REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA BRANCH ____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versusPEDRO SAMPAGA @ a.k.a. JASPER, Accused. X---------------------X DRAFT FACTS Accused __________________________ is being charged with the crime of Serious Physical Injuires in an Information which reads as follows: That on or about December 17, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one CXXXXXXXXS y AXXXXXA by then and there giving the latter fistic blow on his face and thereby causing the breakage of his gum, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which have required and will require medical attendance for a period of more than thirty (30) days, and incapacitated and will incapacitate said CXXXXXXXXS y AXXXXXA from performing his customary labor during the same period of time. Contrary to Law. Criminal Case NO. ________ For: Serious Physical Injuries

Accused XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXr posted Cash Bail for his provisional liberty which was granted by the Court on December 16, 2008. Upon being arraigned in the presence of and with the assistance of counsel de ofico, said accused entered a plea of Not Guilty when the Information was read to him in a language known and understood by him. Accordingly, both parties were directed to undergo mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center. On February 27, 2009, the Court was in receipt of Report of the Mediator regarding the proceedings of the mediation which states unsuccessful. On March 10, 2009 preliminary conference proceeded. Both parties agreed on the following stipulation of facts, to wit: 1. the identity of the accused and
2.

The jurisdiction of this Court over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the case.

The prosecution marked in evidence the following documentary exhibits, to wit: Exhibit A- Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo;

Exhibit B- Medico-Legal Slip of Carmelo Mascarinas dated December 18, 2006 issued by Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila ; Exhibit C- Affidavit of witness prosecution David Santarin (provisional); and Exhibit D- Affidavit of witness Fe Mascarinas. The parties further agreed that the issues in this case are whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime as charged in the Information and whether or not the accused is civilly liable as a consequence of the commission of the offense charged. In the meantime, the defense did not make any proposal for stipulation nor mark any documentary exhibits. The prosecution reserved to mark and present additional evidence. The defense reserved to mark and present evidence in the course of the trial. Thus, preliminary conference was terminated. The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses namely: Carmelo Mascarinas, the private complainant, and David Santarin. The prosecution presented the private complainant Carmelo Mascarinas as its first witness. The private complaiannt identified the accused who was present in court. He also identified, affirmed and confirmed the contents of the Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit A with sub-marking) he executed in connection with the case that constituted as his

direct testimony. As prayed for, the

Public

Prosecutor

was

allowed to propound additional questions. Mascarinas, thus, testified that he sustained injuries at the left side of his upper lip as evidenced by the Medico- Legal Slip dated December 18, 2006 issued by the Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center (Exhibit B) for the prosecution. The private complainant further testified that he was about to go to the house of his cousin, Francis Parayno, in order for him to have a drinking spree. The house of Parayno is located at 3554 Buenos Aires Street, Sampaloc, Manila, just in front of the private complainants house. The houses in that place are located in an alley connected with each other. When Macarinas saw the accused (his former enemy) he did not proceed anymore to the house of Parayno. (Complaint Affidavit) Mascarinas got outside of the house in order to avoid Jefferson. He rather proceeded to Barangay 579 Zone 56, he was playing with his two (2) years old child. He was beside the post (in front of the said Barangay) and his child was, likewise, in front of him. (TSN, April 28, 2009) The private complainant averred that Jefferson Santos punched him and the blow landed on the left side of his upper lip. (Complaint Affidavit, par. 4) (TSN, April 28, 2009) as a consequence thereof he fell down on the street and his blood oozed from his lips. His gum was broken and the set of his teeth was also broken. The private complainant was a tricycle

