Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

9th Judicial Region
Branch 4
Zamboanga City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 54012- 5314

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

PILAR MACROHON LOZADA, FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE

Accused. INDIVIDUAL AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENT UNDER ART. 172 OF RPC
X-------------------------------------------------X

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, the Accused PILAR MACROHON LOZADA, through the Public Attorney’s
Office, to this most Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the herein Demurrer to Evidence on the
ground that based on the evidence presented by the Prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, the
Accused cannot be held liable for the crime charged against her in the information.

STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED

On June 27, 2018, City Prosecutor of Zamboanga City, RICARDO G. CABARON, through
Assistant Regional Prosecutor, EVA AIREEN N. MONTEZA- CADAVEDO, the Accused PILAR
MACROHON LOZADA, was charged of the crime of Falsification by Private Individual and Use of
Falsified Document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, as follows:

INFORMATION

That sometime in September 2016, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously falsify or cause to be falsified a BIR TIN IDENTIFICATION CARD, a public
document, by making it appear that the said accused is “MARIA Q. JUDAPI”, when in
truth and in fact, the latter was already deceased as evidence of the Certificate of Death of
the said “MARIA Q. JUDAPI”, and the accused made use of the same knowing it to be
falsified.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned, the Accused pleaded Not Guilty to the crime charged. During the pre- trial, the
Prosecution named six (6) witnesses, to wit:

1. Arline J. Prieto
2. Felicidad D. Gregorio
3. Pangkat Chairman Ernadro Sabillano (Lumbangan, Z.C)
4. Pangkat Chairman Susan L. Selisana (Camino Nuevo, Z.C)

1|Page
 5. Representative from the BIR
6. PO3 Edwin S. Truza

Trial ensued and in the presentation of its evidence, the Prosecution was only able to present two
witnesses namely: Arline J. Prieto (hereinafter referred to as PRIETO) and Felicidad D. Gregorio
(hereinafter GREGORIO). PRIETO and GREGORIO testified by way of their Judicial Affidavits, both
dated November 23, 2017. The testimony of PO3 TRUZA, on the other hand, was dispensed with,
considering that the Prosecution and Defense entered into Stipulation and Admission of Facts concerning
the investigation he conducted and documents he prepared relative to the case. The other witnesses were
never presented in court.
On March 20, 2019, the Prosecution filed a Motion to Include Witness Cherry S. Wong
(hereinafter WONG) alleging among others that though her name was not listed in the Pre-Trial Order,
her statement is vital to prove the allegations in the Information. Subsequently, the Defense Counsel filed
its Comment/ Objection to the Motion on March 25, 2017. In an Order by the Honorable Court dated
March 26, 2019, the said motion was resolved by denying the same for lack of merit.
Thereafter, on March 27, 2019, the Prosecution rested its case and was given a period of ten (10)
days within which to submit its formal offer of exhibits. On April 08, 2019, the Prosecution submitted its
Formal Offer of Evidence in writing, while the Defense submitted its Comments/Objections thereto on
April 10, 2019. On April 16, 2019, the Honorable Court made its Ruling on the Offer, to wit:

EXHIBIT “A”- Forwarding Report dated December 04, 2017;

EXHIBIT “B”- Incident Record Form No. 099804-201711-2710;
EXHIBIT “C” to “C-1”- Case Report dated December 01, 2017;
EXHIBIT “D” to “D-1”- Judicial Affidavit of Complaint of Arline J. Prieto;
EXHIBIT “E” to “E-1”- Judicial Affidavit of Felicidad D. Gregorio;
EXHIBIT “F”- Certificate to File Action;
EXHIBIT “G” to “G-4”- Minutes of Confrontation at Barangay Lumbangan, this City;
EXHIBIT “I”- Special Power of Attorney;
EXHIBIT “J” to “J-3”- TCT No. T-158727;
EXHIBIT “K”- Tax Declaration of Real Property No. 1101004500291;
EXHIBIT “L”- Sketch Plan

Ruling: The Court hereby ADMITS the foregoing exhibits as part of the testimonies of the
witnesses who testified thereon and pursuant to the admissions made by the defense in relation to these
documents.

EXHIBIT “H”- Minutes of Confrontation at Barangay Camino Nuevo;

EXHIBIT “M”- Certificate of Death of Maria Quijano Judapi;

Ruling: The foregoing exhibits are NOT ADMITTED as the same are merely photocopies and is
inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule. The prosecution failed to establish the facts that may allow
the presentation of secondary evidence.

EXHIBIT “O”- Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Mariel Serito and Jinky Santiago;

Ruling: This Exhibit is NOT ADMITTED as the affiants failed to testify in court.

