REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 27
MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

- versus

PEDRO CRUZ,

Accused.

x-----------------------------

Criminal Case No.: 07-14344 For: Violation of PD1866

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The ACCUSED, by counsel, with leave of court previously obtained, respectfully submits this
Demurrer to the Prosecution's Evidence on the ground that the prosecution has failed to
adduce sufficient evidence of his guilt to overcome the presumption of innocence and shift
the burden of proof.

1. Under the Constitution, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The
effect of this presumption is that it entitles the accused to not say anything in his defense
and places the burden directly on the prosecution to prove everything relative to his guilt.
Thus, the prosecution must rely on strength of its evidence and not wait for the accused to
offer any defense It is only in the event that the prosecution after resting its case has
adduced sufficient evidence of guilt that the burden of proof shifts to the accused.
2. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of guilt such as would shift the
burden of proof.

2.1 The accused is charged with violation of PD 1866; the gravamen of the offense is
unauthorized possession of a firearm. Concretely, this means that the prosecution must
prove that the accused had no legal authority to possess any firearm.

2.2 The prosecution has failed to show that the accused had no license to carry a firearm.
The proof of the negative element is indispensable to proof of a violation of PD 1866.
Without roof of this negative element, the crime is not proven.

3. Absent proof of the negative element, i.e absence of a license, the offense is not proven.
The accused is innocent, he must be acquitted.

Wherefore, the accused respectfully prays that the Information against him be dismissed
and he be ACQUITTED of the crime charges.

City of Manila, Philippines, March 1, 2007.

 2

STELLE VAILOCES-GO
Attorney for Accused
Attorneys Roll No. 54286 May 15, 1998
PTR No. 0040444 / 16 January 2012 / Makati City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 01984
O.R. NO. 511472 Issued on Aug. 24, 2000
Issued at IBP National Office, Pasig City
nd
MCLE 2 Compliance No. II 0012841 / 25 September 2011
MCLE 3rd Compliance No. III 0006255 / 23 June 2012
Both issued at MCLE Office, IBP Building, Pasig City

PROOF OS ERV
RECEIVEDCOPYthis__

dayof________,2007.Name of CounselCousel for Plaintiff / Defendant (adverse party)Roll of Attorneys No. ______IBP OR No.
______,issuedon______at_________.PTRORNo.______,issuedon________at________
NOTICE OF HEARING

Name of counsel
Counsel for __(adverse party)__
Address:

Sir / Maam:

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion (or petition)
for hearing on ______ at 8:30 a.m. for the consideration of the Honorable Court or soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard.
Signature of Counsel

EXPLANATION
1
Copy of the foregoing complaint was served upon defendants counsel by registered mail, personalservice
not being practicable at the present time, due to the messengerial constraints.

Copy furnished by personal service:

Pros. Jose P. Rodriguez

Assistant City Prosecutor Public Prosecutor
City Prosecution Office
Hall of Justice
Makati City

Received by:__________________________

Date Received:________________________

Reg. Receipt No._______________________

Copy furnished by registered mail due to distance:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
 3

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 223, QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus Crim. Case No. Q-05-131745

For: FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT

SPO3 ISIDORO B. BOTE,

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

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The Accused SONNY MANGALINDAN, 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
(Gutib vs. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 365). 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. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides:
Sec. 23 After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or
(2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
x x x

It is well-settled rule that conviction for a criminal offense should be based on clear and positive
evidence and not on mere assumption. (Gaerlan vs. CA 179 SCRA 20). The burden lies upon the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather that upon the accused to
prove that he is in fact innocent. (People vs. Lati, 184 SCRA 336). Failing in this, the presumption of
innocence will prevail. (Sec. 1 (a) Rule 115).
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The only witness for the prosecution was REYNALDO P. CAMILLO. It cannot be
overemphasized that the affidavit of the complainant and the testimony of said witness showed that he
had no personal knowledge of the alleged theft that was committed on 01 January 2006. Moreover what
is more dubious is that the affidavit of said complainant was done on 04 February 2006, more than one
(1) month after the alleged incident took place. Said witness did not see the alleged taking, stealing and
carrying away of the cash money since he was on vacation at Baguio City. Complainant was miles away
when the alleged taking, stealing and carrying away of the cash money was done. It was highly
improbable for him to witness the incident. In complainants 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 taking, 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 taking, stealing and carrying
 4

away of the cash money. Noteworthy is the fact that the grandson and the wife of the accused did not
testify to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. Hence, 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 objected to or not. It was emphasized by the defense in their cross-examination of said witness
that he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged taking, stealing and
carrying away of the cash money. In fact the complainant himself was having a hard time remembering
the exact amount of the cash money that was allegedly taken whether it was P120,000.00 or
P150,0000.00. There is no need to discuss the other elements of theft since the prosecution was not
able to establish the alleged taking, 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 knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness
stand. (2 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, 1989 6th Rev. Ed., p. 486). By virtue of this legal
aphorism, no probative value can attach to the alleged confession of Carlos albeit no objection thereto
was interposed by the defense. (People vs. Villahermosa, (CA) 67 O.G. 4929 citing People vs. Cabral,
et. Al. (unpub.) 58 Phil. 946; Vide, at p. 486). Verily, in criminal cases the admission of hearsay evidence
would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall enjoy the right of being
confronted with the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-examine them. Moreover the court is
without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of the person
who supposedly made them (20 Am. Jur. 400-401; cited at 7-1, Francisco, Revised Rules of Court, 1973
ed., p. 437). People vs. MeloSantos, 245 SCRA 569, July 3, 1995.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court that this
Demurrer to Evidence be granted and that the criminal charge of Theft against the accused SONNY
MANGALINDAN be DISMISSED.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, Philippines, May 28, 2007.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Public Attorneys Office
Rm. B-29 Hall of Justice, Quezon City

By:

ATTY. CAROLINE L. TOBIAS

Public Attorney II

NOTICE OF HEARING
Hon. John Patrick Corpuz
Assistant City Prosecutor

Clerk of Court
RTC 223

Greetings!
 5

Please submit the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence for the approval and consideration of the
Honorable Court on 29 May 2007 at 8:30 a.m.

CAROLINE L. TOBIAS
Copy Furnished:

Hon. John Patrick Corpuz

Assistant City Prosecutor
6