Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Demurrer To Evidence Sample
Demurrer To Evidence Sample
We are sharing a demurrer to evidence in a criminal case that our law office
prepared for legal research purposes of our readers.
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
I. THE INFORMATIONS.
1.1. The felony was allegedly committed on 8 July 2010 in Xxx City.
1.8. The accused X X X X allegedly “failed to attain” all the elements of the
felony charged.
1.9. The accused X X X X allegedly “(created) fear and anxiety in the mind (of
X X X X ) that the threat will be carried out”
2. GRAVE COERCION (First Count). - The Information for the first count of
GRAVE COERCION against the accused X X X X and his co-accused X X X X ,
docketed as Crim. Case No. M-PSY- xxx-CR, alleges that:
2.1. The first count[ii] of the felony of GRAVE COERCION was allegedly
committed by the two accused X X X X and X X X X on 15 May 2010 allegedly in
Xxx City against the same private complainant X X X X .
2.2. The two accused allegedly acted in CONSPIRACY with each other.
2.3. The two accused allegedly acted “without any authority of law”.
3.1. The second count[iii] of the felony of GRAVE COERCION was allegedly
committed by the two accused X X X X and X X X X on (the earlier date of) 30
April 2010 in Xxx City against the same private complainant X X X X .
3.2. The two accused allegedly acted in CONSPIRACY with each other.
3.3. The two accused allegedly acted “without any authority of law”.
A. WITNESSESES.
2. X X X X testified on various dates: February 15, 2012, June 25, 2012, September
5, 2012, December 12, 2012, February 18, 2013, July 15, 2013, February 19, 2014, June
23, 2014, February 11, 2015.
4.7. The incorporators of xxx met to look for financing. Accused X X X X , vice
president, referred his friend, i.e., accused X X X X .
4.10. Ten Percent (10%) was deducted from the loan, or P100,000.00, as
Commission for accused X X X X .
But X X X X did not give any concrete details and credible proofs thereof.
But X X X X did not give any concrete details and credible proofs of the “force”
allegedly inflicted on him by X X X X .
Aside from his bare allegations, X X X X did not offer any credible proof of the
alleged “threat” by the two accused.
4.20. X X X X alleged that X X X X “poked his gun” and told him to pay
P500,000.00 on May 15, 2010. He left for fear that the accused would “kill” him.
After April 30, 2010, X X X X allegedly continued to “threaten” X X X X .
X X X X did not offer any credible proofs of such “threat to kill” him nor the
concrete details thereof.
X X X X did not state where the incident took place for criminal jurisdiction
purposes.
Aside from his bare allegation, X X X X did not offer concrete details and credible
proofs proving the alleged “threat” of X X X X .
5.3. On June 25, 2010, X X X X and his wife went to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) in Manila because they were allegedly “under threat” to file a
complaint.
5.4. X X X X alleged that on July 3, 2010 X X X X called him up and asked for
a meeting and that the NBI set up a meeting and entrapment operation on July 8,
2010. X X X X alleged that X X X X called him up “to sit down” (discuss and
resolve the unpaid loan issue) with the board of directors of X X X X , namely,
accused X X X X , X X X X , X X X X , xxx, and himself (X X X X ). X X X X
alleged that X X X X “was forcing” him to pay P438,000.00 for the balance of the
loan. X X X X coordinated with the NBI to set up the entrapment against the two
accused X X X X and X X X X . He executed an affidavit at the NBI before agent
xxx.
5.5. X X X X set up the entrapment operation at McDonald Restaurant on
Macapagal Ave., Xxx City on July 8, 2010.
5.7. X X X X alleged that X X X X told him that he had to pay the latter
P438,000.00. He told X X X X he had no more money because he had previously
paid him P800,000.00. X X X X asked his fellow directors X X X X and X X X X
“how we will settle” the said amount. X X X X alleged that his fellow director X X
X X was “forcing me to pay by myself only”. X X X X rejected it because he had no
more money. X X X X alleged that X X X X “showed me the gun he was carrying
tucked on his waistline” and told him, “Babaunan nya ako ng bala sa ulo”.
Note that, as per X X X X , X X X X did not pull out his gun or placed on the table
or performed any threatening act.
5.9. The three were arrested and brought to and interrogated at the NBI
Manila. A Cal. 45 was recovered “from the waist” of X X X X , as per X X X X .
Note that X X X X did not testify that X X X X pulled out his gun or pointed it to
him.
