Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Laur and Gabaldon

Third Judicial Region
Laur, Nueva Ecija

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus – Criminal Case No. 4522-L

For: Slight Physical Injuries

MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS,

Accused.
x---------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(WITH LEAVE OF COURT)

The accused, by counsel, respectfully demurs to evidence,

thus:

The counsel prayed that the accused be allowed to file a

demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days, to which the
Honorable Court granted the same on October 2, 2024.

THE ACTION

Ms. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS stands accused in this

criminal action for allegedly committing acts in violation of Article
266 of the Revised Penal Code for Slight Physical Injuries.

In essence, it is the theory of the prosecution that on or

about the 31st day of April year 2024 the accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally attack and assault
complainant LARAINE R. MANGLICMOT, by punching in the
head and kicking her stomach, causing injuries thereof, which
physical injuries reflected in her medical certificate, which
injuries have required and will require medical attendance
necessary for a period of three (3) days, to the damage and
prejudice of LARAINE R. MANGLICMOT.

As with all other criminal prosecution, the state is burdened

with the duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Any proof that does not meet the required
quantum entitles the accused to an acquittal.

ARGUMENTS

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and the elements of the
offense, to wit:

1
PP vs. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS
Criminal Case No. 4522-L
For Slight Physical Injury
 1) The offender inflicts upon another physical injuries, which
do not amount to less serious or serious physical injuries;
and,

2) He incapacitates the offended party for labor for nine (9)

days or less, or shall require medical assistance for the
same period.

Due process in criminal prosecutions requires that an

accused be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, a right enshrined in our very Constitution. This
constitutional mandate is reinforced in the procedural rules
instated to safeguard the rights of the accused.

CONST., art. III, sec. 14(2) provides:

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be

presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process
to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial
may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to
appear is unjustifiable.

Arraignment is one of these safeguards. Due process

requires that the accusation be in due form and that the accused
be given the opportunity to answer the accusation against them.
As their liberty is at stake, the accused should not be left in the
dark about why they are being charged, and must be apprised of
the necessary information as to the charges against them.
(Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, September 5,
2018, [PerJ. Leonen, Third Division])

Arraignment is the accused's first opportunity to know the

precise charge pressed against them. During the arraignment,
they are "informed of the reason for [their] indictment, the
specific charges [they are] bound to face, and the corresponding
penalty that could be possibly meted against [them]." (Kummer v.
People, 717 Phil. 670, 687 (2013) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].)

Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court provides the

allegations fundamental to an information, namely: (1) the
accused's name; (2) the statute's designation of the offense; (3)
the acts or omissions complained of that constitute the offense;
(4) the offended party's name; (5) the approximate date of the
offense's commission; and (6) the place where the offense was
committed. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, sec. 6).
2
PP vs. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS
Criminal Case No. 4522-L
For Slight Physical Injury
 It is critical that all of these elements are alleged in the
infomation. Full compliance with this rule is essential to satisfy
the constitutional rights of the accused; conversely, any deviation
that prejudices the accused's substantial rights is fatal to the
case. In Enrile v. People:766 Phil. 75 (2015) [Per J. Brion, En
Banc].

A concomitant component of this stage of the proceedings is

that the Information should provide the accused with fair notice
of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to
make an intelligent plea and prepare a defense. Moreover, the
Information must provide some means of ensuring that the crime
for which the accused is brought to trial is in fact one for which
he was charged, rather than some alternative crime seized upon
by the prosecution in light of subsequently discovered evidence.
Likewise, it must indicate just what crime or crimes an accused is
being tried for, in order to avoid subsequent attempts to retry him
for the same crime or crimes. In other words, the Information
must permit the accused to prepare his defense, ensure that he is
prosecuted only on the basis of facts presented, enable him to
plead jeopardy against a later prosecution, and inform the court
of the facts alleged so that it can determine the sufficiency of the
charge.

In the instant case, there was no clear evidence to show that

the private complainant LARAINE R. MANGLICMOT was injured
at the time when the accused allegedly punched her in the head
and kicking her stomach. The information indicates the date of
incident as April 31, 2024 at Barangay San Josef, Laur, Nueva
Ecija. However, during the conduct of the Cross Examination on
September 4, 2024, LARAINE R. MANGLICMOT testified that
there was no infliction of physical injury to her person on April
31, 2024 by the accused in this case. That she did not sustain any
bodily harm on April 31, 2024 and there was no unusual incident
at that day.

In addition, a perusal of the complaint affidavit of the

private complainant, she alleged that the accused crept up behind
her, then punched her in the head repeatedly, pulled her hair,
kicked her stomach repeatedly, until she fell down to the ground.
(par. 12, page 6 of the Court Record).