driver,

he

earns

in

an estimated amount of FOUR

HUNDRED PESOS (P400.00) a day. He peddles six days a week from Monday to Saturday. As a result of the said injuries, he was not able to continue peddling as a tricycle driver for twenty-six (26) days excluding four (4) Sundays. (TSN April 28, 2009) He remembered that the incident took place during Sunday because it happened after he went to the Church. (TSN April 28, 2009) He showed his drivers license which was marked as (Exhibit E) for the prosecution, (compared with the original). The private complainant showed no proof of his ownership of the tricycle as he already sold it. (TSN April 28, 2009). On cross-examination, the private complainant declared that on December 17, 2006 at around 8:30 in the evening he just arrived home. After twenty (20) minutes, he was in front of their house smoking cigarettes. After smoking cigarettes his cousin passed-by and the latter invited him to go to their house, then he followed. When he peeped, he saw the accused inside the house of his cousin. The house of the private complainant and the house of the accused are within the same address. Their houses are adjoining with each other. (TSN, May 26, 2009). When the private complainant peeped, Jefferson Santos saw him, but the private complainant was able to get out and proceeded to the house of his cousin. The private complainant thereafter went in front of the Barangay Hall. He was sitting in front the post while he was playing with his child. Jefferson suddenly came and asked him why he was there?, when the

private complainant was about to

stand

up

the

accused

punched him, as a consequence he fell down. (TSN, April 28, 2009) The private complainant further declared that he and the accused had an argument prior to this case but he doesnt entertain any grudge against the accused. The prosecution presented David Santarin as its second witness. He testified that he is a Market Vendor. On December 17, 2006 he was in front of the Barangay Hall on the other side of the street located at Buenos Aires Street Sta. Mesa, Manila. He was waiting for his customer to come, while he was waiting for his customer at around 8:30 p.m. he saw Carmelo Mascarinas and Jefferson Santos @ Aipper fighting with each other. He noticed that Aipper was drunk at that time. (TSN, June 23, 2009). Santarin, further declared, that while Mascarinas was outside. He noticed some individuals were having drinking spree inside the house of Mascarinas cousin. (ibid) While Mascarinas was playing with his child outside the house a confrontation between him and the accused was made. Jefferson Santos asked Carmelo why he was still going there. David Santarin was three (3) meters away from the two. He heard clearly the statements of the accused against the private complainant. When Santos asked Mascarinas why the latter was still going there? Carmelo replied, Hindi naman sayo to, bakit ba? (Why, this is not yours.) Mascarinas was referring to the place where the accused and some other individuals were having a drinking bout. Immediately, thereafter, Santos punched Mascarinas on his right lip portion

he saw personally that the gums a meat from him. medication.

of

Mascarinas

was

broken because he showed it to him when Mascarinas bought Carmelo was even wore braces after

When Mascarinas went down, the siblings of the accused arrived, and a confrontation among them was made. David Santarin was just watching the incident he did nothing because both of them are their neighbors. When Santarin went to the place, he noticed the hand of Jefferson Santos being wrapped by a cloth, Sa tingin ko may karga kasi lalaki din po ako! Maipaliwanag ko lang, kasi sumuntok, nakabalot, dapat sana at least, ano lang pero hindi eh! (As a man, in my opinion he Jefferson was carrying something, I can explain it because when he struck his hand was covered, if it should be a sort of what, but, no, its not!) (TSN, June 23, 2009). The private complainant attempted to fight back, he tried to punch back the accused but his punch did not reach the accused. David Santarin, likewise, identified, affirmed and confirmed the contents of the Affidavit (Exhibit C with sub-marking) he executed in connection with the case. On cross-examination, David Santarin declared that at around 8:30 in the evening of December 17, 2007 he was in front of the Barangay Hall. Across the street, he saw Carmelo Mascarinas and Jefferson Santos were having a fight. There were many people then. Kagawad Ana Bautista was there, she was the one who shouted awatin nyo. (Stop them) There

were many people. Santarin doesnt know their names, only their faces. Santarin remembered that Mascarinas and Santos were being pacified by Barangay Tanod Michael Delgado. Santarin knew their faces only as he stated that even he grew up in that place he could not memorize the names because most of them were living at the back of the houses. After they were pacified by Barangay Tanod Michael Delgado, Mascarinas was then punched by Jefferson then Jefferson ran away. He was being chased by the people there but failed to do so. Mascarinas did not bother to counter the attack of Jefferson since he was immediately fell down when Jefferson gave his punched. The are was well lighted then, because there were streetlights around the Barangay. (TSN, August 19, 2009). On June 16, 2010, the prosecution formally offered their documentary exhibits. Exhibits A to E, except D with submarkings were admitted by the Court. Noting the comments/oppositions thereto interposed by the defense. The defense presented accused Jefferson Santos as its first witness. Accused denied the crime charged against him. He testified that at around 8:30 in the evening he was inside the house of his best friend Francis Parayno, he came from his work since that was his first salary he offered for drinks and they celebrated. During the celebration, Carmelo Mascarinas was not present. When Jefferson Santos was asked by his counsel why he was not present during the drinking spree he

answered

that

Carmelo Mascarinas punched him, but That the father of

that was prior to December 17, 2006.

