulterior motive behind the filing of the present
case against herein accused MARIAN.

Considering the foregoing circumstances, the ruling in the case of

People of the Philippines vs. Lagmay31, is especially applicable in this case,
wherein it was held 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 his guilt. These determinants, with the constitutional
presumption of innocence which can be overthrown only by
the strength of the prosecution’s own evidence proving guilt

28 Annex “N”
29 Annex “O”
30 Annex “P”
31 G.R. No. 125310, April 21, 1999
 Page 33 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

beyond reasonable doubt, irresistibly dictate exoneration in

this case.”

In conjunction, it was further held that:

“In our jurisdiction accusation is not synonymous with

guilt. The freedom of the accused is forfeit[ed] only if the
requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in
existence. This, of course, requires the most careful scrutiny
of the evidence for the State, both oral and documentary,
independent of whatever defense is offered by the accused.
Every circumstance favoring the accused’s innocence must
be duly taken into account. The proof against the accused
must survive the test of reason. Strongest suspicion must not
be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be
satisfied that on the accused could be laid the responsibility
for the offense charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge
the burden, then it is not only the accused’s right to be freed;
it is, even more, the court’s constitutional duty to acquit
him.”32

“It is oft-repeated that a finding of guilt must rest on the evidence

of the prosecution not on the weakness or even absence of evidence for
the defense. Thus, it is required that every circumstance favoring the
innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. The proof
against him must survive the test of reason and the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway judgment. In the case at bench, the
evidence for the prosecution was unable to pass the exacting test of
moral certainty that the law demands. In People v. Fernandez, this Court
has aptly said:

“It is better to liberate a guilty man than to unjustly

keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proved by the
required quantum of evidence. Hence, despite the Court's
support of ardent crusaders waging all-out war against
felons on the loose, when the People's evidence fails to prove
indubitably the accused's authorship of the crime of which
they stand accused, it is the Court's duty -- and the accused's

32 People of the Philippines vs. Fabito, G.R. No. 179933, April 16, 2009
 Page 34 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

right -- to proclaim their innocence. Acquittal, therefore, is in

order.’”33

Consequently, it is most respectfully submitted that the

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
doubt. As a result, this Honorable Court is implored to render judgment
acquitting the accused.

EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT

WAS PROVEN THAT THE ACCUSED HIT
AMIELA, THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PROVE THAT IT WAS DONE UNDER THE
CONDITION PRESCRIBED UNDER RA 7610

On the assumption that this Honorable Court lend credence that

AMIELA was indeed subjected to physical harm, accused Marian is
guilty only of slight physical injuries and not for child abuse. There was
no showing, much less even an attempt on the part of the prosecution,
in this case that there was an intent on the part of the accused to debase
the intrinsic worth and dignity of AMIELA or that she had thereby
intended to humiliate or embarrass AMIELA.

Based on the records of this case, it appears that the incident on

February 13, 2011, assuming it to be true, was a spur of the moment
event which effectively deprived the accused any intent to debase,
degrade or demean AMIELA.

As the accused testified, her mind was busy with the thought of
buying medicine for her sick child. This was not controverted, much less
challenged by the Prosecution. At the very least, this circumstance must
be taken in favor of the accused in consonance with the case of Bongalon
vs. People34, wherein it was held that:

“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

33 People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, July 11, 2012

34 G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013
 Page 35 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

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. It 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. (emphasis
ours)

In fact, the letter of AMIELA to the Honorable Regional Trial

Court effectively disavowed any finding that she suffered or felt that the
accused intended to debase her “intrinsic worth and dignity” as a
human being, or that she had been humiliated or embarrassed by the
said incident. To be sure, AMIELA, assisted by her parents, in relevant
portions her notarized letter35 dated October 5, 2015, stated that:

“To Honorable Judge Leili Suarez,

Ako po si Ma. Amiela B. Pineda, 17 yrs. old sa ngayon.

Complainant ni Ms. Marian Angcahas, nais ko po sanang
ipahatid sa pamamagitan ng aking sulat x x x

x x x Sa katunayan po sa apat na taon na lumipas ay

akin na pong nakalimutan ang lahat. Di ko po akalaing
ganyan po ang kanyang kahihinatnan, kawawa naman po
ang kanyang anim na anak na maliliit pa, na mawawalay po
sa kanya x x x

x x x Gusto po sanang magsama-sama po silang mag-

anak ng buo at wala na pong iniintindi tulad po naming ng
aking mga magulang x x x”

35 Annex “Q”
 Page 36 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

It was therefore serious error on the part of the Regional Trial

Court to simply dismiss the accused’s Motion wherein this letter was
attached without at least hearing from AMIELA herself to determine the
merit of her letter. It must be stressed that even at the outset, a
conviction for Child Abuse rests on the finding of an intent on the part
of the accused to debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of a supposed
child victim or that the accused had thereby intended to humiliate or
embarrass the child victim.

RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that a judgment be rendered ACQUITTING the accused Marian
Angcahas of the crime of Child Abuse.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City for Manila, October 27, 2016.

SISON LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Accused
MARIAN ANGCAHAS
15C Faith St. Teresa Village
Quezon City 1106
Email: gksison@gmail.com
Cellular No. 0906-4034156
Tel. No. 02-7489347

____________________________________
GREBERT KARL T. SISON
Roll No. 50857; May 4, 2005
IBP No. 1018309; 01-05-2016; RSM
PTR No. 5323832; 01-05-2016; Makati City
MCLE Compliance V-0015392; 03-02-2016
 Page 37 of 37
People vs. Angcahas
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
CA G.R. CR No. 38981
Court of Appeals- Manila

x------------------------ x

Copy furnished:

1. Ma. Amiela Pineda

(Private Complainant)
241 Tiamsic Street, Pateros
Metro Manila36

2. Office of the Solicitor General

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Appellant’s Brief were served to the

opposing party and opposing counsel and filed with this Honorable
Court by registered mail due to constraints of distance, time, and lack of
personnel to effect personal delivery.

GREBERT KARL T. SISON

36 Based on last known address