COMMENT

(To: PROSECUTION’S “FORMAL OFFER

OF DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS”)

THE ACCUSED x x x by counsel, respectfully states:

1. Re: Exhibit “A”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.

1.1. To stress: Allegations in a Complaint are not evidence per se.

There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said
exhibit other than the bare allegation of the private complainant.

2. Re: Exhibit “B”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.

2.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said
exhibit other than the bare allegation of the private complainant, showing
that the accused xxx made threatening calls to and poked a gun at the
private complainant.

2.2. Neither is such an allegation (conclusion of law) a proof of the

presence of conspiracy between the two accused xxx2.

3. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof

that the original was offered to the Court for the record.

3. Re: Exhibit “C”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.

3.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

3.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in
the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the private complainant,
showing that the accused xxx poked a gun at the private complainant or that
the two accused xxx had conspired.

3.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI), it should be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch
xxx, of xxx City, under Hon. Judge xxx ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal
possession of firearms filed by the NBI against the accused xxx, per its
AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due time shall be
presented in evidence by the accused xxx

4. Re: Exhibit “D”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purpose of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.

4.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

4.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in

the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing
that the accused xxx banged loudly on the gate of the home of the private
complainant, that the accused xxx poked a gun at the private complainant
and that the two accused xxx had conspired.

4.3. The affiant xxx did not personally testify before the Court to
affirm her subject Affidavit, dated June 28, 2010, and she was not subjected
to cross examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit is
HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional right
of confrontation/cross examination of the accused xxx

5. Re: Exhibit “E”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
5.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

5.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in

the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing
that the accused xxx threatened the life of the private complainant and his
family, that the private complainant did not freely mortgaged his car to the
accused xxx and that the accused xxx issued the threatening words quoted
in the said Salaysay.

5.3. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no

proof that the original was offered to the Court for the record.

6. Re: Exhibit “F”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.

6.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

6.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in

the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing
that the accused xxx made threatening phone calls to the private
complainant, that the accused xxx poked a gun at the private complainant,
and that the two accused xxx had conspired.

6.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI), it should be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch
xxx, of xxx City, under Hon. Judge xxx ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal
possession of firearms filed by the NBI against the accused xxx, per its
AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due time shall be
presented in evidence by the accused xxx

6.4. The affiant xxx did not personally testify before the Court to
affirm his subject Affidavit, dated July 8, 2010, and he was not subjected to
cross examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit is
HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional right
of confrontation/cross examination of the two accused.
6.5. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no
proof that the original was offered to the Court for the record.

7. Re: Exhibit “G”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.

7.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

7.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in

the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing
that the accused xxx made threatening phone calls to the private
complainant, that the accused xxx poked a gun at the private complainant,
and that the two accused xxx had conspired.

7.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI), it should be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch
xxx, of xxx City, under Hon. xxx ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal
possession of firearms filed by the NBI against the accused xxx, per its
AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due time shall be
presented in evidence by the accused xxx

7.4. The three affiants, who are NBI agents, namely, xxx, xxx, xxx,
did not personally testify before the Court to affirm their subject Joint
Affidavit, dated July 8, 2010, and they were not subjected to cross
examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit is HEARSAY
under the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional right of
confrontation/cross examination of the two accused.

8. Re: Exhibit “H”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.

8.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

8.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in
the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the affiants thereof or that
the accused xxx poked a gun on the private complainant.

8.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI), it should be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch
xxx, of xxxCity, under Hon. Judge xxx ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal
possession of firearms filed by the NBI against the accused xxx, per its
AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due time shall be
presented in evidence by the accused xxx.

8.4. The affiant, who an NBI agent, namely, xxx , did not personally
testify before the Court to affirm their subject Joint Affidavit, dated July 8,
2010, and he was not subjected to cross examination by the two defense
counsel, thus, the said exhibit is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and
violates the constitutional right of confrontation/cross examination of the two
accused.

