Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Naguilian, La Union
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,

Crim. Case 1111

-versusFor: Reckless Imprudence

Resulting in Homicide
AAA,
Accused.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO FILE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.

ACCUSED, through counsel and unto this Honorable Court respectfully
moves that he be allowed to file his demurrer to evidence on the ground that the
prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
1.) The prosecution presented several witnesses, but none of them was
an eyewitness directly linking accused of the act of the imprudence or
negligence resulting to the death of ___________. Although, Police Officer
_____ claimed that he was there, he claimed that he only responded after he
heard a loud bang. According to him, a reportee went to the Police Station,
saying there was a vehicular accident. The reportee or possible eyewitness was
not presented to the witness stand. Said Police Officer only testified on his
theories and sketch. The same could not be given weight without any evidence to
support the same. The circumstances on why and how the incident took place,
the Recklessness or imprudence of the accused in driving his tricycle which
caused the incident were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused
cannot be convicted on mere assumption and theories that was not supported by
evidence;
3.) That in order for the Court to save precious time and its limited
resources, the accused be allowed to file Demurrer to Evidence to the aboveentitled case;
4.) The accused will amplify his allegations when allowed to file his
Demurrer to Evidence;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that an Order be issued allowing the accused to file his
Demurrer to Evidence.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.

Bauang, La Union for Naguilian, La Union this 2 nd day December 20__.

PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Dept. of Justice
Bauang District Office, Bauang, La Union
Counsel for the Accused
By:
Public Attorney II
NOTICE AND COPY FURNISHED
CLERK OF COURT
MTC of Naguilian, La Union
Naguilian, La Union
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Bauang, La Union
Atty. of BBB
Caba, La Union
Kindly submit foregoing motion to the Honorable Court for its consideration and
approval immediately upon receipt hereof.
Public Attorney II
EXPLANATION
The foregoing was served/filed through registered mail due to distance.
Public Attorney II

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Naguilian, La Union
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Crim. Case No. 1111

For: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide

AAA,
Accused.
x--------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
ACCUSED, through counsel unto this Honorable Court
respectfully moves for the dismissal of the instant case on
the ground that:
The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence
for the conviction of the accused:
FACTS OF THE CASE
Accused

was

charged

for

the

crime

of

Reckless

Imprudence resulting to Homicide based on the Information

quoted hereunder as follows:
INFORMATION
The
undersigned
Assistant
Provincial
prosecutor accuses ________ of the crime of
RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE
RESULTING
TO
HOMICIDE
committed as follows:
That on or about the 11th day of March 20__,
in the Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La
union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court the above named accused being
then the driver owner and person in charge of the
Motorized Tricycle (MTC), bearing plate No. AA0000, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously drive, operate along the National
highway, in front of Senior Citizen

Demurrer to Evidence
People vs. AAA
Crim. Case No. 1111
Page 2
waiting shed, in front of Municipal Compound of
Naguilian, la Union and mange without due regard
to traffic laws, rules and regulations and without
taking the necessary precautions to avoid injuries
to person and by such careless ness, negligence
and imprudence the aforesaid motorized tricycle
sideswept/bumped one ________ which caused his
death, to the damage and prejudice of his legal
heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
San Fernando City, March 20, 20__.
Asst Provincial Prosecutor
Inquest Prosecutor
The prosecution presented several witnesses. And none
of them was an eyewitness to the alleged vehicular accident.
Police Officer _______ was put twice on the witness stand.
The first time he testified, he claimed that he was inside
the Police Station when he heard a loud noise.
The second time Police Office ___ was called, he tried
to testify otherwise, claiming that he was present when the
alleged vehicular incident happened, but failed to explain
his conclusion that the accused caused the incident subject
of the instant case.

ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION ADDUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO OVERCOME THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED.

Demurrer to Evidence
People vs. AAA
Crim. Case No. 1111
Page 3
DISCUSSION ARGUMENTS
The quantum of evidence needed for the conviction of
the

accused

is

proof

beyond

reasonable

doubt.