Note that X X X X did not explain why X X X X alone was referred by the NBI to
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Xxx City to be indicted via inquest and why X
X X X was freed by the NBI while X X X X was freed after six days of detention.
6. Testimony of X X X X Given on September 5, 2012. (Cross examination by
Atty. xxx , counsel for accused X X X X ). - – The testimony of X X X X given on
September 5, 2012 basically shows that:
Six persons were present during the signing of the loan agreement: X X X X
(president), accused X X X X (vice president), X X X X (treasurer), X X X X
(director), accused X X X X and X X X X (loan arranger [?]). All were signatories
to the documents.
6.3. The chattel mortgagor was X X X X (whose car was the security). The
mortgagees, as per the documents, were X X X X and X X X X . He did not explain
the legal basis why X X X X became a mortgagee.
6.4. After signing the documents on February 12, 2010, X X X X (as president
of debtor X X X X ) received the P1,000,000.00 in cash from X X X X and X X X X .
Then, he released P100,000.00 to X X X X as commission.
6.5. Note that during this cross examination on this particular date nothing
was offered by X X X X showing the alleged criminal guilt of accused X X X X .
7.2. On the said date, place and time X X X X was with accused X X X X ,
COL. Xxx, COL. Xxx and accused X X X X .
X X X X went there with accused X X X X . X X X X arrived after two hours. As a
bar, it was dimly lighted. It had many tables. It was as big as the courtroom. There
was one security guard at the gate. There were many waiters.
That was the date, time and place where X X X X paid X X X X the amount of
P300,000.00 allegedly from his own money, covered by a voucher which was
signed by X X X X .
Nothing happened on May 15, 2010 except that he gave the check to X X X X for
delivery to X X X X , as per X X X X .
8.1. X X X X alleged that on April 30, 2010 from 7:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight of
the next day at Della Baia Restaurant both accused X X X X and X X X X told
him, “Kung di mo babayran may paglalagyan ka.” He alleged that both accused
said “something like that” and “magkasunod.”
X X X X alleged that the two accused were always calling him to collect, thus, in
the morning of said date, he withdrew P300,000.00 to pay X X X X in the evening
of said date at the said venue.
He claimed that the colonels, sitting nearby, did not know what was happening.
He alleged that, prior to that date, “every day I (was) being threatened” by the two
accused to pay.
X X X X did not offer any concrete details and positive proofs of the alleged “daily
threats”.
As per X X X X , they were all occupying ONE TABLE (contrary to the earlier
statement of X X X X that the two colonels occupied a separate table, five meters
away). They are all having a “kwentuhan” on one table. The others were drinking
beer. He was drinking pineapple juice.
X X X X alleged the P300,000 he paid X X X X on April 30, 2010 came from his
own pocket (from his joint xxx account with his wife).
9.5. After the April 30, 2010 incident, X X X X did not talk with anybody
about it (which was a strange behavior for a victim of an alleged crime).
In fine, X X X X alleged that on April 30, 2010 the gun used by X X X X was a Cal.
22 and that during the entrapment on July 8, 2010 the gun used by X X X X was a
Cal. 45. A glaring contradiction.
9.9. X X X X allegedly asked for the July 8, 2010 meeting. X X X X stated that
he coordinated with his directors to attend it.
10.4. He promised to produce the minutes and other corporate records. This
promise was not performed by X X X X until the prosecution rested its case.
Note that X X X X , in failing to present the same despite a promise in open court,
can be presumed to have intentionally hidden the same because, if presented, they
would be adverse to his claim of criminal guilt on the part of accused X X X X .
10.5. X X X X did not even know the last name of his Corporate Secretary (xxx),
a strange behavior on the part of a company president. He had to be assisted by his
own records.
11.3. X X X X likewise did not ask a lawyer to serve such a demand letter to the
directors of X X X X .
11.4. X X X X failed to perform his promise to the Court to bring the corporate
records of the P1,000,000.00 loan of X X X X to X X X X and its records of
payments, etc.
11.5. After four long years, i.e., 2010 to 2014, X X X X had not taken legal actions
to compel the X X X X directors to reimburse him the P800,000.00 from his “own
pocket” that had paid to X X X X . His excuse was “nagkakagulo na”.
11.6. X X X X had not commenced an action with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to liquidate X X X X (“inactive” corporation) to recover from
its assets, if any, the amount of P800,000.00 that he had paid X X X X allegedly
out of his own pocket.
