Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
BRANCH 25
Tagudin, Ilocos Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case Nos. 1447-T & 1448-T
- versus - For: Malversation of Public Funds
Falsification of Public Documents
MARYLOU BATIN,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, thru counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully

move for the dismissal of the case by way of Demurrer to Evidence,
premised on the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

On May 15, 2015 and November 12, 2015, respectively, the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor filed two (2) separate Informations against the
accused for Malversation of Public Funds and Falsification of Public
Documents defined and penalized under Article 247 and Article 171,
respectively, of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

a) Criminal Case No. 1447-T (Malversation of Public Funds)

“That sometime in the month of December 2013 to

January 2014, in the municipality of Tagudin, province of
Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being the Stock
Officer, Grain Operations Section and Acting Warehouse
Supervisor of the National Food Authority, Ilocos Sur
Provincial Office as such assigned to handle Tagudin FLGC
III and has custody of the big volume of rice there, who is
accountable for receiving, storing, issuing stocks and other
NFA property accountabilities, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, feloniously allowed some retailers to withdraw
big volume of rice with total volume of 192,191.041 kgs or
equivalent to 3,867 bags and amounting to P8,262,292.81
from NFA warehouse without showing receipts to the guard
and permitted entry of trucks loaded with rice hull and
unloaded the same into the said warehouse upon instruction
of the accused in order to cover up missing big volume of rice

Page 1
 that went missing because of the withdrawal of big volume of
rice which is an act of misappropriation.

Contrary to law.”

b) Criminal Case No. 1448-T (Falsification of Public Documents)

“That sometime in the month of September, 2013, in

the municipality of Tagudin, provice of Ilocos Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused as warehouse supervisor,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
maliciously falsify a public document denominated as
“SUMMARY OF STOCK REPORTS” dated September 1-7,
2013, by then and there making it appear in said document,
that she has zero Iron Rice Premix (IRP) bags in her
accountability when in truth and in fact, 165 bags of IRP,
placed in the middle and bottom layers which under law, the
accused was obliged to divulge the truth.

Contrary to law.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

Upon arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

Thereafter, Pre-Trial ensued wherein both the prosecution and the defense
agree on the following stipulation of facts:

II. STIPULATION OF FACTS:

1. Identity of the person charged in the information;

2. Accused is an employee of NFA Ilocos Sur Provincial

Office;

3. All the facts and entries contained in the “Appointment”

to service of the accused.

To prove its case, the prosecution presented the following witnesses;

Thereafter, the prosecution rests its case.

ISSUE

The only issue in this case is…

WHETHER OR NOT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED

HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED TO
PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE

Page 2
 DOUBT AS REQUIRED BY LAW TO WARRANT
CONVICTION.

DISCUSSION

As a backgrounder, it is well to emphasize that it is the primordial

duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that
conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is
required is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty.
Failing to meet this test, acquittal becomes the Constitutional duty of the
Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an
innocent man for the rest of his life.

Simply put, the prosecution’s evidence betrays lack of concreteness to

overcome accused’s presumption of innocence. No less than the witnesses
for the prosecution will lead us to one and only conclusion and that is….
accused’s complete innocence.

I.

(Engr. Fortunato Bulao)

ATTY. CORTEZ –

Q: In other words you could not determine from this

summary report what were the anomalous
transactions allegedly committed during the month
of January 2014?
A: This is already for the period January 23 to May 30,
sir.

Q: Precisely, my question is, you have no summary

report of those alleged anomalous transactions for
the month of January 2014 only because you already
sum up the transactions between January to May
2014?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: I am now asking you, can you present to us a

summary report detailing the alleged anomalous
transactions for the month of January 2014 only?
A: None, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
(TSN page 8, November 27, 2017)

(Engr. Fortunato Bulao)

ATTY. CORTEZ –

Page 3
 Q: Now on no. 13 last paragraph of your affidavit page
10, you claimed that the accused falsified the report
which you have identified as Exhibit “S”?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And this was the basis in filing the case of

falsification of public documents against the accused
and this is the only document that you marked
during the pre-trial, that was marked as Exhibit “A”
in criminal case no. 1487-T?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: There were many signatures here appearing on this

summary of stocks report?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: This is the signature of Corzaon T. Navarro and you

confirm that to be her signature?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: There appears also a signature of Maria Cortez, will

you affirm that to be her signature?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: There was also a signature above the name

Fortunato Bulao, do you affirm also that this is your
signature?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: If that document is falsified as you now claimed,

why limit your charge to the accused Batin?
A: I think Ms. Batin whom we are complaining, sir.

Q: Precisely, my question is very simple, there were

many signatures appearing in the summary report,
did you investigate them including yourself because
you yourself noted it?
A: Why should I investigate myself, sir.

Q: Do not argue with me, did you investigate those

signatories?
A: No, sir.

Q: You just zeroing on the signature of Ms. Batin

without including the other signatories including
you?
A: Can I explain, sir.

COURT –

Page 4
 That is the question why, you can explain that.

A: Actually, sir these signatories, these are routinary

signatures for every report that has been prepared,
these are the authorized signatories.