The

prosecution fell short of establishing the guilt of the

accused by its failure to present possible eyewitness/es of
the alleged incident.
Police
alleged

Officer

vehicular

____

was

incident.

not

an

Without

eyewitness
any

to

the

corroborative

evidence to support his testimony, the same remains hearsay.

And hearsay evidence has no probative value.
The first time he was called to the witness stand, he
testified in part as follows:
Q. A vehicular accident, now, when this vehicular
incident happened, where were you?
A. I was inside the Naguilian Police Station at
the desk table sir. (TSN, page 16, April 28,
20___) (emphasis supplied)
COURT: Did you interview witnesses who saw the
incident?
A. Yes, your Honor, but they told me that they
just heard a big stop but they did not witness the
velocity of the speed of the motorcycle. (TSN page
29, April 28, 20___)
Q. Now will you explain, Mr. Witness, why when you
saw, you said that the tricycle was in front the
victim, per your investigation, what is the reason
why the victim was at the back of the tricycle at
the time you saw him?
A. Its only the honorable court because during
the incident happened, I did not see the real
happening sir. (TSN page 31, April 28, 20___)
(emphasis supplied)
Q. What do you mean by the word maybe he was
sideswept? You can explain in ilocano Mr. Witness
if you cannot explain well in English.

Demurrer to Evidence
People vs. AAA
Crim. Case No. 1111
Page 4

A. Based on the witnesses, just informed me that

there is a vehicular accident happened but for me,
I did not see the incident. I only conduct
investigation in the crime scene wherein I saw a
motorcycle and the victim lying at the back of the
tricycle, thats all sir. (TSn Page 32, April 28,
20___)
Clearly,

the

testimony

of

Police

Officer

_________

alone cannot support a conclusion that the accused committed

the act charged. The prosecution fell short of presenting
additional witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused.

When Police Officer _______ was asked to explain about

the result of his investigation, he testified as follows:
Court: Did you examine the motor vehicle of the
accused after the incident?
A. yes, your Honor.
Q. what did you observe, was there any dent, the
sidecar or the motorcycle itself?
A. the front of the motorcycle, your honor.
Q. What was dented there?
A. The front fender, your Honor
Q. So the portion of the motorcycle hit the
victim, is that your conclusion?
A. Yes your honor. (TSN page 55, April 28, 20___)
Court: This fender, did you see any blood/
A. I have not seen any blood stain, your honor.
Q. Was the light broken?
A. No your honor.
Q. There is no blood in the ground where the
victim lay?
A. I did not find any your honor.

Demurrer to Evidence

People vs. AAA

Crim. Case No. 1111
Page 5

Q. Did you find that unusual despite the fact that

there is an impact where the victim and the
tricycle collided, there was no blood or broken
part of the vehicle?
A. yes your Honor.
Q. So, what will be your conclusion as per your
investigation there was no blood in the scene of
the crime and no broken pieces coming from the
vehicle, was the vehicle moving very fast or very
slow while in collision, as an experienced police
Investigator, what does it tell you?
A. The tricycle is normal moving, your honor.
(emphasis supplied)
Q. How about the person which was bumped by the
vehicle, was he moving the same manner as the
vehicle?
A. Yes your honor. (TSN pp 59-60, April 28, 20__
Police Officer _______ claimed that he found a dent on
the tricycle driven by accused, but did not see any fragment
or broken pieces near the scene of the incident. Neither was
there any blood. Apparently, the dent as claimed cannot be
attributed to the incident that happened, because the same
could be an old dent.
He

likewise

claimed

that

he

asked

bystanders,

but

failed to get the name of the possible witnesses who saw

what

actually

hearsay,

and

happened.
the

same

All
has

that
no

he

testified

probative

value.

to

was

Under

Section 36 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, any evidencewhether

oral

or

documentary-is

hearsay

if

its

probative

value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness

but on that of some other person who is not on the witness
stand. (Bayani vs. people, 530 SCRA 84).