11.7. As to the alleged incident on April 30, 2010 for grave coercion, as per X X X
X , he met X X X X at the site (Delia Baia Restaurant) at 8:30 PM to 9:00 PM. X X
X X arrived at 7:00 PM with X X X X “and friends” (two colonels, a driver, and
another unknown person). X X X X , X X X X , and X X X X talked. After thirty
minutes, they moved to separate table, away from the two colonels, by five meters.
This time, X X X X claimed the venue was twice as big as the courtroom (contrary
to his past testimony that it was as big as the courtroom).
11.8. X X X X said the two colonels were retired. He did not know if they were
carrying guns.
11.9. X X X X alleged that X X X X put his gun on the table to coerce him “to
pay another P500,000.00.”
If he was afraid, why did he spend five hours up to midnight to be with the
accused X X X X and X X X X ?
11.14. Other that his bare allegation, X X X X offered no proofs to prove the
alleged “conspiracy” and “force” exerted upon his person by X X X X and X X X X
to benefit X X X X other than the following acts: (a) Going to his home to collect;
(b) Calling his phone to collect; (c) “threatening” his family (without offering the
concrete details and proofs thereof); (d) texting him daily to collect; (e) and the
like.
11.16. X X X X did not report/blotter in his local barangay or in his local police
station in xxx City the alleged act of “banging the gate” of his house, “threatening
his family”, or “threatening visit” to his house. They do not appear as allegations in
the Informations of the instant cases.
11.17. X X X X admitted he did not report to the NBI the April 30, 2010 incident
and the May 15, 2010 incident which are the subject matters of the instant cases.
He claimed the excuse of fear for such inaction.
It took him two months to do so (which led to the NBI entrapment on July 8,
2010). He admitted he reported to the NBI only on June 25 to 28, 2010.
11.18. X X X X did not report to the police the April 30, 2010 (when P300,000.00
was paid to X X X X ). He freely paid a P500,000.00 check to X X X X on May 15,
2010 without seeking police assistance. His excuse was “fear”. Other th this bare
allegation, no concrete proofs exist to prove the same.
12.2. As in the case of the grave threat charge that allegedly happened on May 15,
2010 at TRINOMA, Quezon City, covered by Criminal Case No. M-PSY-10-12415-
CR (which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of this Court), X X X X admitted, in
re: the case of grave coercion on April 30, 2010 (Criminal Case No. M-PSY-X X X X
), that he did not report the grave coercion incident to
12.3. X X X X stated that he reported to the NBI after “two weeks”, contrary to
his past testimony that he reported the matter only after “two months” (which led
to the NBI entrapment on July 8, 2010).
12.5. But X X X X admitted he was not present during the May 15, 2010 incident
because he merely P500,000.00 to X X X X thru X X X X . He alleged that X X X X
said those words via phone call – which is not alleged in the Information and is in
fact contrary to the allegation in the Information that those words were spoken by
X X X X in person frontally in the presence of X X X X .
Note that, in a past testimony, X X X X stated that the May 15, 2010 incident
happened in TRINOMA, which is in Quezon City, outside the jurisdiction of this
Court.
12.6. X X X X this time alleged that he did not know where X X X X paid the
P500,000.00 check to X X X X , contrary to his past testimony that it happened at
TRINOMA, Quezon City. He was not sure whether is happened in Xxx City,
contrary to the allegation in the Information.
12.7. X X X X further confused the facts by stating that the threatening words
were spoken to him “by telephone….at McDonald’s” on “July 8, 2010 when he (X X
X X ) was arrested” by the NBI in an entrapment. (TSN, Feb. 11, 2015, p.16). Then,
when asked by the Court, X X X X changed track and said that X X X X spoke
those words by phone before May 15, 2010 when he (X X X X ) was outside his
house and at McDonald’s on May 15, 2010 in the presence of X X X X , X X X X
and his driver. When asked when the grave coercion happened, again X X X X
changed track (Id., p. 18) and said that is happened on July 8, 2010 (NBI
entrapment, which is not the subject matter of the instant cases).
12.9. X X X X did not see a lawyer to issue a cease and desist demand letter to X
X X X . He instead went to the INBI. That was on June 25 to 28, 2010.
12.14. X X X X admitted that the May 15, 2010 incident between him and X X X X
actually did no happen at McDonald’s and that what happened at McDonald’s was
the July 8, 2010 NBI entrapment which is not a subject matter in the instant cases.
12.15. X X X X affirmed (Id., page 25) that the May 15, 2010 incident did not
happen in person between him and X X X X at McDonald’s --- but only “by
phone”.