ATTY. CORTEZ –

Q: So in other words when this verified correct below is

the signature of Maria C. Cortez she was the one
who verified this report?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you include this Maria Cortez in your

investigation since she was the one who verified and
certified that this summary report is correct?
A: No, sir.

Q: Again, this certified correct below is Corazon T.

Navarro, did you also investigate her why she
certified as correct this summary report?
A: The mere fact, yes it is self explanatory I did not
investigate anymore, certified correct, verified
correct, sir.

Q: So if you did not investigate it anymore you

assumed this to be correct?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: So if it is correct why did you file a case against

Batin if this summary report is correct?
A: Take note of the title, sir.

Q: You said it is correct?

xxx xxx xxx

A: The data which is in question is for the duration

September 1-7, 2013 which is not the issue here but
the period January 1-May, so this is out of topic, sir.

ATTY. CORTEZ –

I am satisfied.

Q: If this is out of topic and this has nothing to do with

the anomalous transaction committed, why did you
file a case of falsification of public documents

Page 5
 against Ms. Batin since you said earlier that this is
not covered by your investigation?
A: Because based on the findings of the inventory
committee just May 20-28, there were stocks
appearing therein that she did not report, sir.

Q: Are you trying to say that it was not correctly

verified by either Maria Cortez and Corazon
Navarro?
A: Correctly verified, they are certified correct, sir.

Q: Precisely, it is certified correct, there is nothing

wrong with that because according to you again it is
certified correct?
A: I would recommend that this person will also appear
here so that they will be the one to explain about the
accuracy of this report, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
(TSN pages 16, 17, 18 and 19, November 27, 2017)

(Corazon T. Navarro)
ATTY. CORTEZ –

Q: During inspection as you now claim, it is just a

visual inspection, did you find anything irregular
about the stocks of NFA Tagudin warehouse that
month of December 2013?
A: We did not yet incur any difference because it is
visual, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
(TSN page 7, January 9, 2019)

ATTY. CORTEZ –

Q: In another case filed against the accused, she was

charged for alleged falsification of public documents
regarding the summary stocks report dated
September 1-7, 2013, have you seen that?
A: Report on what, sir?

Q: Summary of stocks report dated September 1-7,

2013, have you seen a copy of that report?
A: I am not aware, sir.

Q: Are you aware of this summary of stocks report as

of September 1-7, 2013 signed by Corazon T.
Navarro and verified correct by Maria C. Cortez,
what is this summary stocks report about?

Page 6
 A: Summary is the complete valuation or complete
number of stocks in that period, sir.

Q: Can you tell us what period this stock report?

A: September 1-7, sir.

Q: Did you find anything unusual or very disturbing

about this report because your signature appears on
that document?
A: Per se I could not determine any difference, sir.

Q: So this is an accurate statement for summary of

stocks report because your signature appears in this
document?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And it has never been falsified?

A: No, sir.

Q: The name Maria C. Cortez also appear in this

document perhaps you are familiar with her?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: All that contains in this document marked as Exhibit

“A” for the prosecution is accurate and has never
been falsified because your signature appear in this
document?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
(TSN pages 13 and 14, January 9, 2019)

RECROSS EXAMINATION
ATTY. CORTEZ –

Q: Just one, your honor.

Based on your answer on redirect it would seem
clear that there is no clear picture on how to describe
whether here were shortages of accountabilities of
one in charge of that NFA warehouse of Tagudin
covering the period for December 2013 and January
2014?
A: No, sir?

xxx xxx xxx

QUESTIONS OF THE
HONORABLE COURT –

Page 7
 Q: So madam witness inasmuch that you conducted
inventory on May 2014 which covers the period
from December 2013 to May it was then and there
that you discovered some irregularities in the
accountability of the accused?
A: Yes, your honor.

Q: But you cannot pinpoint specifically when these

irregularities were committed in relation to
December to May?
A: Yes, your honor.

Q: Why can you not determine?

A: Because as I have told, your honor we only conduct
inventory by annually and at the time of the
inventory that is only the time we discover
discrepancies.

Q: Are you trying to say madam witness that if there is

no inventory, you may not discover any discrepancy
at all by merely conducting ocular inspection?
A: Yes, your honor.
xxx xxx xxx
(TSN pages 17 and 18, January 9, 2019)

II.

III.

IV.

FINAL PLEA

It is better to liberate a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one

whose guilt has not been proven by the required quantum of evidence. When
the People’s evidence fails to prove indubitably the accused’s authorship of
the crime which he stands accused, it is the Court’s duty – and accused’s
right – to proclaim their innocence. (People vs. Baylosis citing the case of
People vs. Fernandez)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to ACQUIT the accused of the crime charged for failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by
law to warrant conviction.

Page 8
 Sta. Cruz, for Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, __________________ 2019.

WILFREDO R. CORTEZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur
IBP No. 067858/1-10-19
PTR No. 0459770/1-9-19
Roll No. 33768
MCLE Compliance VI –
Completed on April 5, 6, 12 &
13, 2019, New Era University

Copy furnished:

David A. Mapala
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor

Page 9