Demurrer to Evidence

People vs. AAA

Crim. Case No. 1111
Page 6

Thus, the result of the investigation of Police officer

____________, is not enough proof to overcome the innocence
of

the

accused,

as

no

other

evidence

was

adduced

to

establish that accused caused the incident. His testimonies

are nothing but speculations. And mere speculations cannot
be the basis for the conviction of the accused (See People
vs. Abillar, 346 SCRA 433.). The same cannot be the basis of
his culpability (Santos, Jr. vs. Beltran, 418 SCRA 17).
In fact, the second time Police Officer ________ was
called to the witness stand, he attempted to change his
previous testimony, and he testified as follows:
Q. Who caused the traffic accident?
A. The driver of the Yamaha tricycle sir.
Q.Why do you say that it was the driver of the
Yamaha tricycle that caused the accident?
A.Because I was present during the accident sir.
Q. So you are telling us that you witnessed the
actual incident?
A. Yes sir.
Q. How did the accident happened as you see it
personally?
A. When I took my coffee in front our Police
Station, I heard a big bang along the national
highway sir and when I heard that I ran
immediately towards that place and I saw a person
lying down sir. (TSN
page 13, September 15,
20___)(emphasis supplied)
Q. Did you see the victim crossing the street?
A. No maam. I just heard the big blug.
Q. You heard it only but you did not see the
hitting part?
A. Yes maam.
Q. So you conducted an investigation?
A. Yes Maam (TSN page 26, Sept 15, 20____).
Demurrer to Evidence
People vs. AAA
Crim. Case No. 1111

Page 7
The act of Police Officer Judy _________of changing his
previous

testimony

did

not

serve

to

bolster

the

prosecutions evidence. As the Supreme Court ruled, When a

witness

makes

two

sworn

statements

and

these

two

sworn

statements incur in the gravest contradictions, the court

cannot accept either statement as proof. The witness by his
own

act

of

testimony

giving

and

considerations

the
(US

false
court
vs.

testimony
should

Pala,

impeaches

exclude

et.

al.,

it
19

his

own

from

all

Phil.

190;

Mondragon vs. CA, et. al., L-35978 & 36069, Dec. 26, 1974.)
Moreover, in the case of People vs. Ricarte, et. al.
(44 O.G. 222), The Supreme Court ruled:
When
the
evidence
of
the
prosecution
consists of the uncorroborated testimony of a
lone witness, who had incurred in an unexplained
contradiction on an important detail and had
shown an attitude apparently inconsistent with
the truth of his testimony, it should not be
enough basis to convict the accused. The fact
that the prosecution, without explanation, failed
to call several witnesses, three mentioned in the
information and two others mentioned by the lone
witness, gives rise to the presumption that their
testimonies would not be favorable to the
prosecutions cause.
With all the foregoing, it is apparent that the quantum
of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt has not been met. The accused cannot
therefore be convicted on mere suspicion, and speculations,
much

more

on

hearsay

testimonies,

as

the

same

are

inadmissible in evidence.
WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

it

is

respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Court to Order the DISMISSAL of

the instant case for insufficiency of evidence.
Demurrer to Evidence
People vs. AAA

Crim. Case No. 1111

Page 8

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.
This 21st day of December 20___,at Bauang, La Union for
Naguilian, La Union.

PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE

Dept. of Justice
Bauang District Office, Bauang, La
Union
Counsel for the Accused
By:
Public Attorney II

Copy furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Bauang, La Union
Atty. OF BBB
Caba, La Union
EXPLANATION
The foregoing was filed and served through registered mail
due to distance.
Public Attorney II

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Naguilian, La Union
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Crim. Case No. 1111

For: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide

AAA,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

ACCUSED through counsel unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits his Memorandum in compliance with the Order
issued by this Honorable Court dated March 23, 20___, copy of the
same was received on April 6, 20___, as follows:
THE CASE
Accused was charged for the crime of reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide based on the information filed on March 20, 20__,
for the death of one ________________ on March 18, 20__ who was
allegedly sideswept by the tricycle driven by the accused.
The prosecution presented several witnesses, in the person of a
representative from the Land Transportation Office, a doctor,
____________ the son of ____________, and Police Officer ______________.
From their testimonies, the following can be deduced:
1. It was not established that _________________ was sideswept by
the motorcycle driven by accused;
2. No eyewitness/es was/were presented, hence no direct evidence
linking the accused as the person responsible was adduced;
3. The presence of the accused at the scene where
_________________ died is only one circumstance, no series of
circumstances were established to convict accused based on
circumstantial evidence;
4. The prayer for the award of civil liability is unreasonable, padded,
and most items on the list were unsubstantiated by receipt.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
No proof to show that _________________was indeed sideswept by
the tricycle driven by accused
The death certificate of _________________stated the cause of his
death is CP arrest secondary to cranial herniation secondary to
contusion hematoma, left parietal diffuse cerebral filling subarachnoid

