Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 78
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 123456

For : MURDER

JOHN LLOYD CRUZ,

Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x.

MEMORANDUM
The accused, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this
Memorandum.
The Prologue
Is it possible for an individual to be present in two remote places at
the same time? Definitely not. Which, between the two places, that
individual would be should be the better question then.
The latter question cannot be satisfied by the mere conflicting
testimony of a convenience store vendor with neither other witnesses to
corroborate the same nor any evidence to support it. Therefore, it should
be compelling upon us to look into the only facts related to the alleged
crime which, supported by evidence and testimony of witnesses, is
acceptable in the courts of law.
The prosecutions only proof that it was accused that was present
and could have possibly stabbed the victim was the uncorroborated and
conflicting testimony of Nena C. Testigo, a convenience store vendor.
[Who, when asked regarding the state of the victim (dead at that time),
answered, Hindi ko po alam, Siguro po mabuti. (I dont know, FINE
perhaps)]
The defense on the other hand, aside from the testimony of the
accused that he was at the office at the time of the incident, presented the
overtime record of the accused, showing his log in and log out records,
along with the badge records of the security department, depicting the time
when accused badged his ID to get in and out of the office. Further, the
testimony of the operations manager that he saw the accused from 8:30pm

to 11:15pm on November 29, 2014 at his desk adjacent to his office

separated by a window glass was also presented.
The story of the prosecution as laid down by the uncorroborated
testimony of their sole witness can in no way support the fact of his
presence in the scene let alone establish any motive for the accused to do
such a heinous crime. Whereas, the testimony of the accused corroborated
by the testimony of the operations manager and both supported by
evidence on record, is tenable and credible beyond suspicion.
Despite great improbability, however, should we assume for the sake
of argument that he was there at the scene of the crime, it would then beg
the next question.
Will a mere conflict of opinion on basketball suffice to break a bond
of friendship founded since time immemorial between two educated and
civilized individuals? Would that cause MURDER?
Peculiar as it is, it is imperative to arrive at an answer to this question
because of its indispensable importance in this case. Common sense
would have dictated otherwise, however, analysis on the circumstances
surrounding the instant case is of paramount importance to prove what is
obvious. After all, the gravity of the offense implicated upon the innocent
individual might jeopardize his life beyond reproach.
Nena C. Testigo, the only witness presented by the prosecution who
has seen the incident testified under oath that he has clearly heard what
the accused and the victim talked about before the stabbing happened.
She clearly identified the cause of the stabbing which according to her was
a conflict of opinion regarding basketball.
It runs afoul the dictates of human intellect and is very unnatural for
childhood friends whose relationship is founded with years of shared
interests, happiness and secrets to easily break that bond by a mere
conflicting opinion on basketball. Even so, that could not have caused a
good mannered, intellectually capacitated person as the accused to have
lost his composure to the point of committing an irreprehensible act which
is murder.
The testimony of Nena regarding the cause of murder, even the story
itself, is in all aspects unbelievable. But then, if Nenas testimony is given a
scant consideration, which other testimony or evidence would indict the
accused? There is NONE.
Even the wife of the victim who was presented as a witness merely
relied on the statement, a mere statement, of Nena that it was John Lloyd
who killed the victim.
Let us delve further into the facts in the case.
The prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused was present at the scene when the crime transpired.

It is crucial to note that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies in

