DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE OF

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12-1214-B AND 12-1215-B

ON VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 6

By:

Bautista, Maricar Malaki

A thesis submitted to Atty. Ronald Crisanto P. Mercado

in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Subject

Legal Research and Thesis Writing

JD 1-6, First Semester 2015

 College of Law

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Sta. Mesa, Manila

Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF TERESA-BARAS
Municipal Hall of Teresa,
Teresa, Rizal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 12-1214-B

For: Violation of B.P. Blg. 6
PEDRO CRUZ
Accused.

x--------------------------------------x

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 12-1215-B

-versus-
For: Violation of B.P. Blg. 6

JUAN CRUZ
Accused.

x--------------------------------------x
 DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully

moves for the dismissal of the charge against the above mentioned
accused for the Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 on the following grounds:

1. The affiant, Jose Santos, were not presented in open court to

testify.

2. The prosecution relied primarily to the testimony of complaining

witness self-serving and lack of personal knowledge of the alleged
commission of the crime.

3. The presented evidences are not properly authenticated, marked

and identified by the complaining witness.

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
1. This is a Criminal Case of Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 filed against
herein accused, Pedro Cruz, married residing at Rizal and Juan
Cruz, married, accused by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal,
Tobias B. Arriola, filed by Public Prosecutor Manuel Ray A.
Corpuz and private complainant Jose Santos.

2. Curiously and worthy of the note is the fact that the charge was
filed against the two above mentioned accused following the
charges of Violation of B.P. Blg. 6 for wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in possession, custody and control One (1) piece of
bolo each, a deadly weapon, for the commission of the crimes of
Grave Threat and Child Abuse to private complainant Jose Santos
and Maria Clara, who both resides at Sitio San Roque, Barangay
Pinugay, Baras, Rizal.

3. The indicted information of the alleged commission of an offense

proceeded against the accused is a process of Criminal
Prosecution. In this wise, the accused as a lone person defending
himself against the State and the People of the Philippines, must
not be deprived of necessary defenses allowed under the law which
may exculpate his criminal liability. The time-honored doctrine is
that an accused should be convicted, not on the basis of the
weakness of his defense, but on the strength of the prosecutions
evidence itself.

4. It is presumed that the accused is innocent until the contrary is

proved beyond reasonable doubt unless overturned by competent
and credible evidence which the State requires to prove that the
 former is guilty of the said crime. Unless a preponderance of
evidence points beyond the doubt to his guilt, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal. Given this principle, the qualifying
evidence to be considered as sufficient, must prove (a) the
commission of the crime, and (b) the degree of participation by the
accused.

5. It must be noted that at the very outset of the charge of Violation of

B.P. Blg. 6, the Public Prosecutor herein presented the complaining
witness PO1 Samuel Bule, 33 years old, single, residing at Frisco,
Quezon City who was assigned at Baras Police Station, Baras,
Rizal. That the testimonies of the latter hinges entirely and
exclusively on the tale of the arrest of the two accused and the
confiscation of their bolos at the 33 rd SAF Camp at Sitio San Roque
which such witness lacks of personal knowledge thus is self-
serving and insufficient to prove such allegation of the crime.

6. Worse, the prosecution attempted to prove the theory of the crime,

not by presenting a credible and worthy testimony as evidence to
establish a precise degree of participation by the two accused as
required by the Supreme Court in each and every act of crime.
Therefore, such testimony resulted a stand of charge which are
wild presumptions and illogical inferences.

II. THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED

The Information filed with this Honorable Court on the 5 th day of

March, 2012, charging Pedro Cruz and Juan Cruz on the Violation of
B.P. Blg. 6 or Illegal Possession of Bladed, Pointed or Blunt Weapons,
Amending Presidential Decree No. 9, reads as follows:

That, on or about the 3rd day of March, 2012 in the Municipality of

Baras, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession, custody and
control One (1) piece of bolo, a deadly weapon, which he carried
outside of his residence not for the purpose of using it as a necessary
tools or implement to earn a livelihood nor in pursuit of a lawful
activity, but in the commission of the crimes of Grave Threat and
Child Abuse.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Taytay for Baras, Rizal,
5 March 2012.
 On the 10th of April 2012, both accused Pedro Cruz and Juan Cruz,
when personally arraigned assisted by counsel de oficio, Atty. Ronald
Crisanto Mercado of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), in Tagalog a
dialect known and understood by them, pleaded Not Guilty to the
offenses as charged.

On the 24th of April 2012, the case was called for Pre-Trial Conference,
Public Prosecutor Manuel Ray A. Corpuz, private complainant Jose
Santos and the two (2) accused assisted by counsel de oficio Atty. Ronald
Crisanto P. Mercado of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) are present in
the Court. Upon motion of Public Prosecutor Corpuz, joint trial shall
proceed in these three (3) cases.

The prosecution and defense agreed on the following stipulation of

facts:

Jurisdiction of the court over the three (3) cases and the identities
of the two (2) accused that they are the same persons named in
the information.

The prosecution presented and caused to be marked as exhibits the

following documents with the reservation to mark other documentary
evidence during the course of trial:

Exhibit A is the Sworn Statement of Jose Santos Y Musa

consisting of two pages;
Exhibit A-1 is second page thereof;
Exhibit A-2 is his signature;
Exhibit B is the Sworn Statement of Maria Clara consisting two
(2) pages also;
Exhibit B-1 is second page thereof;
Exhibit B-2 is her signature;
Exhibit B-3 is the signature of her father _____;
Exhibit C is the Sworn Statement of _____;
Exhibit C-1 is his signature;
Exhibit D is the Sworn Statement of PO1 Samuel Bule;
Exhibit D-1 is his signature;
Exhibit E series xerox copies of photographs of the deadly
weapon bolos. (provisional markings);
Exhibit F and G reserved exhibits of the object evidence.