He was not in Xxx City (this Court’s jurisdiction) when he received an alleged
allegedly threatening phone call from X X X X on May 15, 2010.
12.16. X X X X admitted that the alleged incident on June 14, 2010 at his house
when X X X X , X X X X , “John Doe”, and Police Officer xxx was never reported
by him to the local Barangay nor
did he file a criminal complaint in the local Police Station or in the Office of the
City Prosecutor of xxx City.
He admitted that the NBI did not file a criminal case against X X X X based on the
alleged June 14, 2010 incident (which, incidentally, is not a subject matter of the
instant cases).
13.1. X X X X stated that sometime in July 2010 (he later stated in was on the
8th day) a meeting was held among himself, X X X X , X X X X , and X X X X . X X
X X arrived late by thirty minutes. The meeting started around 3:00 PM. The
venue was McDonald’s, Macapagal Ace., Xxx City.
Then, X X X X told the rest of the group to eat the meals already on the table. The
atmosphere was friendly, quiet and non-violent.
At any rate, X X X X did not categorically state that X X X X pulled out a gun.
X X X X affirmed that he did not see X X X X pull out a gun and banged it on the
table.
He stated that they had not yet eaten when the NBI agents arrested them. The
commotion came from the agents, not from X X X X or any one from their group,
which was then eating peacefully.
X X X X was handcuffed by the agents. He stayed at the NBI for five hours for an
interrogation.
He stated that he had no prior knowledge of the NBI entrapment that day.
Note that the testimony of X X X X referred only to the July 8, 2010 incident
subject matter of Crim. Case No. M-PSY-xxx-CR for alleged grave threat against
XXXX.
13.6. In closing, he testified that he did not hear X X X X issue violent threats
against X X X X and/or pull out a gun and banged it on the table during the July 8,
2010 meeting at McDonald’s.
14. The exhibits for the prosecution consisted of corporate or business records of X
X X X and the self-serving affidavits of X X X X , et al., and other similar
documents.
15. Of the many affiants in the exhibits, only X X X X and X X X X testified. The
NBI agents did not testify, as earlier stated.
16.The ORDER, dated November 9, 2016, of the Court admitted in evidence the
exhibits of the prosecution only as to the EXISTENCE thereof BUT NOT AS TO
THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY WERE BEING OFFERED.
17. For reference, the accused hereby quotes in full hereinbelow his “COMMENT
(To: PROSECUTION’S “FORMAL OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS”)”,
dated November 3, 2016, to stress his assertion of the inadmissibility of the
exhibits of the prosecution and the purposes for which they were being offered, to
wit:
“x x x.
I. X x x.
1. Xxx.
2. Xxx
3. Xxx
4. Xxx
5. Xxx
6. Xxx.
II. COMMENT PROPER
7. Re: Exhibit “A”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
7.1. 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.
8. Re: Exhibit “B”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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. 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 X X X X
made threatening calls to and poked a gun at the private complainant.
8.3. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that
the original was offered to the Court for the record.
9. Re: Exhibit “C”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
9.2. 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 X X X X poked a gun at the private complainant or that the two accused
X X X X and X X X X had conspired.
9.3. 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 X X X X of illegal possession of
firearms filed by the NBI against the accused X X X X , per its AMENDED
DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due time shall be presented in
evidence by the accused X X X X .
10. Re: Exhibit “D”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
10.2. 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 X X X X banged loudly on the gate of the home of the private
complainant, that the accused X X X X poked a gun at the private complainant
and that the two accused X X X X and X X X X had conspired.
10.3. The affiant IRENE X X X X 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 X X X X .
11. Re: Exhibit “E”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
11.2. 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 X X X X threatened the life of the private complainant and his family, that
the private complainant did not freely mortgaged his car to the accused X X X X ,
and that the accused X X X X issued the threatening words quoted in the said
Salaysay.
11.3. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that
the original was offered to the Court for the record.
12. Re: Exhibit “F”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
12.2. 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 X X X X made threatening phone calls to the private complainant, that
the accused X X X X poked a gun at the private complainant, and that the two
accused X X X X and X X X X had conspired.
12.4. 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.
12.5. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that
the original was offered to the Court for the record.
13. Re: Exhibit “G”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
13.4. The three affiants, who are NBI agents, namely, xxx x xxx xxxx xxxx, 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.
14. Re: Exhibit “H”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
14.2. 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 X
X X X poked a gun on the private complainant.