the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt is the quantum of proof
necessary to pronounce judgment of conviction.
It is not for the defense to prove that it is impossible for the accused
to be present at the scene of the crime when the incident transpired. It is
not for the defense to prove that it is impossible for the accused to leave
the office. It is not for the defense to prove that accused has no motive to
do such crime. It is not for the defense to prove that accused did not kill the
crime.
It is for the prosecution to do so otherwise by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. CLEARLY, they have failed on this most crucial part.
This is not surprising at all, because accused is not guilty of the crime as
charged.
These are further discussed below to know whether the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Without a doubt, the conclusion will show as it must: THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES LIED TO THEIR TEETH.
So that the accused should be adjudged innocent for no proof of his
guilt has been nor can be adduced.
THE FACTS:
In narrating the facts based on the claims of respective witnesses,
comments or remarks are placed in italics and enclosed by brackets.
[The incredible story of the prosecutions lone eye witness Nena C.
Testigo (Nena for brevity) that was vehemently denied by the accused and
unsupported by any evidence whatsoever is that accused killed his
childhood friend by mere conflict of ideas regarding basketball.]
According to Nena, because of a heated argument regarding
basketball, the accused John Lloyd Cruz, (John for brevity), around 9:30
pm allegedly stabbed Cedric D. Diaz, (Cedric for brevity) at the back and
thereafter looked at her sharply threatening her, "Wag kang makialam dito
kung ayaw mong ikaw ang isunod ko!" Because of fear, she couldn't do
anything to help the victim. However, despite such admission of fear, she
testified in full details on how the killing was consummated even stating in
her sworn affidavit, Na habang nakahandusay sa lupa si Cedric D. Diaz at
iniinda ang sakit at nagmakaawa na binanggit ang, John maawa ka.
Huwag mo akong patayin.., kumubabaw si John Lloyd E. Cruz sa katawan
ng biktima at binanggit ang katagang Mamatay ka na!! [Is it normal for
someone who was threatened, not to hide somewhere far from the
perpetrator and even watched the whole stabbing incident thereby
describing it in full details? Didn't she fear for her life and instead save
herself from the man who mercilessly killed the victim. Normal and natural
human reaction would suggest otherwise.]

During the direct examination, when Nena was asked how was
Cedric, the former responded, looking puzzled and uncertain, "Hindi ko po
alam, Siguro po mabuti." [Given the fact that there was an interpreter, Nena
failed to confer an intelligible answer. Notably, was she not aware that
Cedric was the victim and was already dead, that it was her who confirmed
the same? If she can't answer a simple question accurately, must her
subsequent narration be given credence?]
Nena also claimed that no one else was around except the three of
them, Cedric, John and her, at the place of the incidence between 8:309:30pm where the stabbing took place. [Considering the place of Nenas
sari-sari store which was located alongside the road, which is normally a
crowded place, and near the houses of some neighbors in the community,
would this be possible? It would have been acceptable if the location was
in a remote area, like in a province, but as for an urban place, 8:30 to 9:30
in the evening is still too early for people to be out of sight.]
Nena stated in the cross examination that before John mowed down
the neck of Cedric, the latter was already dead, she later stated that when
she cried for help after John left the place, that Cedric was still alive and
breathing. [How could she have ascertained that Cedric was dead or alive?
did she perform some assessments before confirming the status of the
victim?
Furthermore, Nena testified that when she called for help, two
Barangay Tanod namely Brad Pitt and Piolo Pascual heeded to her cry and
then she immediately went to the house of the victim to inform Cameron P.
Diaz (Cameron for brevity), the victims wife, of what happened. However,
in the sworn affidavit of Cameron, she stated therein that, xxx Together
with Nena C. Testigo, I brought my husband to the nearest hospital xxx.
[The natural reaction of a concerned person who has seen a man lying
down who may anytime breathe his last would be to bring the latter to the
NEAREST hospital. Instead, Nena and the two other supposed concerned
witnesses to the incident did what was unnatural. Instead of rushing the
victim to the hospital, they waited for her wife who lives a few houses from
Nenas store where the incident happened. Could they have thought that
the love of her wife could heal the wounds of her husband or summon him
from the dead? Surely not. The witness could not deny the fact that they
knew the severity of the situation since according to her, which she
specifically mentioned in her affidavits and in her testimony during crossexamination that the victim is DEAD. A woman, calm enough to be able to
witness the entire incident, recall it and narrate it in full details could have
maintained her sanity and thought that the best thing to do is to rush the
victim to the hospital. Moreover, they rushed the victim to FEU-Dr. Nicanor
Reyes Medical Foundation in Quezon City which could take at least 30
minute travel time where in fact, they could have brought the patient to
New Era General Hospital, the nearest hospital in the vicinity in which case
the travel time only takes 10 minutes at most. That fact could not have
slipped the mind of the witnesses nor the barangay tanods who knew the
place better than anybody else. Unless they plan on something which they

