REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

12th Judicial Region
Kidapawan City, North Cotabato

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASE NO.17,217-18

Plaintiff

-versus-

FLORENDO DICHOSO, ET AL. FOR: SLIGHT

PHYSICAL
Accused. INJURIES
X------------------------------------------/

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASE NO.17,217-18

Plaintiff

-versus-

JAZER FERENAL, FOR: SLIGHT

PHYSICAL
Accused. INJURIES
X------------------------------------------/
COMMENT TO THE FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS

Comes now, the private complainant, thru counsel, and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this
Comment and aver that:

MATERIAL DATES

The undersigned counsel received a copy of the Formal

Offer of Exhibits of the Private Offended Party/ Accused
only on March 27, 2019.

The undersigned has within 10 days from March 27,

2019 to file his Comment thereto, or until April 8, 2019,
Monday.

Thus, this comment is filed on time.

ARGUMENTS
 Page 2 of 6 pages
Comment to the
Formal Offer
1. Exhibit “1” and “A”- Extract of Record dated
December 18, 2017, is objected to on the ground that it
is hearsay.

The conducting officer had no personal knowledge as to

the truthfulness of the allegations therein.

2. Exhibit “2” and “B”- Medical Certificate dated

December 16, 2017 is objected to on the following
grounds:

A. There was no proper authentication.

a) Although the Supreme Court held in the decided

case of Heirs of Ochoa vs. G & S Transport
Corporation, G. R. No. 170071 that, “The requirement
of authentication of documentary evidence applies
only to a private document.”, the same case
provides an exception, to quote:

“Two reasons may be advanced in support of this rule,

namely: said documents have been executed in the proper
registry and are presumed to be valid and genuine until the
contrary is shown by clear and convincing proof;”

In this case, the Accused/Private Offended Party JAZER

FERENAL admitted in open Court that he does not
understand the contents of the said Medical Certificate.

In light of his admission, he can only testify as to the

existence of the said document but not the contents
thereof.

Further, the contents of the Medical Certificate speaks

for itself. That is, the glaringly incomprehensible
penmanship is already obvious at one glance.

Since it is the contents of a written instrument that is

an issue, particularly the Medical Certificate in this case,
and the contents therein are to be identified, then for
purposes of Authentication, the attending physician should
have been made to testify in this case, as an exception to
the Rule on Self-Authentication of public documents.
 Page 3 of 6 pages
Comment to the
Formal Offer
b) The Contents of the Medical Certificate is
incomprehensible, and not readily understandable or
readable, particularly the days of healing.

Such defect is fatal for the prosecution of all cases of

Physical Injuries, as the healing period is an element of
the crime AND the basis for the imposition of penalties.

Without such period, this case is fatally infirm,

warranting the dismissal of the action.

3. Exhibit “3” and “C”- Discharge Summary issued by

Kidapawan Doctor’s Hospital Incorporated. It is
objected on the following grounds:

A. Kidapawan Doctor’s Hospital Incorporated is a

private hospital. Thus, any and all documents issued by
this Institution is a Private Document.

In the Decided case of Heirs of Patula vs. People, G.R. No.

164457, the Supreme Court held:

“Lacking the official or sovereign character of a public

document, or the solemnities prescribed by law, a private
document requires authentication in the manner allowed by
law or the Rules of Court before its acceptance as evidence
in court.

xxx

There is no question that Exhibits B to YY and their

derivatives were private documents because private
individuals executed or generated them for private or
business purposes or uses. Considering that none of the
exhibits came under any of the four exceptions, they could
not be presented and admitted as evidence against
petitioner without the Prosecution dutifully seeing to
their authentication in the manner provided in Section20 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,viz:

Section 20. Proof of private documents. Before any

private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be
proved either:
 Page 4 of 6 pages
Comment to the
Formal Offer

(a) By anyone who saw the document executed or

written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the

signature or handwriting of the maker.”

As can be seen in the Judicial Affidavit of the JAZER

FERENAL, there is no mention that he personally saw the
person who executed the said instrument. As a matter of
fact, there is even no mention of who executed the said
discharge summary.

The fact that his name appears therein, does not

automatically allow him to testify on such document, as he
did not specifically mention whether he was there when
the said document was made. Further, he is not a
signatory to the said document.

Thus, in so far as the above quoted Jurisprudence and

Rules are concerned, this particular document was not
properly authenticated.

4. EXHIBIT “4” AND “F”- Certificate to File Action

dated February 2, 2018.

We offer no objections to this document.

5. EXHIBITS “E”- Official Receipt No. 1615671 and

Official Receipt No. 1615671.

The said document is objected to for the same grounds

as that of Exhibit “3” and “C”. That is, the said document
was not properly authenticated.

He is not a signatory to such document. Thus, he

cannot testify on the contents thereof, and therefore,
inadmissible in evidence.

PRAYER
 Page 5 of 6 pages
Comment to the
Formal Offer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein Private
offended party/accused, thru counsel, prays that this Comment be
duly noted; the pieces of evidence objected to be expunged for the
above states grounds; and that Criminal Case No. 17,217-18 be
dismissed for failure of the Prosecution to present a competent
witness to testify on the contents of the Medical Certificate.

Any other relief which are just and equitable within the
premises are also prayed for.

Digos City, Davao del Sur, Philippines, this

__________________.

ATTY. JOEFFREY C. SUSTIGUER

Associate Counsel for the Accused/Private Prosecutor
Roll No. 70804/06-05-2018/IBP OR No. 043088/05-28-18
MCLE Exempted As Per MCLE
Governing Board Order No. 1, s. 2008
Notarial Commission No. 15-2018
For and in the Province of Davao del Sur
Commission until December 31, 2018
PTR 7383528 on June 22, 2018/ TIN No. 409-430-220-
000
Mobile No. 09108873220/ sustiguerjoeffrey@yahoo.com
Cameros Law, Accounting and Auditing Office
JRE Bldg., Magsaysay Street
Digos City, Davao del Sur

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

A copy of this Formal Offer of Exhibits were Served and

Filed to Atty. Andiano, the City Prosecutor of Kidapawan,
and to the Court due to distance constraints as the
respective Offices are in Kidapawan City.

ATTY. JOEFFREY C. SUSTIGUER

Copy furnished:

1. City Prosecutor’s Office

Kidapawan City
Registry Receipt No.____________________ Date:_________

2. Atty. Emma O. Ferenal-Andiano

Kidapawan City
 Page 6 of 6 pages
Comment to the
Formal Offer
Registry Receipt No. ____________________ Date:_________