Mascarinas, he added, ran after him and a day after, Mascarinas punched him. He did nothing, he just went outside. At that time both of them were on the second floor and Jefferson went outside the house and when he needed to comfort himself Carmelo followed him. He further declared that he did not notice that was following him. Mascarinas was just staring at him and he asked Mascarinas why he was staring. He further asked why he went there and Mascarinas replied anong pakialam mo? Bahay mo bay yun? Santos told Mascarinas that it was his fault, because he was still following Jefferson. But Carmelo did not answer he was just staring at Jefferson madly. Accused admitted that he was drunk at that time they had consumed one (1) case of small Colt 45 of beer But the accused said that Carmelo Mascarinas was also drunk. During the confrontation they were shouting each other nagkahamunan na kami ikaw anong gusto mo? That, Mascarinas was the one who challenged him for a fight but he did not reply for that challenge because he was avoiding Mascarinas and yet Mascarinas was always following him. Thereafter, Mascarinas asked Santos what do you want and after hearing those words Mascarinas was about to punch Santos. He turned his back to Mascarinas, while the latter was still talking, and, while facing, Mascarinas was about to punch Santos and Santos evaded. Accused admitted that when he threw his first blow against Mascarinas it was just a retaliation of the punch that Mascarinas thrown to him. His cousin Elmer

10

Pineda,

went

outside

and pacified both of them. After

giving one punch Carmelos cousin who was an SK Chairman whispered Jefferson that he was going to be mauled and advised Jefferson to run, but he, did not run yet. When clarified by the defense counsel that Mr.

Mascarinas followed you, but then, it is stated in the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo of Macarinas na habang binabantayan ko ang aking anak sa kanyang paglalaro sa tabi ng nasabing kalsada at habang ako ay naka-upo sa tabi ng post ng meralco (squatting position) ng biglang dumating at lapitan nitong lasing na si AIPPER he was sitting on the post, Jefferson answered that umakyat po sya sa bahay. (TSN, August 25, 2010). That the truth was that Carmelo followed him when he went downstairs. That Carmelo went also to the house where Jefferson and company were having a drinking bout. Jefferson admitted that he was at the house of his friend and he went down where he was staying because he stays there at the same time he is the Administrator of that house. (ibid) When cross-examined, accused stated that Francis Parayno is the owner of the house and a cousin of the private complainant. They did not have a drinking spree with Parayno but with SK Chairman Renden Esguerra. Parayno was not with them at that time because he was in Cavite. Carmelo did not join them while they had a drinking session. An hour before the incident the private complainant went inside, he saw him.

11

Before the incident, he saw Carmelo seated at around passed 8:00. He first saw Carmelo only at about 8:00 p.m. (ibid). The accused admitted that prior thereto he had no personal knowledge of where the private complainant was nor he had knowledge whether the private complainant indeed drunk at the time he met him. But when he bought Colt 45 Carmelo was already drinking alone in front of his house at around 8:00 p.m. When asked by the Public Prosecutor So before 8:00 p.m. you saw the private complainant? Jefferson answered, Yes, maam because he came from work. (ibid) That, he went outside, and the private complainant followed him and was merely staring at him. Jefferson admitted that he was the one who first asked Carmelo what the latter was doing there because Carmelo had an atraso against Jefferson. Accused was referring to the incident prior to December 17, 2006 that the punched of the private complainant landed on his eye but he was not able to press charges against the private complainant. That he agreed that the act of the private complainant in punching him was unreasonable and he further agreed that it was normal for him to harbor ill feelings against the private complainant. When the accused was asked by the Public Prosecutor: Fiscal : I am correct to say that you do not want to see

the face of the private complainant in that place? Answer : No, maam.