14.4. 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.
15. Re: Exhibit “I”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
15.2. 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 X X
X X 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.
16. Re: Exhibits “J”, “K”, and “L”, with submarkings, of the Offer, which are Cash
Vouchers and Bank Deposit Slips, the accused X X X X 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 X X X X .
16.1. 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.
17. Re: Exhibits “M”, “O”, and “P”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X
X X X 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.
17.1. 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 Guevarra as part of his transmittal letter to the Chief Prosecutor of
Xxx City.
18. Re: Exhibit “Q”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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.
19. Re: Exhibit “R” (Letter of Understanding), with submarkings, of the Offer, the
accused X X X X 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.
19.1. 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.
20. Re: Exhibit “S”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X X X X 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).
20.1. 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.
21. Re: Exhibit “U”, ”V”, and “W”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused X
X X X 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 (are) extraneous, irrelevant
and immaterial to the crimes of threat and coercion charged in the instant cases.
22. Re: Exhibit “X” (judicial affidavit of X X X X ), with submarkings, of the Offer,
the accused X X X X 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.
X x x.”
III. ISSUE.
Whether or not the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
the herein accused-movant ENGR. X X X X for the felonies of GRAVE THREAT
and GRAVE COERCION.
19.The complete provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the various kinds of the
felonies of Grave Threats and Grave Coercions are covered by Article 282 to
Article 289 thereof. The said provisions are reproduced in full hereinbelow, for
reference, to wit:
“x x x.
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be
threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money
or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall
have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the
penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat
shall not have been made subject to a condition.
Article 283. Light threats. - Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a
crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article,
shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Article 284. Bond for good behavior. - In all cases falling within the two next
preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give bail
not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be
sentenced to destierro.
Article 285. Other light threats. - The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum
period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding
article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel,
unless it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some
harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not
persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the
offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a
felony.
Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of
law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any
religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree
shall be imposed.
Article 287. Light coercions. - Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75
pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due
a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than
the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.
20. As to the charge of Grave Threat, pursuant to Article 263 of the Penal
Code, the crime of Serious Physical Injury is punishable by a penalty ranging from
Arresto Mayor to Prision Mayor, depending on the attending circumstances.
Relating Article 263 to Article 282 on the felony of Grave Threat, the latter article
imposes the penalty “next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
crime (the offender) threatened to commit”.
21. As to elements of and penalty for the felony of Grave Coercion, Article 286
provides that “the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means
of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong”.
V. APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.
Moral certainty has been defined as "a certainty that convinces and satisfies the
reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it" (People vs. Lavarias, 23
SCRA 1301 [1967]). Absent the moral certainty that accused-appellant caused the
death of the victim, acquittal perforce follows.
23. The accused X X X X humbly submits that HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN
PROVEN PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten
men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one
innocent man for a crime he did not commit. [En Banc, Melo, People v. Tagudar
[G.R. No. 130588. June 8, 2000].
By analogy, the spirit of the ruling made by the Supreme Court in the case cited
below is instructive: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CORDENCIO CHATTO
alias "DENDEN," SATURNINO DAGAYANON, AND SIX (6) OTHER JOHN
DOES, CORDENCIO CHATTO, G.R. No. 102704, March 10, 1993.
The Supreme Court held in that case that “it is a basic rule in our criminal justice
system that penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the offender”. The
foregoing analogous decision of the Supreme Court should be applied to the herein
Accused in the interest of compassionate natural justice and equity.
Another analogous case on the doctrine of compassionate justice is: Pinero etc. vs.
NLRC, et. al., GR 149610, August 20, 2004, cited in J. Sison, “A Law Each Day”,
Philippine Star, October 14, 2004.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that “equity is justice outside the law, being
ethical rather than juridical and belonging to the sphere of morals than of law”;
that “it is grounded on the precepts of conscience and not on any sanction of
positive law”.
In that case, the worker had no previous derogatory records (like the herein
accused X X X X ). The Supreme Court held that “weighed in the scales of justice,
conscience and reason tip in favor of granting financial assistance to support him
in the twilight of his life after long years of service; that “social and compassionate
justice dictate that Lino be awarded financial assistance; and that “indeed, equities
of this case should be accorded due weight because labor law determinations are
not only secundum rationem (according to reason) but also secundum caritatem
(according to charitable heart).”
VI. CONCLUSION.
VII. X x x.
VIII. PRAYER.