1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Silay City
-o0o-

PEOPLE 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 inadmissible

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 supporting 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 admitted 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

admitted 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 admission 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 inadmissible 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 admitted

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 admitted

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 admission 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

admitted 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.