2|Page
 DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS

I. PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
MISERABLY FAILED TO
PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT:

It bears emphasis that the Accused is being charged for Falsification by Private Individual and
Use of Falsified Document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The following are the elements of
said crime, to wit:
1. The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
2. The offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated under Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code;
3. The falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.

As far as the elements are concerned, the Prosecution failed to establish the second and most
essential element of the felony which is “The offender committed any of the acts of falsification
enumerated under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code”. The witnesses presented failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that it was the accused who actually falsified the BIR Identification Card of Maria
Jagapi.

In the case of Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 164457, April 11, 2012,
the Supreme Court held:
“In every criminal prosecution, the Prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging this burden, the Prosecution’s
duty is to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to
warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included
therein. The Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused
in the commission of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on
the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the
evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that the no less than the Constitution
has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof,
that he must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the
presumption of innocence in his favor.
In other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is
inconsequential in the proceedings for so long as the Prosecution has not
discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the crime
charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it.”

In the case filed before this Honorable Court, the Prosecution merely relied on the testimonies of
PRIETO and GREGORIO, both of whom had no personal knowledge as to the alleged act of accused
LOZADA in falsifying the BIR TIN Identification Card and using the same.

3|Page
 In the Judicial Affidavit of the Prosecution’s primary witness, PRIETO, she answered to the
question “Can you please narrate how the incident happened?”, in this wise:

A: Last March 24, 2017 on or about 10:30 AM, I went to barangay for check-up, thereat the
Barangay Secretary of Lumbangan, informed me that somebody (woman) is looking my mother
Maria Quijano Jagapi, but Kagawad Digna Bucoy told to that woman that my mother was already
dead for more than three years, however the woman allegedly insist that my mother pawned to her
a lot title last September 16, 2016. When the woman gave her name at Barangay Lumbangan as
Cherry Wong.

On the subsequent question, she was asked “What happened next, if any?”, and to this she
replied, to wit:

A: We try to locate this woman and somebody told us that Stephany Matias a friend of my
cousin Felicidad Gregorio know the said woman, immediately together with my cousin we went to
the house of Stephany at Barangay Canelar, thereat, Stephany claim that my mother pawned a lot
title to Cherry Wong and the transaction was made at the residence of Stephany, then I asked a
favor to Stephany if she can call Cherry to give me a copy of their transaction, in which Stephany
agreed and after few days Stephany called meet her at City Proper, at the town Stephany give me a
photocopy of BIR ID and told me that the ID picture on that BIR ID is the one who pawned the lot
title to Cherry, when I look the BIR ID, it is the name of my mother, but the picture on the ID is not
my mother, and I recognized the picture, it was my neighbor Pilar Lozada.

It is apparent from the answers given by PRIETO that she has no personal knowledge as to the
facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged transaction between accused LOZADA and a certain
WONG, if the same indeed transpired. Her knowledge as to the said deal between the two persons were
merely relayed upon her by a third party named Stephany Matias (hereinafter MATIAS), who was never
presented in court, nor was she listed as one of the witnesses for the Prosecution.
The preceding argument is further bolstered, when during the cross examination, she (PRIETO)
confirmed the same and answered that she only learned about the alleged transaction between LOZADA
and WONG based from MATIAS’ account and that she (PRIETO) was not able to personally witness the
same. Further, when she was asked if she received the BIR Identification Card from the Accused herself,
she replied that she received the same only from MATIAS. Also, she was asked if she was able to see the
original copy of the said Identification Card, to which she replied in the negative.
In the case of Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines, GR No. 164457, April 11, 2012,
the Supreme Court held :

“The personal knowledge of a witness is a substantive prerequisite for accepting

testimonial evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact. A witness bereft of personal
knowledge of the disputed fact cannot be called upon for that purpose because her testimony
derives its value not from the credit accorded to her as a witness presently testifying but from
the veracity and competency of the extrajudicial source of her information.”

In the instant case, the testimony of PRIETO has little, or no probative value at all, considering
that she merely relied on the statements of a third person (MATIAS), who was never presented in court.
Thus, depriving the Accused her right to confront and cross-examine the witness.

4|Page
 The second witness, GREGORIO, further reinforced the fact that PRIETO was not a witness to the
alleged deal between WONG and MATIAS, and that indeed, they merely learned the same from MATIAS.
It is also notable to state that in the question “What happened next?” as contained in her Judicial
Affidavit, she answered, in this wise:

A: We try to locate that woman and somebody told us that my friend Stephany Matias know
that women, of which we went to the house of Stephany at Barangay Canelar and we learned from
Stephany that my mother pawned a lot title to Cherry and the transaction was made thereat, of
which I heard Arline asked a favor to Stephany if she can contact Cherry to produced her a copy of
their transaction, of which after few days Arline and I meet Stephany at City Proper and Stephany
gave a BIR ID to Arline in the name of the latter mother but in the picture is our neighbor Pilar
Lozada.