hemorrhage. Dra. _______________, was placed on the witness stand and

she identified the death certificate of _________________. When asked if
she conducted an autopsy on the remains of _________________, she
answered in the negative, saying that the said procedure is made only
when there was a request. According to her, a person whose head
suffer from strong impact may suffer the same injury, but not
necessarily by reason of an impact made by a vehicular accident.
There was no other showing, that _________________, had on other parts
of his body any injury showing that he was bumped or hit on other part
of his body. If he was indeed sideswept, there should have been part of
his body that had contact with the vehicle, like hematoma, contusion
or any injury to that effect. Thus, it is erroneous to say, that his death
can only be caused by a vehicular accident, when in fact, the injury
which was the caused of his death can also be triggered if there was a
strong impact on his head.
Assuming but without admitting that the injury sustained which
became the cause of death was due to a vehicular accident, it should
be stressed that the placed where it happened is a national highway.
What if _________________was bumped by another vehicle and he was
only thrown to the tricycle driven by the accused? What if someone hit
his head while crossing the street? Police officer ___________ testified
that the body of _________________was found lying diagonal at the rear
portion of the tricycle, and yet there was no showing that
_________________ suffered other injuries on his body, except his head.
The prosecution failed to explain the same.
It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies on the
party who makes the allegations-et incumbit probation, qui dicit non
qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negation probation nulla sit
( The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies, since
by the nature of things, he who denies a proof cannot produce any
proof.) Ching vs. Nicdao, 522 SCRA 316; Pedrano vs. Hrs. of benedicto
Pedrano, 539 SCRA 401; Tan vs. Pacuribot, 540 SCRA 246)
The presence of accused is not enough circumstance for
conviction of accused
This question brings to the resolution of another issue of whether
the accused sideswept _________________. It appears that the State
anchored the strength of its case based on the testimony alone of
Police Officer ___________ who was not present when the alleged
accident happened. He was not an eyewitness, as he did not see the
actual bumping as alleged, if there was any. What he did was to
apprehend accused who was conveniently present at the scene, and
made sketches where it happened.
The presence of the accused at the place of incident is not
enough circumstance to produce conviction. The prosecution must
have shown that at the time of the incident, there was no other vehicle
passing on said highway to erase any doubt.
As the Supreme Court ruled, conviction based on circumstantial
evidence can be upheld provided the circumstances proven constitute
an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion

that points to the accused to the exclusion of all others as the

guilty person (People vs. Paduc, 516 SCRA 590).
No basis for the award of damages
Apparently, the quantum of proof necessary for the conviction of
the accused was not met. Thus, there is no basis for the award of
damages.
Granting but without admitting that private complainant is
entitled to award of civil damages, the same is unreasonable, padded,
and most items in the list were unsubstantiated by receipts, and the
same should not be allowed. To be entitled to an award of actual
damages, it is necessary to prove actual amount of the loss with a
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and
on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, which usually
means official or valid receipts. (people vs. Abes, 420 SCRA 259)
With the foregoing, accused certainly must be acquitted for
failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. As it was long established that, he who alleges,
not he who denies, must prove (Equitable Banking Corp vs.
Sadac , 490 SCRA 380).
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court to make a verdict of acquittal as the
prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of both accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise
sought.
Bauang, La Union, for Naguilian, La Union, this 28th day of April
20__.
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Department of Justice, Bauang, La Union
Counsel for Accused
By:
Public Attorney II
Copy furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Bauang, La Union

Atty.
Caba, La Union

EXPLANATION
The foregoing was filed and served through registered mail due to
distance.
Public Attorney II