Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Opposition To Demurrer

    Uploaded by

    bobbyricky
    43 views3 pages
    The prosecution opposes the accused's motion for demurrer in a piracy case. It argues that 1) it has sufficiently proven the elements of the crime of piracy under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code by showing that the accused boarded the vessel without authority and was not a member of the crew or passenger, and seized personal belongings; and 2) proof of specific items lost by passengers is not necessary for prosecution or conviction of piracy. The prosecution prays that the motion for demurrer be denied.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Opposition to Demurrer.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The prosecution opposes the accused's motion for demurrer in a piracy case. It argues that 1) it has sufficiently proven the elements of the crime of piracy under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code by showing that the accused boarded the vessel without authority and was not a member of the crew or passenger, and seized personal belongings; and 2) proof of specific items lost by passengers is not necessary for prosecution or conviction of piracy. The prosecution prays that the motion for demurrer be denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    43 views3 pages

    Opposition To Demurrer

    Uploaded by

    bobbyricky
    The prosecution opposes the accused's motion for demurrer in a piracy case. It argues that 1) it has sufficiently proven the elements of the crime of piracy under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code by showing that the accused boarded the vessel without authority and was not a member of the crew or passenger, and seized personal belongings; and 2) proof of specific items lost by passengers is not necessary for prosecution or conviction of piracy. The prosecution prays that the motion for demurrer be denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Maria Christina E.

    Gaviola, 3B

    Republic of the Philippines


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
    National Capital Region
    Branch 13-Makati City

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


    Plaintiff,
    Criminal Case No. 013
    - versus - For: Piracy

    PEPE PAWIKAN,
    Accused.
    x ---------------------------------------- x

    OPPOSITION
    [TO THE MOTION FOR DEMURRER]

    PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully opposes the motion of plaintiff for

    demurrer, and in support of such opposition do hereby states:

    1. On 27 April 2008, plaintiff received a copy of defendant’s Motion for

    Demurrer [“Motion”].

    2. Defendant prays that this Honorable Court order the acquittal of the

    accused of the crime of Piracy on the ground that the prosecution has failed to show

    that the passengers actually lost specific belongings and that absent proof of any loss

    on the part of any of the passengers, the claim of violation of Article 122 of the

    Revised Penal Code on Piracy is untenable.

    3. There is no doubt that plaintiff was able to sufficiently prove by

    evidence that accused committed the crime of Piracy and showing the elements of the

    crime under Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code:


    3.1 Accused boarded the vessel without authority

    3.2 Accused is not a member of the vessel’s complement nor a

    passenger

    3.3 Accused seized the personal belongings of its complement or

    passengers.

    4. Proof of the specific items lost by passengers is immaterial to

    prosecution or conviction of the crime of Piracy.

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Accused PEPE PAWIKAN’s

    Motion for Demurrer be denied.

    Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

    Makati City, 1 February 2008.

    ALLAN SHORE
    Public Prosecutor
    City Prosecutor’s Office,
    Makati City Hall,
    Makati City

    COPY FURNISHED:

    DANNY CRANE
    Counsel for Defendant
    15th Floor Sagittarius Building
    H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village
    Makati City

    JUSTIFICATION ON SERVICE BY MAIL

    2
    Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, defendants Orion I, Felipe
    U. Yap, David C. Go, Yuen Po Seng, Daisy Parker and Ronald P. Sugapong
    respectfully manifest that a copy of this Opposition was served by registered mail in
    lieu of personal service because of the distances involved unavailability of
    messengers and for reasons of economy.

    ALLAN SHORE

    You might also like