12

Fiscal

: But you were asking the private complainant

why he was there? Answer Fiscal : Yes, maam. : You will agree with me that despite that you

and the private complainant have a grudge with each other the private complainant has the right to be anywhere he wants? Answer Fiscal : Yes, maam. : Specifically, he has the right to go near your

premises, am I correct to say that? A Fiscal : Yes, maam. X x x : What prompted you to confront the private

complainant is the hatred that you were then feeling against the private complainant because of the punching incident that occurred between you and the private complainant? Answer Fiscal : Yes, maam. : You admitted having punched the private

complainant a while ago? Answer : Yes, maam.

13

Fiscal

: Only that you claim that you hit the private

complainant after you avoided his punch against you? Answer Fiscal : Yes, maam. : The private complainant did not follow it up,

am I correct to say that, because as you said, you were able to punch him back? Answer Fiscal : No maam, he was hugging me. : You were able to punch the private

complainant at the time that he was hugging you? Answer he hugged me. Fiscal : So you will agree with me when the private : No maam, after I punched, that is the time that

complainant first punched you, he did not follow it up with another punch? Answer : After I punched him, he hugged me. X x x

(TSN, August 25, 2010). The accused further stated that it was the private complainant who first punched him. Luckily, he was able to avoid the punch of the private complainant because he was

14

able to punch him back. The private and simultaneously punching him.

complainant

choked

The Public Prosecutor further asked the accused: Fiscal : So you are telling us now that the private complainant was able to hit you? Answer Fiscal Answer Fiscal : Yes, maam. : But a while ago, you did not state that? : After I punched him, he hugged me. : What I am asking you, after the private

complainant first punched you, you did not follow it up with another punch? X x x Answer Fiscal : Not anymore, maam. Xxx : My question is you will agree with me that the

private complainant did not punch you anymore despite the fact that he can still punch you? Court Answer : The witness may answer. : Yes, maam.

15

Fiscal

: And that is because after that, you were

able to punch him back? Answer Fiscal : Yes, maam. : You will agree with me, Mr. witness, that

considering the fact that you already able to avoid the punch of the private complainant, there is no more need for you to punch him? Answer : No maam, when I avoided his punch,

napasuntok na rin po ako.xxx (ibid). On re-direct, the accused explained that prior to the said incident, despite the fact that the private complainant punched him and the father of the private complainant ran after him he did not file a case against the private complainants father because said father had killed someone during that time and the mother of Jefferson told him not to file case anymore because his siblings might be implicated. During the incident that the private complainant punched the accused and the latter evaded the punch of the former and until such time that they were exchanging blows the span of time was only for a seconds. That the incident that accused filed together with his father happened after the incident subject matter of this case. That they filed Frustrated Murder against the father of the complainant on December 17, 2006, on the following day, but it happened on the same date. Jefferson explained that it was

16

only

five

(5) to

ten

(10) minutes was the interval of

time that the Frustrated Murder happened after the incident that took place between him and Carmelo. The accused and the private complainants are neighbors, they see each other often times. (ibid) The defense presented Sophia Ruyeras as its second witness. On initial direct examination, she testified that on December 17, 2006 she was in her house. She was surprised because there were people who were having a quarrel outside her house. (ibid) The prosecution and the defense stipulated the distance of five meters (from the witness stand up to the door of the courtroom) from the actual location of the incident took place to the actual position/place of the witness.) Shopia Ruyeras saw two (2) persons were boxing each other. It was near the Barangay Hall. She can not recall if there were any other persons who were watching at that time. On the following day, she got surprised when she was informed that the private complainant had himself medically treated and the latters teeth were removed since she had witnessed the figh. To her, it was just a simple boxing. Ruyeras could not recall where the fist blow coming from Carmelo landed because Carmelos back was turned against her. She could not recall also where the first blow coming from Jefferson landed since she was not able to see it clearly. She recalled the fight was

17

only a short while, around five (5)

minutes,

(approximate).

