Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 15
Family Court Designate
Davao City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE No. 66-18

Plaintiff,

- versus - FOR: Violation of Section 5(a)

Of R.A. No. 9262
PATRICK P. PATRIMONIO,
Accused.
x----------------------/

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS
(To the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence)

The ACCUSED, through counsel, respectfully comments and/or

objects to the Formal Offer of Evidence of the Prosecution as follows:

EXHIBIT DOCUMENT COMMENT/OBJECTION

Admits the existence and authenticity of
said exhibit, but objects to the purpose for
which it was offered for being irrelevant
Photocopy of Medical and misleading.
certificate issued by Dr.
Robert R. Rashgard of
“A” to
the Holy Infant of Mary, The said Medical Certificate was not
“A-1”
Brgy. Mintal, Davao issued by an authorized government
City dated on February examining physician as required by law.
24, 2020 Also, the testimony of the witness is bereft
of any indication where she had positively
identified said document during her direct
testimony.
“B” to Photocopy of the Admits the existence and authenticity of
“B-1” Ultrasound said exhibit, but objects to the purpose for
Result/Finding issued by which it was being offered for being
 misleading.

Dr. Daniela D. Drago,

O.B., M.D. dated The testimony of the witness is bereft of
February 26, 2020 any indication where she had positively
identified said document during her direct
testimony.
Admits the existence and authenticity of
said exhibits, but objects to the purpose for
Police Report
which it was offered for being irrelevant.
representing the Copy of
the Police Blotter Entry
NO. 2, Page 1, dated
“C” to The Police Blotter is just a record at the
February 27, 2020,
“C-1” police station based on the statements of
issued and signed by
herein complainant.
PO2 Janiela J. Jestse,
PNP, WCPD, PNCO

“D” Pictures showing the Denies the existence of said exhibit, and
injuries sustained by the objects to the purpose for which it was
victim with Janiela J. offered for being misleading.
Jestse

The photographer who took the pictures

was not presented and was unable to
identify the same. The rule in this
jurisdiction is that photographs, when
presented in evidence, must be identified
by the photographer as to its production
and testified as to the circumstances under
which they were produced. x x x
Photographs, however, can be identified
also by any other competent witness who
can testify to its exactness and accuracy
(Sison v. People 250 SCRA 58) .

No photographer or any other competent

witness, even the complainant herself,
 testified to its exactness and accuracy.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the ACCUSED respectfully prays to this Honorable

Court to deny the admission of the foregoing exhibits objected to for the
reasons stated above.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for under the
premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

DONE. Davao City, Philippines, this 12th day of March 2020.

(sgd.)ATTY. JACOBO J. JUMAW

Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 54321/January 5, 2020
IBP Lifetime No. 09190
PTR No. 1276543, issued on May 05, 2019 at Davao City
MCLE No. IV-004222, issued on April 10, 2019 at Davao City

Copy furnished through personal service to:

REGOLAS R. RASTAP
Asst. City Prosecutor
Davao City

Received by : _________
Date : _________