No documentary and object evidence was presented and marked by

the defense but reserved its right to mark the documentary exhibits
presented by the prosecution and or the presentation of additional
documentary evidence in the course of trial.
 The prosecution will present five (5) witnesses for five (5) hearing dates
and the defense intends also to present five (5) witnesses including the
persons both accused, for five (5) hearing dates, with reservation to
present additional witness/es, if the need arises.

The Public Prosecutor and defense counsel likewise bound themselves

to comply with the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court and AM
No. 03-1-09 SC dated August 16, 2004 not herein set forth.

There being no other matters to be taken up, the Public Prosecutor

and Defense counsel jointly moved for the termination of the Pre-trial
conference and the same was granted by the Court.

III. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS

th
1. On the 8 of October, 2013, the prosecution rested its case through a
Formal Offer of Evidence. In the Comment and Objections to
Prosecutions Formal Offer of Evidence, filed by the counsel de oficio,
emphasizes the non-inclusion of several alleged exhibits, as follows:

a. The admissibility of Exhibits A, B and C the Sworn

Statement of Jose Santos, that the affiant were not presented in
open court to testify.

b. The admissibility of Sworn Statement of PO1 Samuel Bule, that

is self-serving and for lack of personal of the alleged
commission of the crime.

c. The admissibility of Exhibit E with submarking H with

submarking I with submarking the pictures depicting the bolo;
picture of the accused Pedro Cruz; picture of the accused Juan
Cruz, that they are not properly authenticated by the witness.

d. The admissibility of Exhibit F and G the object as well as the

bolos on these cases, that they are not properly marked and
identified by the witness.

2. To argue further on the matter, the admissibility of Sworn Statement

of Jose Santos is misleading, as he is not formally presented in the
open court to testify as a witness against the two accused. Under the
Rules of Court, Rule 132 Section 34 and 35, the court shall consider
no evidence which has not been formally offered. As regards to the
testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness
is called to testify. However due to the repeated failure of the affiant to
appear and testify before the court, and despite receipt of the Order
 dated June 25, 2013, the presentation of said witness is considered
waived, thus making his sworn statement inadmissible to the case.

3. The presented Sworn Statement of PO1 Samuel Bule is not credible

and worthy as they are not what the court requires in order to
precisely prove the commission of the crime of the two above-
mentioned accused. The former admitted that he has no personal
knowledge on the case and his awareness came from the statement of
the three persons, who arrived to report the arrest of the two accused,
whose names are Rey Santos, a certain Barangay Tanod; PO3
Marphin Caguiwa, and P0l Herbert Abogado. None of the testimonies
of the prosecutions witness, as well as the exhibits offered as
evidence, directly or logically pointed out the two accused as the
perpetrator of the crime charged. Given such, the prosecution
therefore relied to a self-serving and inadmissible evidence to prove
the case.

4. Subsequently, in the Order dated 30th of April, 2013, the prosecutions

witness admitted before the court that Exhibits E, H, and I or the
copies of photographs of the two accused and the deadly weapon
bolos with provisional marking; and Exhibits F and G or the
reserved exhibits for the object of evidence are not properly
authenticated, marked and identified by him personally. The witness
statement accordingly expressed that the said bolos were not
recovered by him, thus it was actually in the camp handed readily by
PO3 Marphin Caguiwa without any signed turn over receipts. Also the
proper procedure of marking the evidences was not strictly complied
as it was not proved by someone who actually saw the evidence, and
such evidence is not genuinely marked with signature by the former,
which is in this case is not P01 Samuel Bule, but rather the three
persons who arrested both accused.

5. In addition, the prosecutions private witness expressly stated that

both accused has been deprived to have a counsel during the arrest
and the markings of the two bolos. According to the law, the accused
has the right to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel which he can privately confer. Such action was a
clear violation on the rules of court since there has been no waiver to
counsel that has been executed by both accused

The foregoing discussion therefore deduced that, the fact that the
prosecution failed to properly offer its exhibits formally, clearly expressed
that it has miserably failed to prove its case and to overcome the
presumption of innocence of both accused that must be done only by a
competent and credible proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is necessary to
have a formal offer, since the judges are required to base their findings of
fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon the evidence offered by
the parties at the trial. However, in the entire consideration of
testimonies and evidences, the court may be left in the condition of
inability to abide conviction of certainty of truth of the crime charged due
to the informal offer of evidence.

In light of this, both accused stands on firm ground that the weight of
evidence of the prosecution against them lacks sufficient strength to
convict them and thus should fail by itself.

IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court

issue an order to DISMISS the case against the accused, Pedro Cruz and
Juan Cruz, for failure of the prosecution to establish proof beyond
reasonable doubt for the presence of the evidence of guilt on the charge
of Violation of B.P. Blg. 6. or Illegal Possession of Bladed, Pointed or
Blunt Weapons, Amending Presidential Decree No. 9 of Criminal Cases
No. 12-1214-B and 12-1215-B.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Atty. Ronald Crisanto P. Mercado

Roll No. ____
IBP No. ____/ (Date)/ (Place Issued)
PTR No. ____