1

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
Ninth Judicial Region
Branch 20
Pagadian City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff

- versus Crim. Case No. 11811-2014

For: Murder

JULITO JUNTILLA a.k.a Junjun

CRISANTO SUSUSCO a.k.a Antoy
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE WITH LEAVE OF COURT

ACCUSED CRISANTO SUSUSCO, through counsel unto this

Honorable Court, pursuant to the order in open court on December 5, 2019
granting leave of court in favor of the accused to file demurrer to evidence
most respectfully moves for the dismissal of this case by way of demurrer to
evidence on the ground that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Where the state fails to meet the quantum of proof

required to overcome the constitutional presumption, the
accused is entitled to acquittal, regardless of the weakness or
even the absence of his defense, for any conviction must rest
on the strength of the prosecution's case and not on the
weakness of the defense." 59 Here, without the confession of
the appellant, the presumption of innocence prevails.

This principle is well-articulated in People v. Mejia. 60

"In our jurisdiction accusation is not synonymous with guilt.
The freedom of the accused is forfeit[ed] only if the requisite
quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence.
This, of course, requires the most careful scrutiny of the
evidence for the State, both oral and documentary,
independent of whatever defense is offered by the accused.
Every circumstance favoring the accused's innocence must be
duly taken into account. The proof against the accused must
 2

survive the test of reason. Strongest suspicion must not be

permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied
that on the accused could be laid the responsibility for the
offense charged. If the prosecution fails to discharge the
burden, then it is not only the accused's right to be freed; it is,
even more, the court's constitutional duty to acquit him
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DOMINGO R.
MULETA," G.R. No. 130189 June 25, 1999)

TIMELINESS

On December 5, 2019, the Honorable Court granted in open court

the accused Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence and gave
the latter ten (10) days from that day to file the Demurrer to Evidence.
Considering that the tenth day falls on Sunday, then the Demurrer to
Evidence is due on December 16, 2019. Hence, this Demurrer to Evidence is
timely filed.

GROUND:

I.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE

THE CRIME AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION AND THE GUILT OF
THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. THERE IS NO EYE-
WITNESS AND DIRECT EVIDENCE AGAINST HEREIN ACCUSED.

II.

THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF

CONSPIRACY.

III.
ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION ARE MERE HEARSAY,
SELF- SERVING AND INCREDIBLE, THUS INADMISSIBLE AND DO
NOT DESERVE ANY SCANT CONSIDERATION

DISCUSSION

As to the first issue.

The information charged the following:

“That on or about 10:00 0’clock in the evening of July 22,

2014 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto at Barangay Sto.
Nino, Tukuran Province of Zamboanga Del Sur, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Julito
Juntilla a.k.a Junjun and Crisanto Sususco A.k.a Antoy
 3

conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other with

intent to kill one Primitivo Salabas Mutia a.k.a Dodo Mutia, an old
man who is 77 years old, with abuse of superior strength, did and
there, willfully and unlawfully, feloniously attack, assault and use
physical violence upon Primitivo Salabas Mutia a.k.a Dodo Mutia,
as a result, victim suffered severe traumatic brain injury and head
trauma which resulted to his death, to the great damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the victim

That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the

offended victim”

It is significant to state that there is no EYE-WITNESS or DIRECT

EVIDENCE pointing to accused Sususco that he has committed the crime
charged. In fact, not a single witness of the prosecution has testified
to any incident that allegedly took place on or before 10:00 o’clock
in the evening of July 22, 2014 involving alleged attack, assault
and physical violence upon Primitivo Mutia in his dwelling. This
circumstance is missing in the entire evidence of the prosecution.
What was only testified to was the body of the victim was found
unconscious in his dwelling at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon on
July 23, 2019. In short allegations in the information were not
proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The only documentary evidence offered by the prosecution is

Certificate of Death, where it indicated ALLEGED MAULING as the
underlying cause. The doctor, with due respect merely relied on the hearsay
statements of the persons who brought him to the hospital. There was
stipulation as to the existence of the document and there was also a counter
stipulation that no MRI and Ultrasound were conducted on the
victim. Hence as to how the doctor came about her findings, the same is
doubtful and questionable.

The prosecution presented the following witnesses (based on the TSN

requested by the accused)

1. Eduardo Rendula (Rendula for brevity) – the purpose of his

testimony is to prove that he is a resident of Barangay Sto. Nino,
Tukuran Zamboanga Del Sur, that he knows very well the victim in
this case Primitivo Mutia and he knows very well the accused in this
case Julito Juntilla and Crisanto Sususco, that sometimes on July
23, 2014 at Pondoyo Store both accused Juntilla and Sususco are
working as attendant in that Store and when he went to the store
the two confided to him that they mauled Dodo Mutia, the victim in
this case. Because of his familiarity of the two accused, he will
identify them in open. Court.
 4

Clearly, Rendula is not an eye-witness to the crime alleged in the

information. Basically, his testimony is a hearsay. As to if it falls on the
exception, it is but paramount to scrutinize every detail of his testimony in
connection to the testimony of the other witnesses. He testified that allegedly
Juntilla and Sususco mauled the old man.

Before delving into the Affidavit and Testimony of Rendula, let us first
answer

IS THE TESTIMONY OF RENDULA CREDIBLE IN ITSELF? IS THIS

REALLY A CONFESSION UNDER OUR JURISDICTION?