It is noteworthy to state that during the cross examination, when she was asked by the defense
counsel as to the identity of the person who told her that “my friend Stephany Matias know that women”,
she immediately answered that it was a certain “Joseph”. On the contrary, PRIETO, when asked of the
same question answered that she does not know who that somebody is for she merely received a call from
a female who did not identify herself. The inconsistencies between the two answers are quite glaring to be
unnoticed.

From the foregoing discussions, it may therefore be concluded that both PRIETO and
GREGORIO are not aware as to the identity of the person who falsified the BIR Identification Card. They
did not personally witness LOZADA in the act of falsifying the said identification card; neither did they
see her in the act of using the Identification card in the alleged transaction between accused LOZADA and
WONG. The Prosecution failed to even present circumstantial evidence to prove the fact of commission of
crime.

II. NO DOCUMENTARY AND/OR

OBJECT EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT AND FORM PART
OF THE WITNESSES’ ORAL
TESTIMONY/ PROSECUTION’S
EVIDENCE:

The Prosecution failed to formally offer the alleged falsified BIR ID which PRIETO received from
MATIAS, which was marked as ANNEX “N’ to “N-1”. It merely relied on the testimonies of PRIETO and
GREGORIO with nothing to support the said statements.
It is an established jurisprudence that “The Courts cannot consider evidence which has not been
formally offered because parties are required to inform the courts of the purpose of introducing their
respective exhibits to assist the latter in ruling on their admissibility in case and objection thereto is
made. Without a formal offer of evidence, courts are constrained to take no notice of the evidence even if
it has been marked and identified.”
The rule however admits of an exception, “provided that the evidence has been identified by
testimony duly recorded and that it has been incorporated in the records of the case.”
Assuming arguendo that the instant case falls under the exception, the BIR ID must still be
stricken out from the records of the case and not considered, since what was presented before this

5|Page
Honorable Court is merely a machine copy and is inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule. The
prosecution failed to establish the facts that may allow the presentation of secondary evidence.
In addition, the Prosecution also failed to introduce evidence which may be used as a basis in
determining if indeed the BIR TIN IDENTIFICATION CARD of Maria Jagapi was falsified. It offered no
basis for comparison between the alleged falsified ID vis-à-vis the original of the same.
In the case of US vs. Gregorio, 17 Phil 522 as cited in the case of Nicasio Borje vs. Sandiganbayan
and People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court en banc held:
“In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is indispensable that the
judges and the courts have before them the document alleged to have been
simulated, counterfeited or falsified in order that they may find, pursuant to the
evidence produced at the trial, whether or not the crime of falsification was actually
committed; in the absence of the original document, it is improper to conclude, with
only a copy of the said original in view, that there has been a falsification of a document
which was neither found nor exhibited, because in such a case, even the existence of such
original document may be doubted.

In sum, the prosecution failed to establish even a semblance of guilt attributable to the Accused.
Indeed, the High Court in People v. Sayat (G.R. No.s 102773-77, June 8, 1993), It ruled the following, to
wit:
“Every circumstance favoring accused’s innocence must be taken into account. The
prosecution evidence must be clear and convincing to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence”, inasmuch as ‘it is a fundamental evidentiary rule that the
prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the accused as a
consequence of the tenet ei incumbit probation non qui negat, that is, he who asserts
not he who denies, must prove

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honourable Court

that the instant Demurrer to Evidence be granted and the release of the Accused be ordered based on
reasonable doubt.
Zamboanga City, Philippines, March 08, 2019.
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
ZAMBOANGA CITY REGIONAL SATELLITE OFFICE
3rd Floor, Hall of Justice,
Sta. Barbara, Zamboanga City

By:
ATTY. RHEA DOLL B. GONZALO
Public Attorney- II
Roll No: 70752
IBP No.: 042968/ 5-28-2018
MCLE Compliance No.-new lawyer

6|Page
 NOTICE

The Clerk of Court

MTCC-Branch 4
Zamboanga City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing to the Honorable Court for its consideration immediately upon
receipt hereof, without further oral arguments.

Zamboanga City, Philippines, May 08, 2019.

ATTY. RHEA DOLL B. GONZALO

Public Attorney- II

Copy furnished:
PROS. JHOANN M. DALICON-GOMEZ
City Prosecutor’s Office
Hall of Justice, Zamboanga City

7|Page