She did not know the reason why the two were fighting. She noticed that Carmelo went home after the fight but returned back together with his brother Derek, but Jefferson avoided Carmelo (ibid). After the fight Carmelo went back brought with him a jungle bolo and Derek, his brother, looked for Jefferson. They were not able to look for the accused then. Thereafter, Carmelo left and Derek, his brother, remained in the place of the incident. Nestle, the brother of Jefferson arrived. Derek gestured to hit Nestle with a bat but failed to do so because Derek evaded. Carmelo was still looking for Jefferson til evening but he did not see Jefferson. Ruyeras could not recall how long the interval of time from the end of the fistfight until the time he saw Carmelo again. She could not even recall the appearance of Carmelo when asked by the defense counsel if she had to see him again. The court made a follow-up question to the witness, whether Carmelo was blooded when he returned the witness answered, No maam. Thats the reason why the witness got surprised when people informed her that the teeth of the private complainant were removed. When the defense counsel made follow up questions to the witness: PAO Answer PAO : Can you recall what date was the following day : December 16. : The following day?

18

Answer PAO

: It happened December 16: You mentioned that it was December 16, 2006

when the fistfight, why do you say so? Answer PAO : Because that is the birthday of my daughter. : Do you know something happened between

Jefferson and Carmelo on December 17, 2006 at 8:45 in the evening in the following night? Answer PAO Answer : That is the date of their fight. : 17or 16? : That was 16, they filed it on 17. Then the

defense counsel moved for continuance. On November 17, 2010 the continuation of direct examination of witness Sophia Ruyeras was set. She testified now that the fist fight between Jefferson and Carmelo happened on December 17, 2008. It happened at 3548 Buenos Aires near the Barangay Hall. She was in her house at that time she was looking on to her screen it was just near the place where the incident happened. (TSN, November 17, 2010) She heard the private complainant and the accused exchanging words and saw them exchanging blows but the fight was just a

19

short while. That Marcelo was the first one who first threw a blow to Jefferson. There were no other persons involved of the fight. But, the SK Chairman and Elmer, their neighbors were the ones who pacified them. The witness testified that there were no other person aside from the SK Chairman as well as Elmer who were present and pacified Mascarinas and Santos. That she did not see one David Santarin, prosecution witness. Ruyeras said that the incident happened at 8:00 in the morning. The witness did not know when the private complainant went back after going home and was pacified. Both the accused and the private complainant had bruises then when pacified by the Barangay Kagawad. Since the witness is staying in that place way back 1977 she frequently see Carmelo. children. On November 17, 2010 Ruyeras was recalled to the witness stand, the private complainant was not present. However, she described the person of the private complainant such as; quite short, a little bit dark and a curly hair, seemed like a toothless. She further testified that she knew the complainant to be such that distinguishing feature (toothless) for a long time because he passes everyday and prior to the said incident Carmelo was toothless already. (ibid) Actually the latter fetches water from her so she knows Carmelo well. As to Jefferson, he is a friend of her

20

When

the

Public Prosecutor

conducted

her

partial cross-examination to witness Shophia Ruyeras, said witness testified that per her recollection, the fist fight incident between the private complainant and the accused happened on December 17, 2008. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor tried to refresh the memory of Ruyeras wherein she was informed that the Information filed in this court and per testimony of the private complainant and the accused that the incident subject matter of the case actually happened on December 17, 2006. The witness apologized the Public Prosecutor, she suddenly changed her answer, from December 17, 2008 to December 17, 2006. The witness failed to recall the exact date when the incident happened because it happened several years back and the witness admitted that she failed to recall because of her memory lapse. But, Ruyeras did not agree to the Public Prosecutor that there were certain matters that she could not recall regarding the incident, except for the date and year. (ibid) On January 5, 2011, the case was set for continuation of the cross-examination of witness Sophia Ruyeras. Said witness testified that she remembered having testified that when the incident subject matter of this case was taking place she was looking through her house screen door. She was inside her house then, the other half of her door was made of screen and the other half was made of cement. Before the fight ensued, she was already present at that specific place in her house. She knew where Jefferson came from because the latter had a drinking bout inside the house. Carmelo went to the house

21

where the drinking session took

place.

