REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 223, QUEZON CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- !"#$# % C"i&' Ca#! N(' Q)*+),3,-.+
F("/ FALSIFICATION OF
PUBLIC DOCU0ENT
SPO3 ISIDORO B' BOTE,
A11$#!2'
3 ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 3
DE0URRER TO E4IDENCE
The Accused SONNY 0ANGALINDAN, through the undersigned counsel,
most respectfully submits its Demurrer to Evidence and avers:
BASIS FOR THE DE0URRER
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 3!". 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. ection !", #ule $$% of the #evised #ules of &riminal
'rocedure provides:
#Sec. 23 After t$e prosecution rests its case, t$e court ma% dismiss t$e action on
t$e &round of insufficienc% of evidence (1" on its o'n initiative after &ivin& t$e
prosecution t$e opportunit% to be $eard or (2" upon demurrer to evidence filed b% t$e
accused 'it$ or 'it$out leave of court.
( ( ()
It is well-settled rule that conviction for a criminal offense should be based on
clear and positive evidence and not on mere assumption. (Gaerlan vs. CA 179 SCRA
20). The burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt rather that upon the accused to prove that he is in fact innocent.
(People vs. Lati, 184 SCRA 33). (ailing in this, the presumption of innocence will
prevail. (ec. $ (a) #ule $$)).
ARGU0ENTS5DISCUSSION
The only witness for the prosecution was #*+,A-./ '. &A0I--/. It cannot
be overemphasi1ed that the affidavit of the complainant and the testimony of said witness
showed that he had no personal 2nowledge of the alleged theft that was committed on 3$
4anuary !335. 0oreover what is more dubious is that the affidavit of said complainant
was done on 36 (ebruary !335, more than one ($) month after the alleged incident too2
place. aid witness did not see the alleged ta2ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash
money since he was on vacation at 7aguio &ity. &omplainant was miles away when the
alleged ta2ing, stealing and carrying away of the cash money was done. It was highly
improbable for him to witness the incident. In complainant8s affidavit, he based his
accusation only on the information of his grandson which is also the son of the accused
that it was his father who entered the room. There was no mention made that accused was
seen ta2ing, stealing and carrying away the cash money. The same information was
given to him by his daughter who is also the wife of the accused. In other words, there
was no witness at all who had seen the alleged alleged ta2ing, stealing and carrying away
of the cash money. ,oteworthy is the fact that the grandson and the wife of the accused
did not testify to corroborate the testimony of the complainant. 9ence, the basis of the
complainant in charging the accused for theft is not substantiated considering that it is
purely hearsay and have no probative value whether ob:ected to or not. It was
emphasi1ed by the defense in their cross-e;amination of said witness that he had no
personal 2nowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged ta2ing, stealing and
carrying away of the cash money. In fact the complainant himself was having a hard
time remembering the e;act amount of the cash money that was allegedly ta2en whether
it was '$!3,333.33 or '$)3,3333.33. There is no need to discuss the other elements of
theft since the prosecution was not able to establish the alleged ta2ing, 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 2nowledge of the witness but on the 2nowledge of
some other person not on the witness stand. (! #egalado, #emedial -aw &ompendium,
$%<% 5
th
#ev. *d., p. 6<5). 7y virtue of this legal aphorism, no probative value can attach
to the alleged confession of &arlos albeit no ob:ection thereto was interposed by the
defense. ('eople vs. =illahermosa, (&A) 5> /.?. 6%!% citing 'eople vs. &abral, et. Al.
(unpub.) )< 'hil. %65@ =ide, at p. 6<5). =erily, in criminal cases the admission of hearsay
evidence would be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall en:oy
the right of being confronted with the witnesses testifying against him and to cross-
e;amine them. 0oreover the court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay
statements by observing the demeanor of the person who supposedly made them (!3 Am.
4ur. 633-63$@ cited at >-$, (rancisco, #evised #ules of &ourt, $%>" ed., p. 6">). People
vs. !eloSantos, 24" SCRA "9, #$l% 3, 199".
P R A Y E R
A9*#*(/#*, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the 9onorable
&ourt that this .emurrer to *vidence be granted and that the criminal charge of Theft
against the accused SONNY 0ANGALINDAN be .I0I*..
/ther reliefs, :ust and eBuitable, are li2ewise prayed for.
Cue1on &ity, 'hilippines, 0ay !<, !33>.
DEPART0ENT OF JUSTICE
P$6li1 Att("n!78# Offi1!
#m. 7-!% 9all of 4ustice, Cue1on &ity
7y:
ATTY' CAROLINE L' TOBIAS
'ublic Attorney II
,/TI&* /( 9*A#I,?
9on. 4ohn 'atric2 &orpu1
Assistant &ity 'rosecutor
&ler2 of &ourt
#T& !!"
?reetingsD
'lease submit the foregoing .emurrer to *vidence for the approval and
consideration of the 9onorable &ourt on !% 0ay !33> at <:"3 a.m.
&A#/-I,* -. T/7IA
&opy (urnished:
9on. 4ohn 'atric2 &orpu1
Assistant &ity 'rosecutor