have failed to relay to this most honorable court inconsistent with how
detailed the manner of their testimony is.]
Prosecution Witness Cameron P. Diaz
Defense Witness John Lloyd Cruz
John Lloyd Cruz executed Counter Affidavit and affirmed the contents
during his testimony.
John insisted that on November 29, 2014, he left his house for work
at around 10 oclock in the morning and rode a tricycle from his home up to
central avenue. He took a bus on or about 10:10 and arrived at the
company premises at approximately 11:15am.
During the cross-examination, the prosecution tried to prove by
soliciting from the accused as a witness through an unbelievably vague
question (no time of the day has been specified) is an answer to the
possibility of going to Nenas store, stabbed the victim down, and go back
to the office to go away with any suspicions within an hour or so,
notwithstanding the fact that witness is not a competent person to answer
such it. No motive whatsoever for such behaviour has even been
established. John maintained that he stayed in the office the whole time of
his shift even until past 11:00pm to finish writing each agent's performance
reviews for skill improvement which he had to submit to the Operations
Manager, Yuri Singzon, before 11:30pm. [Therefore opposing the
conlusions made by the prosecution that he was present at the scene of
the crime between 8:30 - 9:30 pm]
To elucidate further, the prosecution counsel asked the accused if he
was able to travel from his office to the central avenue tricycle terminal
within 35 minutes, then it is possible to travel back and forth within 70
minutes. This question is unfounded and it has proven nothing.
First, the question is too vague. It has not been specified at what time
of the day the prosecution counsel was referring to. In Metro Manila,
especially business districts such as Makati City and Quezon City, the
travel time is not the same at all times of the day despite the witness asking
the counsel to specify the same. The rush hour period is of common
knowledge which is why there could be no other reason why the question
was asked without taking into consideration this important factor other than
to confuse the witness and the court and lure them into believing the lies of
the prosecution.
Second, even for the sake of argument that the question is valid,
proving that the travel time from accused office to the central avenue
terminal and back is 70 minutes, it does not necessarily follow that accused
did so.
Third, Central Avenue tricycle terminal is not the situs of the crime.
The actual crime scene is not a stones throw from the terminal. One
tricycle ride is necessary to reach there and it would take 5 to 10 minutes.

Fourth, accused is not the appropriate person to ask such question.

Albeit he travels in those places during work days, he cannot provide
accurate answers as he is not an expert on the matter.
Fifth, guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary for the conviction of
the accused and an argument of this calibre is insufficient to cause the
same.
The testimonies of John Lloyd E. Cruz were consistent with human
experience, consistent with the testimonies of the second witness of the
defense Yuri Singzon, coherent on the basis of human logic,
straightforward and a plausible explanation supported by documentary
evidence with high probative value acceptable and has been accepted by
the court.
Defense Witness Yuri Singzon
Yuri Singzon executed Sworn Affidavit and affirmed the contents
therein during his testimony.
Nevertheless, they are vivid enough to show that the prosecution
witnesses are testifying on lies.

THE ISSUES
1. Whether or not it is physically impossible for the accused to be present
at the place of the incident when the stabbing transpired.
2. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove, beyond reasonable
doubt, that accused John Lloyd Cruz did commit the crime of murder.
3. Whether or not the prosecution filed the correct information of murder
instead of homicide.
4. Whether or not the wife can claim actual, moral and exemplary
damages?
ARGUMENTS
The information filed by the Prosecution alleges that John Lloyd Cruz
killed Cedric Diaz with a use of a knife, stabbing the deceased from the
back and later mounting the body of the deceased and delivering the fatal
stab wound to the heart. Let us review the pieces of evidence presented
during the course of the trial.
Prosecution alleges that Mr. Cruz invited the deceased Mr. Diaz to
have a few bottles of beer in a store owned by Nena C. Testigo on or about
8:00 in the evening. It was Nena who testified that she personally saw the
defendant quarrel with the deceased, then in a drunken state and fit of
rage, defendant allegedly left the store and came back armed with a knife