However, her medical certificate indicates only an abrasion

on the lateral part on the right eye. It is inconsistent to her
allegations of the physical injury she sustained inflicted by the
accused. Her testimony is contradicting as to what her medical
certificate’s pertinent findings on her physical examination.
Considering the gravity of the alleged repeated punching and
kicking in the body of the private complainant, medical certificate
indicated only a minimal amount of injury which requires only an
antibacterial ointment as treatment, with a healing period of 1 to
2 days. The inconsistencies of the medical findings and her
3
PP vs. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS
Criminal Case No. 4522-L
For Slight Physical Injury
testimony, creates an impression that she did not really sustain
any bodily harm contrary to what she alleged in her complaint
affidavit. Further, private complainant testified during the cross
examination that she immediately went to the Rural Health Unit
after that alleged incident of infliction of physical injuries by the
accused and the doctor did not find any physical injury in her
body and she is aware of the result of her medical certificate. In
addition, the medical certificate marked as Exhibit “D” was
denied admission for lack of proper authentication.

Considering that the medical certificate was denied

admission, the prosecution failed to prove that the private
complainant sustained physical injury which led to the filing of
the case.

Lack of evidence

The prosecution’s admitted pieces of evidence are the

Complaint Affidavit of the private complainant (Exhibit A),
Certificate to File Action (Exhibit B), ID of the private
complainant (Exhibit E), and affidavit of Alicia Dela Cruz Laco
(Exhibit H).

In the complaint affidavit of the private complainant, she

mentioned that they were five (5) people on the way to Ms.
Mylenn’s house, to wit: her aunt Alicia Dela Cruz Laco, her friend
Jenina Mercado Vinasoy, Brgy. Councilor Edwin Mercado Millo,
and Brgy. Tanod Eduardo Buenaflor Nocos. (par. 12, page 6 of the
Court Record). Of all available witnesses that can testify as to
what actually transpired, private complainant brought her aunt as
her collaborating witness, which may create a bias impression.

Private complainant and Alicia Dela Cruz Laco testified in

court that there was no previous misunderstanding between the
family of LARAINE R. MANGLICMOT and the accused except on
the incident of the failure on the part of the private complainant
to give a bilo-bilo to the accused and as plain and simple as that.

The prosecution did not present Brgy. Councilor Edwin

Mercado Millo, and Brgy. Tanod Eduardo Buenaflor Nocos to
shed light as to what actually transpired since their participation
is equally important as mentioned in the paragraph 11 of the
complaint affidavit:

“I decided to go their house and settle the matter with Ms.

Mylenn. Fearing for my life and in order for the meeting to be at
peace, I decided to ask for the barangay officials’ assistance and
protection, Mr. Edwin Mercado Millo, Brgy. Councilor, and Mr.

4
PP vs. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS
Criminal Case No. 4522-L
For Slight Physical Injury
Eduardo Buenaflor Nocos, Brgy. Tanod, assisted us in this would
be meeting.”

It is also noteworthy that there is only one accused in this

case, compare to the five persons who went to her place.
Considering the presence of the two Barangay Officials, it is
highly impossible that the accused went crazy and attack
LARAINE R. MANGLICMOT because of the simple “bilo-bilo”
issue and despite the presence of these five companions.

CONCLUSION

By failing to establish the element of the slight physical

injury and lack of evidence, it suffices as a ground for acquittal.

Without a doubt, the prosecution failed. The accused must

be acquitted.

PRAYERS

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that this demurrer to evidence be GRANTED and an order be
issued ACQUITTING the accused based on insufficiency of
evidence, and failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Palayan City, October 8, 2024.

Public Attorney’s Office

Palayan City District Office
Kabisera Bldg., City Hall Compound, Palayan City
Counsel for the Accused

By:

Atty. Rhodalice Michelle S. Viernes-Garcia

Public Attorney III
Roll No. 64331
IBP NO. 413804 / January 10, 2024
MCLE Compliance No. VIII - 0001569 / January 12, 2023

NOTICE OF HEARING

Branch Clerk of Court

MCTC- Laur and Gabaldon
Nueva Ecija

5
PP vs. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS
Criminal Case No. 4522-L
For Slight Physical Injury
 Greetings! Please submit the foregoing Demurrer to
Evidence on October 23, 2024 to the kind consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court without further oral argument.

Atty. Rhodalice Michelle S. Viernes-Garcia

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence was served by

registered mail due to distance and lack of personnel to effect
personal service.

Atty. Rhodalice Michelle S. Viernes-Garcia

Copy Furnished:

Pros. Gerald B. Dela Cruz

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Cabanatuan City

6
PP vs. MYLENN LUMIBAO y RAMOS
Criminal Case No. 4522-L
For Slight Physical Injury