You are on page 1of 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 8 – BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 12741


Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

JAYPEE ADAME y Garcia et.al. Violation of Art. II


Accused. Section 12 of RA 9165
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 12741


Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

JAYPEE ADAME y Garcia, Violation of Art. II


JOEL GUTIERREZ y Umali, et.al Section 15 of RA
Accused. 9165
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 12741


Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

JOEL GUTIERREZ y Umali Violation of Art. II


Accused. Section 12 of RA 9165
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

JOINT MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE


DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

BOTH ACCUSED, JAYPEE ADAME y Garcia and JOEL


GUTIERREZ y Umali for the above-captioned criminal
cases through the undersigned counsels unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully manifest and
state:

That on ______________________, the Public


Attorney’s Office received a copy of the Order
issued by this Honorable Court admitting Exhibits
“A” to “G” with their submarkings both for Criminal
Cases Nos. 12741 to 12743 which were formally
offered by the Prosecution, and hence, the latter
is now considered to have rested its case;
That after a careful and thorough evaluation of
the evidence presented by the Prosecution, the
undersigned counsels honestly believe that the
evidence are not sufficient to establish the guilt
of both accused beyond reasonable doubt;

That both accused are charged for Violation of


Article II, Section 12 of RA 9165 wherein the
prosecution alleged that both accused were caught
in possession and in custody of drug paraphernalias
however, the prosecution witnesses failed to
identify from whom those paraphernalias were
recovered or taken;

That the prosecution’s evidence is wanting as


to the relationship of the alleged paraphernalias
to both accused Jaypee Adame and Joel Gutierrez as
Police Officer Servillano Maralit testified that
they haven’t recovered anything from both accused;

That assuming without admitting that Police


Officer Santiago Matibag allegedly saw the
activities of the accused, these could not be given
credence as the confiscated items are considered to
be proverbial fruits of the poisonous trees;

That as held by the Supreme Court in the case


of People vs. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459, towit:

“Objects could not be considered to have been


seized in plain view where there was no valid
intrusion and the evidence was not inadvertently
discovered. The police officers intentionally
peeped first through the window before they saw and
ascertained the activities of accused appellants
inside the room.”

That worthy to consider also is the testimony


of PO2 Santiago Matibag during cross examination
wherein he admitted that he did not see all of the
accused actually having the so-called pot session,
in fine, there was no case to say so;

That as regards the accusation for Violation of


Article II, Section 15 of RA 9165, it must be taken
into consideration the admission of Police Officer
Jupri Delantar, the forensic chemist who allegedly
examined the urine sample of the accused. Delantar

2
readily admitted that he has no personal knowledge
as to the origin of those urine samples. According
to him, his basis for saying that those urine
samples were of the accused because of the labels
therein but also admitted that he was not the one
who took those urine samples and he was also not
the one who made those labels but one Police
Officer Oliquinio who was never presented by the
prosecution during trial. Thus, doubts as to the
origins of urine sample arise and it is correct to
conclude that the prosecution failed to establish
the identity of the corpus delicti.”

That it is also worthy to consider the fact


that the arresting officers of both accused failed
to comply with the mandatory requisites setforth by
law and their failure to justify their non-
compliance of the aforementioned law is fatal to
the prosecution's case.

That the failure of the prosecution to prove


the guilt of both accused beyond reasonable doubt
absolves the latter for the crime charged.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most


respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
the undersigned counsels be granted leave of court
to file demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days
from receipt of the Order granting this Motion, or
within a reasonable time the Honorable Court may
deem just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Batangas City, August 7, 2009.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATANGAS DISTRICT OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING
PALLOCAN, BATANGAS CITY
Counsel for Accused
JAYPEE ADAME

By:

3
NELVIN M. ASI
Public Attorney 2
Roll No. 50530
MCLE Compliance No. II-0010852

CIPRIANO U. ASILO
Counsel for Accused Joel Gutierrez
MCLE Compliance No. II-002180
Roll No. 37927
IBP OR No. 03591-Lifetime
PTR 1221302 – Batangas City
January 5, 2009
nd
2 Floor, Rm. 201 CMIC Bldg.
P. Burgoz St., Batangas City

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Provincial Prosecutor


Batangas City

The Branch Clerk of Court


Regional Trial Court
Branch 8, Batangas City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that this Motion will be


submitted for hearing on ____________________ at
8:30 o’clock in the morning.

NELVIN M. ASI CIPRIANO U. ASILO

Copy furnished:

The Provincial Prosecutor


Batangas City

You might also like