Você está na página 1de 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 012, MUNTINLUPA CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, !"#$# % C"i&' Ca#! N(' )*0+*000000 F(", FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS

SPO- ISIDORO B' BOTE, A..$#!/' 0 *********************************************** 0

DEMURRER TO E1IDENCE
The Accused JUAN DELA CRU2, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits its Demurrer to Evidence and avers: BASIS FOR THE DEMURRER It is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the accused (Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 001 SCRA 005 . The charges against an accused must be dismissed if there is no competent or sufficient evidence adduced that would sustain the charges against him, should the same be raised in a demurrer to the evidence. 'rocedure provides: !Sec. "# After t$e prosecution rests its case, t$e court ma% dismiss t$e action on t$e &round of insufficienc% of evidence (1 on its o'n initiative after &ivin& t$e prosecution t$e opportunit% to (e $eard or (" upon demurrer to evidence filed (% t$e accused 'it$ or 'it$out leave of court. ) ) )* ARGUMENTS3DISCUSSION The only witness for the prosecution was ()* '. A++,)&-. It cannot be overemphasi.ed that the affidavit of the complainant and the testimony of said witness showed that he had no personal /nowledge of the alleged theft that was committed on 0$ 1une !0$". 2oreover what is more dubious is that the affidavit of said complainant was done on 03 August !00$", more than one ($) month after the alleged incident too/ place. aid witness did not see the alleged ta/ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash money since he was on vacation at &avite &ity. &omplainant was miles away when the alleged ta/ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash money was done. It was highly ection !", #ule $$% of the #evised #ules of &riminal

improbable for him to witness the incident. In complainant4s affidavit, he based his accusation only on the information of his grandson which is also the son of the accused that it was his father who entered the room. There was no mention made that accused was seen ta/ing, stealing and carrying away the cash money. The same information was given to him by his daughter who is also the wife of the accused. In other words, there was no witness at all who had seen the alleged alleged ta/ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash money. *oteworthy is the fact that the grandson and the wife of the accused did not testify to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. 5ence, the basis of the complainant in charging the accused for theft is not substantiated considering that it is purely hearsay and have no probative value whether ob6ected to or not. It was emphasi.ed by the defense in their cross-e7amination of said witness that he had no personal /nowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged ta/ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash money. In fact the complainant himself was having a hard time remembering the e7act amount of the cash money that was allegedly ta/en whether it was '$!,000.00 or '$8,000.00. There is no need to discuss the other elements of theft since the prosecution was not able to establish the alleged ta/ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash money. Indeed, any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by nature if its probative value is not based on the personal /nowledge of the witness but on the /nowledge of some other person not on the witness stand. (! #egalado, #emedial ,aw &ompendium, $%9% :th #ev. )d., p. 39:). (y virtue of this legal aphorism, no probative value can attach to the alleged confession of &arlos albeit no ob6ection thereto was interposed by the defense. ('eople vs. ;illahermosa, (&A) :< =.>. 3%!% citing 'eople vs. &abral, et. Al. (unpub.) 89 'hil. %3:? ;ide, at p. 39:). ;erily, in criminal cases the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall en6oy the right of being confronted with the witnesses testifying against him and to crosse7amine them. 2oreover the court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of the person who supposedly made them (!0 Am. 1ur. 300-30$? cited at <-$, +rancisco, #evised #ules of &ourt, $%<" ed., p. 3"<). People vs. MeloSantos, 245 SCRA 569, July 3, 1995. PRAYER @5)#)+=#), premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the 5onorable &ourt that this Aemurrer to )vidence be granted and that the criminal charge of Theft against the accused SONNY MANGALINDAN be AI 2I )A.

=ther reliefs, 6ust and eBuitable, are li/ewise prayed for. Cue.on &ity, 'hilippines, 2ay !9, !00<.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P$4li. Att("n!56# Offi.! #m. (-!% 5all of 1ustice, Cue.on &ity

(y: ATTY' CAROLINE L' TOBIAS 'ublic Attorney II *=TI&) =+ 5)A#I*> 5on. 1ohn 'atric/ &orpu. Assistant &ity 'rosecutor &ler/ of &ourt #T& !!" >reetingsD 'lease submit the foregoing Aemurrer to )vidence for the approval and consideration of the 5onorable &ourt on !% 2ay !00< at 9:"0 a.m. &A#=,I*) ,. T=(IA &opy +urnished: 5on. 1ohn 'atric/ &orpu. Assistant &ity 'rosecutor