and killed Mr. Diaz. Both documentary and testimonial evidence disprove
this allegation.
Under Philippine law, generally, alibi is the weakest defense,
especially where there is direct testimony of an eyewitness, duly
corroborated by another. (People vs. Bello, G.R. No. 124871, May 13,
2004) However, it should be noted that Nena's testimony was not
corroborated by any other witnesses. The prosecution depended solely on
her testimony.
Yet it was held by the Supreme Court in the sensational case of
People vs Webb, G.R. No. 176864, But not all denials and alibis should be
regarded as fabricated. Indeed, if the accused is truly innocent, he can
have no other defense but denial and alibi. So how can such accused
penetrate a mind that has been made cynical by the rule drilled into his
head that a defense of alibi is a hangmans noose in the face of a witness
positively swearing, I saw him do it.? Most judges believe that such
assertion automatically dooms an alibi which is so easy to fabricate. This
quick stereotype thinking, however, is distressing. For how else can the
truth that the accused is really innocent have any chance of prevailing over
such a stone-cast tenet?
Rather, to be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least
two criteria:
First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a
credible witness. She is credible who can be trusted to tell the truth,
usually based on past experiences with her. Her word has, to one who
knows her, its weight in gold.
And second, the witness story of what she personally saw must be
believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies about
something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes bewildering
claims. Nena C. Testigo failed to qualify as a credible witness. Her
consistent inconsistencies brought suspicions on the veracity of her
testimony.
Moreover, jurisprudence provides that for the defense of alibi to
prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place
at the time the crime was committed, but that it was likewise impossible for
him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. (People vs
Agcanas G.R. No. 174476) In the case of John Lloyd, his alibi was proved
by testimonial evidence duly corroborated and supported by documentary
evidence presented.
According to witness Yuri Singzon, Operations Manager of
Convergys Philippines who works on a regular shift of 8pm to 5am from
Wednesday to Friday, testified in court that he saw defendant working in his
cubicle up until 11:30pm. Prosecution tried but failed to prove that
defendant was able to leave the office, commit the crime, and then return to
work. It is physically impossible to travel such distance from the office to
the scene of the crime during heavy traffic in such a short period of time
and without being noticed by witness Singzon.

Mr. Berto Cuervo, another witness for the defense, testified that he
personally had a chat with defendant at the tricycle station in Central
Avenue at around 12 midnight after defendant disembarked from a taxi cab
until they both finished a stick of cigarette.
In filing the information for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, the Prosecution alleged there was evident premeditation in the
commission of the crime. We respectfully disagree. Even Jurisprudence
contradicts such claim. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Illescas,
GR No. 129371, the Supreme Court ruled thus:
We cannot agree with the prosecution's theory that the
15-minute interval is sufficient time for the accused to cooly
reflect on their plan to kill the victim. It has been held in one
case that even the lapse of 30 minutes between the
determination to commit a crime and the execution
thereof is insufficient for full meditation on the
consequences of the act. Based on the foregoing
disquisition, it is clear that the court below erred in convicting
accused-appellant of murder. Absent the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation
accused-appellant could only be held liable for homicide
The interval of time when defendant allegedly left the store and came
back to kill the deceased is not considered both by law and jurisprudence
as sufficient for the crime to qualify as murder. Therefore, assuming our
client was indeed guilty of killing Cedric Diaz, defendant is only guilty of
homicide.
On the claim for damages by the complainant, it is a rule in claims for
Actual and Compensatory Damages that if there is no proof of loss,
damages should not be awarded. Prosecution never submitted any
documentary proof of expense for the wake and burial of the deceased. In
the case of People vs Pirame, 327 SCRA 552, it was held that where the
award for moral and exemplary damages is unsupported where the widow
of the victim did not testify on any mental anguish or emotional distress,
which she suffered as a result of her husbands death. Complainant
Cameron Diaz, during her testimony, never mentioned any mental anguish
on her husbands death. Damages should not be awarded.
In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the
court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open
mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a
reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious
mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on
to ones inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court
that judgment be rendered ordering the ACQUITTAL of defendant for failure
of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the death of
Mr. Cedric Diaz.
FURTHERMORE, if the court finds defendant guilty of the crime, he
should only be held liable for HOMICIDE.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Quezon City, April 6, 2015

ATTY. KRISTAL JANE MENDOZA

Roll NO. 54989
IBP OR # 1389
Quezon City 1/6/15
ATTY. WILHELMINA MIRASOL
Roll NO. 56989
IBP OR # 1589
Quezon City 1/6/15
ATTY. COLLEEN FRETZIE NAVARRO
Roll NO. 58989
IBP OR # 1789
Quezon City 1/6/15
ATTY. PETER SHEEN VICERA
Roll NO. 57989
IBP OR # 1689
Quezon City 1/6/15
ATTY. MARK SIMON VILLAR
Roll NO. 57999
IBP OR # 13789
Quezon City 1/6/15
ATTY. TOM LESTER YBAEZ
Roll NO. 59989
IBP OR # 1889
Quezon City 1/6/15