Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 26, Manila
--- oOo ---

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-- versus -- Crim Case No: ____________

For: Viol. Of P.D. 1866

Dodong,
Accused.
x --------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

With all due respect to this Honorable Court, accused
through the undersigned counsel most respectfully states:

1. The Honorable Court issued an Order dated August 2,

2013 –received by counsel on September 02, 2013 –
denying accused’ Demurrer to Evidence;

2. Accused submits that the Honorable Court has simply

overlooked to take into account important
considerations which should be appreciated when a
demurrer to evidence is filed; with that, accused
moves for reconsideration of the Order dated August
2, 2013;

3. In a very recent case, G.R. Nos.153304-05, February

7, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of
two cases by the Sandigandayan via the grant of
demurrers to evidence due to insufficient evidence.
Therein, the court held:

“xxx. As matters now stand, no sufficient evidence

exists to support the charges of malversation against the
respondents. Hence, the Sandiganbayan did not commit
any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when it granted the demurrers to
evidence and, consequently, dismissed the criminal cases
against the respondents.”

4. In another case, the Supreme Court granted the

demurrer to evidence of an accused and acquitted
him after the latter’s demurrer was denied by the
trial court. In this case of Gutib vs. Court of Appeals
and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 131209,
decided on August 13, 1999, the following
pronouncements were made by the Supreme Court:

1
 “Sufficient evidence for purposes of
frustrating a demurrer thereto is such
evidence in character, weight or amount
as will legally justify the judicial or
official action demanded according to
the circumstances. To be considered
sufficient therefore, the evidence must
prove: (a) the commission of the crime,
and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused. In
the instant case, the prosecution
miserably failed to establish by
sufficient evidence the existence of the
crime of qualified theft. xxx.

Prescinding from the foregoing, it was

grave abuse of discretion for the trial court to
refuse to weigh the prosecution evidence
against, petitioner, which was its bounden
duty to do as trier of facts, and cursorily to
ignore the arguments raised in his demurrer
to the evidence on the simplistic explanation
that they —

. . . centered on credibility of
witnesses, inconsistencies in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses,
and weight and value of the evidence
presented by the prosecution . . . .17

Had the trial court been more

punctilious and thorough in its study
and preparation of the case, it could
have fully appreciated the weakness of
the state evidence against petitioner,
and that it was useless, not to say a
waste of time and money, to proceed
with the tedious process of trial and
direct petitioner to adduce evidence in
his defense, since it was obvious even
from the beginning that petitioner could
not be convicted of the crime charged.
xxx.”

(emphasis supplied)

5. Clearly from the foregoing, where the evidence for

the prosecution does not establish a prima facie case

2
 that a crime had been committed by an accused – as
is the situation in the case at bar – it is obligatory
upon the court to dismiss the case upon a demurrer
to evidence;

6. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the

requisite elements are: (a) the existence of the
subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who
owned or possessed the firearm does not have the
corresponding license or permit to possess. (G.R.
No. 114267 December 17, 1999);

7. Here, the prosecution failed to prove both elements

as no witness was ever presented in court. With no
witness, it follows that no firearm was ever
presented. With no firearm presented, it likewise
follows that there is no proof that accused ever
possessed one. Consequently, there is no proof of
both the existence of any firearm and the possession
of an illegal firearm by the herein accused;

8. With the above, and in accordance with well-

established jurisprudence, accused now moves for
the reconsideration of the Order denying the
Demurrer to Evidence by the dismissal of the above-
entitled case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed that

the Honorable Court grant the Demurrer to Evidence dated
July 29, 2013.

For the City of Manila. September 11, 2013.

______________________________________________
2nd Floor Lagmay Bldg. MRT Rd. Corner C-5 Rd.
Western Bicutan, Taguig City
Telefax (632) 358-6407
By:

______________________________________________
IBP No.____________;11/08/2012;Rizal
PTR No.____________;01/02/2013;Taguig
MCLE IV-____________
Roll No. 55854

Copy Furnished:

3
 Office of the City Prosecutor
City of Manila

NOTICE OF HEARING
The City Prosecutor
City of Manila

Greetings!

Please take notice that undersigned counsel has set the

foregoing for hearing on September 23, 2013 at 8:30 o’clock
in the morning, at which date and time, the undersigned
shall submit the same for the consideration of the Honorable
Court.

Thank you.
Atty__________________________

EXPLANATION
The above pleading was served and/or filed through
mail due to the lack of office personnel to effect personal
service.

Atty.______________________