Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Memorandum of Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Richie Salubre

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Memorandum of Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Richie Salubre
    12 views6 pages

    Original Title

    Memorandum-of-Appeal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    12 views6 pages

    Memorandum of Appeal

    Uploaded by

    Richie Salubre

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


    NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
    BRANCH 51, MANILA

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

    Plaintiff,

    Criminal Case No.:20-06194-CR-


    -versus- R00-00
    FOR: Violation of Manila City
    Ordinance No. 8627
    JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON,
    Accused.

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

    MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
    (OF THE DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2021)

    Accused JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON, assisted by the Public Attorney’s


    Office, through the undersigned Public Attorney, unto this Honorable Court,
    respectfully moves for the reversal of the Decision of the Honorable Metropolitan
    Trial Court Manila, Branch 29, and for this purpose states that:

    I.

    TIMELINESS OF FILING

    On , the Public Attorney’s Office received an Order dated January 4, 2022


    from this Honorable Court directing the herein accused to file his memorandum
    within fifteen (15) days from receipt. The accused has until January 19, 2022,
    within which to file his memorandum. However, due to the great surge and rising
    cases of the Covid19 infection, the Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular
    No. 01-2022, which states that the filing period of any and all pleadings and other
    court submissions that will fall due this month are EXTENDED until February 1,
    2022. Hence, this memorandum of appeal is filed on time.

    II.

    BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    On October 29, 2020, Pat. Jarson Ignacio allegedly arrested accused


    JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON for violation of Manila City Ordinance 8627. After
    inquest, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed an information against the
    accused.

    Said case was raffled at and heard by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila,
    Branch 29. Trial then ensued and the prosecution presented its lone witness Pat.
    Jarson Ignacio. Along the course of the trial, they marked Joint Affidavit and the
    arresting officers signatures. The defense presented the accused Jesus Villaflor.

    On November 15, 2021, judgment was rendered by the Honorable


    Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29 convicting herein accused of the
    crime of Violation of Manila City Ordinance 8627 the dispositive portion of which
    reads as follows :

    “WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered finding the


    accused JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON GUILTY beyond
    reasonable doubt of VIOLATION OF MANILA CITY
    ORDINANCE NO. 8627. The Court hereby sentences accused
    JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON a FINE of ONE THOUSAND
    PESOS (Php 1,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
    insolvency.

    xxx

    SO ORDERED.”

    III.

    ISSUE

    WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED


    REVERSIBLE ERROR IN CONVICTING THE
    ACCUSED FOR VIOLATION OF MANILA CITY
    ORDINANCE 8627.

    IV.

    DISCUSSIONS

    THE VIOLATION OF MANILA CITY


    ORDINANCE NO. 8627 APPLIES
    ONLY DURING ENHANCED
    COMMUNITY QUARANTINE (ECQ).

    A careful reading of Manila City Ordinance 8627, particularly paragraph 3 of


    the Preamble, would show. That “wearing of masks, or other similar protective
    equipment, is now mandatory for people who will be going out of their home in
    areas under ECQ.xxx

    At the time of the arrest of accused on October 29, 2020, the quarantine
    classification of the National Capital Region, in general, and the City of Manila, in
    particular, is General Community Quarantine (GCQ). This circumstance is of
    judicial notice to the court. In case, the Honorable Court, inadvertently failed to
    take judicial notice of the same, attached herewith is the copy of the Inter-Agency
    Task Force (IATF) Resolution No. 75-A, Series of 2020, September 28, 2020.
    Clearly, the the Manila City Ordinance 8627 did not enumerate nor mention
    that it applies to General Community Quarantine (GCQ) but only to Enhanced
    Community Quarantine (ECQ). The act allegedly committed by the accused as
    stated in the Information. It follows that the said act is not punishable, nor can it be
    considered a crime when accused was apprehended on October 29, 2020.

    Nullum crimen nulla piena sine lege is a legal principle that one cannot be
    punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law. Then in the eyes of the
    law, there was no such law to be violated, consequently the accused could not
    have committed the alleged crime at all.

    If the Honorable Court wants to convict the accused, a local legislative


    enactment is necessary in order to create a new ordinance that will punish the act
    of herein accused. Since they are the ones who has the power to define and punish
    crimes.

    Furthermore, considering that the Manila City Ordinance 8627 is penal in


    nature, basic is the equipoise doctrine that when the evidence of the prosecution
    and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls
    for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused.

    When accused Jesus Villaflor y Tiozon allegedly committed the act as stated
    in the Information on October 29, 2020, there was no law penalizing such act. In
    fact, there was no law relating to violations of general community quarantine or
    facemark violation order or directive issued by public health authorities was to be
    violated and consequently accused committed no violation of any law.

    THE LONE TESTIMONIAL


    EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
    PROSECUTION FAILS TO PROVE
    THAT HEREIN ACCUSED
    VIOLATED MANILA CITY
    ORDINANCE 8627.