9. Re: Exhibit “I”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.

9.1. To stress: Allegations in the Memorandum of Agreement, dated

February 16, 2010, are not evidence per se of threat and coercion. It is
merely an evidence of a business transaction.

9.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in

the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of the affiant-private
complainant. There is no proof that the private complainant was forced to
sign the MOA and to mortgage his car or that he was forced, threatened and
coerced by the accused xxx to pay the debt subject matter thereof. The MOA
with a Deed of Chattel Mortgage was a regular business loan transaction
duly executed by the parties, including the private complainant.
10. Re: Exhibits “J”, “K”, and “L”, with submarkings, of the Offer, which are
Cash Vouchers and Bank Deposit Slips, the accused xxx opez objects to the
purposes for which they are being offered, for the reason that the said
statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are
mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence
on record, and that the purposes stated are irrelevant and immaterial to the
allegation of threat and coercion allegedly committed by the accused xxx

10.1. A voucher and a bank deposit slip are not proofs of threat, coercion,
harassment, and compulsion. They are merely proofs of payment by the
debtor and proofs of receipt of such payment by the creditor.

11. Re: Exhibits “M”, “O”, and “P”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the
accused xxx objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said
statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are
mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence
on record, and that the alleged threat and coercion are not shown in and by
said documents.

11.1. The author of Exh. “P” (NBI transmittal letter to the Chief
Prosecutor of xxx City), i.e., NBI Dep. Dir. xxx was not presented in court to
authenticate the said document and he was not cross examined. He had no
personal knowledge of the crimes charged in the instant cases. He merely
relied on the hearsay statement of NBI agent xxx as part of his transmittal
letter to the Chief Prosecutor of xxx City.

12. Re: Exhibit “Q”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of th Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence on record, that the
stated purposes are irrelevant and immaterial to the nature and contents of
the Certificate of Incorporation of the subject Corporation issued by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and that the attached document
thereto, entitled “Extraction/Hustlings/Stockpiling/Hauling and Loading
Contract” is not part of the said exhibit and was not issued by the SEC and
was not marked as a submarkings of the said exhibit. It was merely inserted
in the Offer for unfair reasons.
13. Re: Exhibit “R” (Letter of Understanding), with submarkings, of the
Offer, the accused xxx objects to Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that
the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same
are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record, and, most of all, that the said exhibit does not prove the
crimes of threat and coercion, and that the said exhibit is simply a proof of
a regular business transaction.

13.1. The said exhibit is PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that the
original thereof had been submitted to the court for the record. It is not the
best evidence for the purposes for which it is now being offered.

14. Re: Exhibit “S”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purpose of said Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes do not prove the crimes of threats and coercion. It
merely proves probable cause (a duty of the Office of the Prosecutor to
establish after a preliminary investigation).

14.1. Further, the said exhibit is PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof

that the original thereof had been submitted to the court for the record. It
is not the best evidence for the purposes for which it is now being offered.

15. Re: Exhibit “U”, ”V”, and “W”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the
accused xxx objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said
statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are
mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence
on record, and that the subject matters of the said documents and contracts
is extraneous, irrelevant and immaterial to the crimes of threat and coercion
charged in the instant cases.

16. Re: Exhibit “X” (judicial affidavit of xxx with submarkings, of the Offer,
the accused xxx objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the
said statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same
are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record, that the same does not prove beyond reasonable doubt
the crimes of threat and coercion charged in the instant cases, and that it
does not corroborate the testimony of the private complainant as allege din
the Purpose Column.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed that the

foregoing comments/objections be considered by the Court in resolving the
prosecution’s “Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits”.

Admits the existence and authenticity of said exhibit but objects to the
purpose for which it was offered for being irrelevant and misleading.

The Certificate was not issued by an authorized government officer as

required by law. Also, the testimony of the witness is bereft of any indication
where she had positively identified said document during her direct
testimony