Ruyeras

remembered she having testified that Carmelo was alone. She did not see the child of Carmelo, she was closely watching the fight between the two and they were exchanging blows. She also remembered having testified that she could not recall where the fistic blows landed on each of them because Carmelo was turned against her. The witness confirmed the distance of five (5) meters where she was standing inside her house and the place where the fistic blows happened as well as her observation that it was just a simple exchanged of punches. The basis of which was the back of Carmelo that turns against her. At the distance of five (5) meters the witness said that she was not able to hear their utterances because they were noisy. When re-confirmed by the Public Prosecutor whether there were any other persons involved or present during the incident the answer of the witness was in negative. Ruyeras testified further that she was inside her house watching the incident she did not know whether there were other people watching. The witness suddenly changed her answer when asked by the Public Prosecutor, to wit: Fiscal However, in your testimony given on October

13, 2010 when you were asked by Atty. Cirilo: Were there any other people watching the said fight? you answered None maam, are you changing now your previous testimony? Answer Of course.

22

Fiscal answer? A Fiscal

So

you

are changing

your

previous

Yes, maam. So, now you will agree with me that there could

be persons other than you who may have witnessed the incident but you failed to notice? Answer Yes, maam. Xxx (ibid)

The Public Prosecutor asked the witness to draw a sketch of the area where the boxing incident allegedly took place. The witness was familiar with the gym the former gym located near the area, the basketball court area. She was asked by the Public Prosecutor to draw the basketball area with reference from the Barangay Hall or the Street, Buenos Aires Street, wherein said witness drew a box with marking x in front of the Barangay which is near her house. The Public Prosecutor moved for continuance which was granted by the court. On February 9, 2011 the case was called for continuation of the cross-examination of the same witness Sophia Ruyeras. She just let someone drew the lines and then she herself labeled it. Witness drew an x marking, where the private complainant and the accused boxed each other. She pointed her house and drew an x marking, she labeled it with (basketball court). The second box on which the witness placed

23

an x marking, is the house of the witness. The third portion which the witness made a marking x, is the basketball court or the old gym. The witness clarified that nothing could obstruct her vision towards the basketball court or the former gym because it was an open area/ exercising area before. Although, there were gym equipments therein for exercising purposes but it was covered by a tent covering the floor. However, before the Public Prosecutor expounding additional questions, the defense counsel admitted that their witness Sophia Ruyeras may not have seen any other person. On February 16, 2011, for failure of the defense witness to appear despite notice the defense counsel was constrained to rest her case. She was given ten days of even date to formally offer their documentary exhibits. On March 9, 2011, for failure of the defense counsel to formally offer their documentary exhibits, as prayed for, the defense was given another ten days to file thereof. The prosecution was given the same period to file comment and/or opposition thereto. On March 30, 2011, counsel for the accused manifested that they had no documentary evidence to offer, only the testimonies of their witnesses presented and thereafter rested its case. As prayed for by the Public Prosecutor, a subpoenae were issued to the intended prosecution witnesses Dr. Bagnes

24

and Dr. Jerome R. Ho, ENT, HNS at Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila for the presentation of rebuttal evidence. On April 6, 2011, when the hearing was called for the presentation of rebuttal evidence, the prosecution had no available witness to present considering that the return of the subpoena sent to the Medical Doctors of Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center state that they were no longer connected with the said hospital. As prayed for by the Public Prosecutor, a subpoena was issued to another prosecution witness, the Medical Records Officer of Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. On April 27, 2011, when the case was called for rebuttal evidence, representative of both parties appeared. Considering that the Medical Records Officer of Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila was not duly notified, the case was reset. On May 11, 2011, when called for hearing, the prosecution had no available witness. The witness for the prosecution was supposedly the duly authorized representative of Jose R. Ryes Memorial Medical Center. However, the Public Prosecutor proposed for stipulation the existence of the following documents to which the defense admitted, to wit: 1. Medico Legal Slip dated December 18, 2006 (Exhibit B); and

25

2. Consultation

Report dated

Febraury

7,

2007,

marked as Exhibit F. In view of the above admission, the testimony of the representative of the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center was dispensed with. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor orally offered Exhibits B and D as rebuttal evidence. The counsel for the accused interposed her comments/objection thereto. Exhibits B and D were admitted for the purposes for which they were being offered and as part of the testimony of the witnesses who identified them, noting the comments/objections thereto which will be considered in the appreciation and weighing of evidence on record. There being no sur-rebuttal evidence as manifested by the counsel for the accused, the case was submitted for decision.