Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MR Re Denial of Leave

    Uploaded by

    John Jason Narsico Albrecht
    78 views3 pages
    The motion requests reconsideration of a resolution denying leave to file a demurrer to evidence in a case of alleged falsification of a public document. It argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the signature on the deed of exchange was forged, as no witness testified that the signature was different from standard samples or forged by another person. As one of the elements of falsification is forging a signature, and this was not proven, a demurrer is appropriate. The motion asks the court to reconsider and grant leave to file the demurrer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    MR re denial of leave

    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 motion requests reconsideration of a resolution denying leave to file a demurrer to evidence in a case of alleged falsification of a public document. It argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the signature on the deed of exchange was forged, as no witness testified that the signature was different from standard samples or forged by another person. As one of the elements of falsification is forging a signature, and this was not proven, a demurrer is appropriate. The motion asks the court to reconsider and grant leave to file the demurrer.

    Copyright:

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

    MR Re Denial of Leave

    Uploaded by

    John Jason Narsico Albrecht
    The motion requests reconsideration of a resolution denying leave to file a demurrer to evidence in a case of alleged falsification of a public document. It argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the signature on the deed of exchange was forged, as no witness testified that the signature was different from standard samples or forged by another person. As one of the elements of falsification is forging a signature, and this was not proven, a demurrer is appropriate. The motion asks the court to reconsider and grant leave to file the demurrer.

    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

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES


    Ninth Judicial Region
    Branch 4, Zamboanga City

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case Nos. 39-48261-3940


    Plaintiff,
    - for -
    - versus -
    FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
    MARINA U. TAN and MICHAEL TAN, DOCUMENT (Art. 172, RPC)
    Accused.

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    COME NOW, Accused through undersigned counsel, before the Honorable

    Court, respectfully file herein motion for reconsideration of the RESOLUTION dated 27

    October 27, 2011, copy of which was received on 28 October 2011, on the ground that:

    THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION DOES NOT PROVE


    THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF FALSIFICATION
    UNDER ARTICLE 172 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, WERE
    PRESENT.

    DISCUSSION

    In the subject Resolution, the Honorable Court held that:

    “Without a discussion on the elements of the crime vis-à-vis the


    prosecution’s evidence, the accused-movant has not convinced the court of
    the merit of its Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence”

    Assuming without admitting that there was no such discussion on the elements of

    the offense, the accused-movant through counsel during the hearing of the Motion for

    Leave of Court, did point out that none of the evidence presented by the Prosecution

    pointed out to the fact that the purported signature of Mario Tan on the Deed of

    Exchange (Exhibit “CCC”) was forged or written by another person.

    Luis B. Reyes, in his book The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 17th Edition (2008),

    p. 232, has discussed that the following requisites must concur, in order to convict a

    person of the crime of falsification of a public document penalized under Article 172 of

    the RPC, to wit:

    (1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who
    took advantage of his official position;

    (2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article 171 of
    the Revised Penal Code (which in this case involves forging a signature);

    (3) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial


    document.
    The second element as above cited, clearly requires that a signature must be

    forged. Not only alleged, but also proven.

    Even a careful examination of the prosecution’s evidence, reveals that not a

    single witness testified to say that the signature of Mario Tan was forged. Neither an

    ordinary witness who was familiar with Mario’s signature, nor an expert witness who

    could have testified that the subject signature was different from a set of accepted

    standard signatures.

    From this alone, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused

    beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, a Demurrer is in order.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable

    Court to RECONSIDER the subject Resolution and GRANT Accused leave to file a

    Demurrer to Prosecution’s Evidence.

    Such other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

    Zamboanga City, Philippines, 14 November 2011.

    LINDA E. LIM LAW OFFICES


    Counsel for the Accused
    3rd Level, Edificio Costal
    Corcuera St., Zamboanga City

    By:

    GIOVANNI L. LUISTRO
    PTR No. 0346120, January 3, 2011. Z.C.
    IBP Life Member No. 00320
    Roll of Attorneys No. 40025
    MCLE Compliance No. III-0002967, 7 April 2009

    NOTICE

    The Clerk of Court


    MTC 4, Zamboanga City

    PROS. ARNEL MARAVILLA

    Greetings!

    Please take notice that the undersigned is setting the foregoing motion for
    hearing on 18 November 2011, at 2:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as counsel may be
    heard for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court.

    ATTY. GIOVANNI L. LUISTRO

    Copy furnished

    APA ARNEL E. MARAVILLA


    CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
    Hall of Justice, Sta. Barbara
    Zamboanga City

    You might also like