Demurrer To Evidence - Sample 46yh

1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES Silay City -o0oPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant, - versus -

Criminal Case No. 28157-C

GODOFREDO GUINANAO, et. al., Accused. x------------------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE COME NOW, the accused by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver that:

1. The Honorable City Prosecutor has already presented evidence for the Prosecution and has formally rested its case. In accordance with the present rules on criminal procedure, herein accused now respectfully file this present Demurrer to Evidence which is anchored on the following grounds: a.

The statements/testimony of private complainant Ricky Panganiban do not coincide with the statements/testimony of Jovie Gumapa who is the sole eye witness for the prosecution.

b.

No weapon was introduced in evidence to match the alleged injuries of private complainant Ricky Panganiban

c.

No medical evidence was introduced to establish that private complainant Ricky Panganiban sustained injuries

2.

Anent on the first ground, the accusatory affidavit (Exhibit “A”) of private complainant Ricky Panganiban, is highly questionable and in fact inissible as said complainant himself testified in open court that he signed the subject affidavit five (5) days after the incident took place on September 25, 2005 .

2

Records would show that the private complainant was asked at least twice and he specifically stated that he signed the affidavit five (5) days after September 25, 2005 which is directly in conflict with the subscribed date of September 27, 2005 on the subject affidavit. It also bears stress that the complaint affidavit is written in the English language which is again highly questionable as the private complainant could not even understand such language and in fact, his very testimony in court would clearly show that he is only familiar with the Ilonggo dialect.

When compared closely to the ing affidavit (Exhibit “B”) of witness Jovie Gumapa, both affidavits lose their credibility entirely as they clearly appear to be in obvious conflict with each other. More specifically, the two (2) subject affidavits when compared on face value show the following conflicting versions: a.

Complainant Panganiban stated in his affidavit (exhibit “A”) that while he was talking to Eddie Lobaton he was struck from behind while witness Gumapa stated in his affidavit (exhibit “B”) that Mr. Panganiban was already on his way home when he was shouted upon that he would be hit with a beer bottle.

b.

Complainant Panganiban stated in his affidavit that he was struck with a beer bottle first and then he was hit by a steel pipe after while witness Gumapa stated in his affidavit that Mr. Panganiban was hit with a steel pipe first and then he was hit by a beer bottle after.

In his very testimony, prosecution witness Gumapa even itted that he is in fact close to the private complainant (who is his godfather) which puts to question his very credibility as a witness and not to mention that he is only a minor.

Finally, it is also worthy to make mention that private complainant himself itted that he was drunk, he was carrying a bolo, he challenged the general

3

public to a fight and then he was hit from behind while talking to Eddie Lobaton. If this were so, it would be clearly impossible for Mr. Panganiban to identify at 7:00 P.M. on a farm area who was the one who hit him if any, or at the very least say with definite certainty that it was really the accused who hit him as he was in fact already drunk at that time. Herein accused respectfully submit that this even just this circumstance alone, already constitutes reasonable doubt.

3.

Anent on the second ground, the extract police report (Exhibit “C”), does not show any specific ission by the accused that he hit Ricky Panganiban by the use of a steel pipe nor was he duly represented by counsel at the time of surrender. It also bears stress that even though the subject blotter report made mention of a bolo and a steel pipe, no such weapon or any physical evidence whatsoever were even introduced in open court to establish that the same caused injuries to the private complainant. It is therefore respectfully submitted by the herein accused that without any physical evidence shown in open court to explain that the same caused injuries to the private complainant, this is clearly lack of evidence which once again constitutes reasonable doubt.

4.

Anent on the third and final ground, the testimony of Dr. Jose Pepito Libo-on who issued the subject medical certificate (Annex “D”) is clearly inissible as records would show that the said witness did not even positively identify the complainant Ricky Panganiban in open court as the person whom he actually examined on September 25, 2005. Moreover, Dr. Libo-on itted that he could not even recall what time he examined the private complainant (assuming it was really Mr. Panganiban) nor could he even determine what object or weapon if any, brought about the alleged injuries to said complainant.

Finally, the medical certificate itself is inaccurate as Dr. Libo-on himself itted in open court that the private complainant (assuming it was really Mr.

4

Panganiban) did not have any major injuries, was sent home without need of further ission to a hospital and could already go back to work if he chose to. This is in conflict with the medical certification issued stating that the private complainant would need nine (9) days medical attention as Dr. Libo-on likewise itted that he did not anymore recall having examined said witness afterwards and that the nine (9) days actually mean “healing period” only and not the complainant’s capacity to go back to work.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this case be now dismissed due to lack of compelling evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted.

Bacolod City for Silay City, Philippines. October 3, 2006.

PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III Counsel for the Accused 590 Ylac St, Villamonte, Bacolod City PTR No. 8321341 B. C. Jan. 4, 2006 IBP No. 660782 B. C. Dec. 28, 2005 ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 44869

COPY FURNISHED: HON. LORRAINE H. ATOTUBO City Prosecutor, Silay City, Neg. Occ.