    Basic is the rule that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the guilt
    of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the
    accused is enshrined in no less than the 1987 Philippine Constitution and statutes.
    Jurisprudence dictates that the Court must at all times exert utmost
    scrupulousness in evaluating the evidence of the prosecution for it is elementary
    that conviction of the accused must rest on the strength of the prosecution and not
    on the weakness of the defense.

    The above-cited Manila City Ordinance 8627 should be read in accordance


    with the whole context including its preamble and should not be read in isolation
    to defeat the true intent and purpose of the law.

    Be it noted that the lone testimony of the arresting officer without any other
    evidence to prove the commission of the alleged city ordinance, sans picture or
    CCTV footage depicting that the accused violated the said city ordinance should
    not stand in court.

    Clearly, the act allegedly committed by the accused is not covered by the
    afore-mentioned statute. Consequently, no crime has been committed by the
    accused. This is in accordance with the long-established principle of criminal law
    stating “nullum poena sine lege”.

    With the foregoing discussions, one thing is certain now, that the charge
    against the herein accused is doubtful, if not totally fabricated. The accused, every
    day from the time that this case was filed against him, lives in ignominy. As the
    court aptly stated: "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."1

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


    the contrary is proved and shall enjoy the right to be heard. To overcome the
    presumption of innocence and arrive at a finding of guilt, the prosecution is duty
    bound to establish with moral certainty the elemental acts constituting the offense.2

    It is a well settled principle in statutory construction that criminal statutes are


    to be strictly construed against the government and liberally in favor of the
    accused. In the case of U.S. v. Abad Santos3, the Supreme Court explained the
    said principle by the rationale that “no person should be brought within their terms,
    nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the
    statute.”

    ALL TOLD, IT IS EVIDENT FROM ALL THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS


    THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE
    ACCUSED WITH MORAL CERTAINTY. DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL
    COMPLAINT AND ACQUITTING HIM FROM THE OFFENSE CHARGED IS,
    THEREFORE, IN ORDER.

    Considering the foregoing, the accused should not be convicted of the crime
    charged, for failure of the prosecution to establish, with certainty, the elements of
    the crime. As repeatedly held by the Highest Tribunal:

    “x x x in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the


    burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
    doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution’s duty is to
    prove each and every element of the crime charged in the
    information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any
    other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must
    further prove the participation of the accused in the commission
    of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on
    the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success
    upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden

    1
    People of the Philippines vs. Norlito Geron, GR No. 113788, October 17, 1997
    2
    People vs. Suan, G.R.No. 184546, February 22, 2010.
    3
    1917, 36 Phil. 243, 246
    of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption
    of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the
    Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence,
    the accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be
    acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the
    presumption of innocence in his favor. x x x”

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the


    Honorable Court to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated November 15,
    2021 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 29, by dismissing the
    criminal information against accused JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON, and by
    acquitting him of the offense charged.

    Accused, through counsel, likewise, prays for other relief and remedies, just
    and equitable in the premises.

    City of Manila. January 24, 2022.


    PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
    Manila District Office
    4th Floor W. Godino Bldg.
    350 Arroceros Street
    Ermita, Manila

    RACHELLE R. QUINTANA-DELFIN
    Public Attorney II
    Roll No. 74253
    IBP OR No. 197447 - 1/7/2022

    MCLE EXEMPT

    NOTED BY:

    ATTY. VANESSA MISOLA


    Public Attorney II
    Roll of Attorneys No. 71804
    Date Admitted: June 7, 2018
    MCLE Compliance No. VI: 0026660; May 23, 2019
    IBP No. 042563
    Office Tel. No.: (02) 523-2030

    Copy furnished thru personal service:

    ACP MARIA CRISTINA M. SAMPAGA-MANUEL


    Office of the City Prosecutor
    City Hall, Manila

    Explanation: The above pleading was personally served to the opposing


    counsel/party.

    RACHELLE R. QUINTANA-DELFIN
    VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
    of NON-FORUM SHOPPING

    I, JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON, of legal age, Filipino, after having been


    sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state:

    1. That I am the appellant in the above-entitled case;

    2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Memorandum;

    3. That the contents therein were explained in the language known to me,
    and that the allegations contained therein are true and correct of my
    own personal knowledge and belief, and based on authentic records
    and/or documents;

    4. That I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving


    the same issues before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional
    Trial Court and of any other judicial, administrative or quasi-judicial
    bodies and/or any other government authority;

    5. That if I should learn of any case, petition or complaint filed, or pending


    before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Court and
    of any other judicial, administrative or quasi judicial bodies and/or any
    other government authority, I undertake to report such fact within five
    (5) days upon knowledge thereof.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this


    ______ day of _______________, here at City of Manila.

    JESUS VILLAFLOR y TIOZON


    Affiant

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this


    _________________________, here at City of Manila. Affiants exhibiting to
    me her ____________________________________________.

    You might also like