Demurrer Lapina
Demurrer Lapina
Demurrer Lapina
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(With Prior Leave of Court)
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Rule 133, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifically provides that the
degree of proof required to secure the accused's conviction is proof beyond reasonable
doubt, which does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof
which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. To stress, "While not impelling
such a degree of proof impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal
cases nevertheless charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of
establishing moral certainty, a certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very
conscience."4
1
Sec. 14(2), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
2
People v. Hilario, G.R. No. 210610, 11 January 2018.
3
People v. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, 17 January 2018.
4
Daayata v. People, G.R. No. 205745, 8 March 2017.
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 1 of 6
INFORMATION
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the
information. Thereafter, pretrial conference followed, and the prosecution named
the following witnesses, to wit:
SOLE ISSUE
Whether or not the Prosecution adduced sufficient evidence of guilt to overcome the
presumption of innocence and to shift the burden of proof to the defense.
The Accused humbly answers in the negative. The presumption of innocence has not
been overturned.
It bears emphasis that the accused is being charged for Grave Threat. In Grave
Threat cases, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove each of the following
elements beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:
On July 21, 2022, private complainant Jecil Palisoc testified saying that
between 8:30 to 9:00 in the morning, he and his wife were on their way to the town
proper to buy medicines and goods when accused suddenly blocked them in front of
the accused’s house so Jecil stopped and he saw that herein accused took a pipe
from his (accused) tricycle, chased Jecil and uttered the words “Putang ina mo.
Halika, papatayin kita so Jecil went directly to the Barangay Hall. 6
B. Private complainant Jecil Palisoc stated during his testimony that he and
his wife were on their way to town proper when accused uttered the words “
Putang ina mo. Halika papatayin kita so he went directly to the Brangay Hall
however the attached Minutes of the Barangay Blotter dated September 5,
2021 at 9:20 AM, the Blotter states that:
Considering that the incident happened near the barangay and the
immediacy of the report before the barangay, herein private complainant still
failed to state in his blotter the specific words which are allegedly uttered by
the accused.
5
Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
6
Page 4 of 9 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated July 21, 2022, Criminal Case No. 797-22, Pp vs. Ricky
Lapina y Manuel for Grave Threats under Art 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 3 of 6
alleged incident or heard the alleged utterances made by the accused
considering that the incident happened near the barangay.
On January 19, 2023 and February 2, 2023, the second prosecution witness
Christian Oliver Guinto, the Barangay Treasurer was put on the witness stand to
identify the attached CCTV Footage however he failed to bring with him and present
the original copy lifted from the memory of the CCTV of the Barangay for the reason
that the same was deleted.
In the case of People vs. Eddie Manansala, the supreme court held that Rules
on Electronic Evidence provides that persons authorized to authenticate the video
or CCTV recording is not limited solely to the person who made the recording but
also by another competent witness who can testify to its accuracy. In the case, Asas
was able to establish the origin of the recording and explain how it was transferred
to the compact disc and subsequently presented to the trial court 7
What was presented by the private complainant in the instant case was a
video without sounds taken from the monitor of the CCTV using the private
complainant’s phone showing only the chosen portion of the incident. The original
video was never presented for proper authentication. Christian Oliver Guinto has no
control on the video presented after it was recorded by the private complainant.
Christian was not able to explain how the video from the phone was transferred to
the flash drive and subsequently presented to the trial court.
Human experience dictates that an average mind cannot memorize and recall
a specific video specially those videos which are not of the person’s interest. Even if
Christian mentioned during his testimony that it was the same video, it would be
impossible for him to identify that it was the same video considering that the video
is more than three (3) minutes and that he only watched the video twice. 8 Therefore,
the accused respectfully submits that the CCTV footage was not properly
authenticated.
7
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eddie Manansala y Alfaro, Accused-Appellant; G.R. No. 233104,
September 02, 2020.
8
Page 5 of 5 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated January 19, 2023, Criminal Case No. 797-22, Pp vs.
Ricky Lapina y Manuel for Grave Threats under Art 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 4 of 6
After a considerable review of the documents offered by the prosecution,
including a careful analysis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the
defense fervently submits before this Honorable Court that the prosecution has
utterly failed to discharge their burden of proving the guilt of the accused Ricky
Lapina y Manuel beyond reasonable doubt.
Under the above circumstances, the guilt of the accused cannot be established
with moral certainty. The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is burden of the
prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum
of evidence required. In these case, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the
evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of the
accused with moral certainty.
PRAYER
2. To grant this demurrer to evidence and to DISMISS the case for insufficiency
of evidence against the accused.
Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
By:
and
NOTICE
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 5 of 6
To: Mr. Pablo Reyes
Branch Clerk of Court
MTC Jaen
Greetings:
Please submit this DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE to the Honorable Court for its
kind consideration and approval.
JESSA M. BONTAGEN
CERTIFICATION/EXPLANATION
The undersigned counsel informs the Honorable Court that service of the instant
Demurrer to Evidence was served through Electronic Mail to Fiscal Susan M. Apolonio, at
atty_apol@yahoo.com.ph it being the most expeditious service.
JESSA M. BONTAGEN
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 6 of 6