The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BENIE MON Y
ABARIDES @ “BALENTO,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.G.R. No.
235778, November 21, 2018

The Court has held that “[s]elf-contradictions and

inconsistencies on a very material and substantial matter seriously
erode the credibility of a witness.”[43] As held in People v. Amon:[44]
For evidence to be believed “must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in
itself — such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances. There is no test of the
truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our
knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever is
repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is
outside of judicial cognizance.”[45]

In the instant case, the testimony of Manolo, the lone

eyewitness presented by the prosecution, contains contradictions
on material points. The shooting incident happened at the early
hours of the morning, at 3:00 a.m. to be exact, which means that it
was still dark when the victim was shot. In this regard, Manolo was
not even sure as to the lighting condition during the shooting
incident:
What was the lighting condition of the place, Mr.
Q
Witness?
A Its bright Sir, just like this (witness referring to the
lighting condition of the courtroom) because there is
light in the canteen Sir.[46]

xxxx

Q Can you tell us again the lighting condition of the place?

 5

A A it’s a little dim compare to this lights Ma’am (witness

referring to the lighting condition inside the courtroom)
but its really bright Ma’am inside the store Ma’am.[47]

Also, contrary to his statement in his Pinagsamang Sinumpaang

Salaysay, Manolo’s testimony in open court was that he did not
actually witness the poking of the gun at the neck of Uldarico:
Q Mr. Witness, may I direct your attention to paragraph 3
of this Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein you
stated that “na, ang mga oras ay ganap na alas 3:00 ng
umaga, ika-2 ng Mayo 2010, habang kami kasama si
Bantay Bayan Uldarico Arroyo ay nagkakape sa isang
tindahan hindi sa kalayuan sa aming outpost na
matatagpuan sa block 40, Paradise Court, Brgy.
Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City, ay may isang taong
sumulpot sa may gawing likuran naming at walang
anu-ano ay binunot ang kanyang dala-dalang hindi pa
mabatid na kalibre ng baril at pagkatapos itinutok
ito sa kanang bahaging leeg ni bantay bayan
Uldarico Arroyo alyas Ding at sabay kalabit nito
kung kaya nahulog si Ding sa kanyang pagkakaupo ng
siya ay tamaan ng bala ng baril sa leeg” now, do you
confirm that?
A Yes, sir.[48]

xxxx

Q Can you tell us Mr. Witness, what was the position of the
accused when he allegedly executed his first shot relative
to your position?
A when I was seated like this (witness gesturing to his
sitting position) the suspect passed behind my back
Ma’am and after that when he reach my left side and the
victim seated in front of me facing the same direction
and when the suspect came he point the gun to the
victim’s neck and shoot him, Ma’am.[49]

xxxx

Q I’m asking about the poking of the gun to the neck? You
were not able to see that?
A Actually your Honor I did not see the poking of
the gun to the neck of the victim your Honor.
 6

Q alright, you did not see it because you did not even saw
the first shot. What you saw was the when you looked
around and saw that the victim was already falling to the
ground.
A Yes, your Honor.[50] (Emphasis supplied)

The Court has previously held that minor inconsistent

statements in a witness’ affidavit and in his testimony in court do
not necessarily affect his credibility.[51] However, in this case,
the detail as to whether the witness had actually seen
Benie poke the gun at the victim’s neck is a material detail
as it goes into the very execution of the crime. Indeed, based
on the foregoing sworn testimony of Manolo, he did not see the
shooting — all that he saw was Uldarico falling to the ground.

In the instant case, let us scrutinize the testimony of Rendula in

open court I with that of his Affidavit executed on 28th July 2014.

This Eduardo Rendula executed an Affidavit dated 28th July

2014, he stated that

“While I was assisted by one of the store helper which I

later identified him as Julito Juntilla alias Junjun and then I
told him I will buy three (3) kilos of rice bran and thereupon, he
(Juntilla) confided to me in visayan dialect’ Gikulata namo
and Tigulang? Which means we mauled the old man and then
I asked him in visayan dialect, kinsay inyong gikulata which
means who did you mauled, and he (Julito Juntilla) answered
to me “Si Dodo Ayag (referring to Dodo Mutia) kadtong
tigulang, which means he was Dodo Ayag the old manxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxx I immediately told him of what the store helper

confided to me

This Affidavit was identified by Eduardo and marked as exhibit

B, B-1 and B-2. Interestingly, the prosecution DID NOT OFFER THIS
AFFIDAVIT. To the mind of the accused, this was intentionally done in
order to cover the substantial and material inconsistencies in the
above-affidavit executed by Rendula vis-à-vis his testimony in open
court. In the above-affidavit, he stated that Julito Juntilla confided
to him that they mauled the old man. However, when he testified during
direct examination, he intentionally changed his statement and
said that it was Juntilla and Sususco who confided to him that they
mauled the old man. This is crucial considering that the other accused in
this case in the person of Juntilla, entered into a plea bargaining in the
instant case for the crime of Homicide. Obviously, considering that
Sususco is the remaining accused who is presently being tried, it was an
AFTERTHOUGHT for the prosecution witness to change his
 7

testimony and include Sususco to have confided to him the

alleged mauling of the Dodo Mutia.

During cross examination, the following statements of Rendula

came out and a strict scrutiny of which are badge of fabricated
lies. (TSN, page. 11-14)

Q. Mr. Witness how are you related to Dodo Mutia?

A. A close friend

Q. How about Ben Mutia

A. Same close friend because we were neighbors

Q. Where is this Ben Mutia now?

A. He is not arouns

Q. Do you know where is he?

A. According to them he is working

Q. Where is Ben Mutia residing?

A. Sto. Nino, Tukuran

Q. What Purok?

A. I am not sure, I do not know the Purok.

(This is perplexing because according to him they are

neighbors, but then he does not know the purok, despite living
there for 30 years as claimed by him)

Xxxxx

Q. How many kilos you bought rice hull at that time?

A. Six (6) kilos

( In his affidavit, according to him he bought three (3)

kilos)

Xxxxxxx

Q. Who attended to you when you bought rice hull at Pondoyo’s

Store at the (sic) time?

A. Both of them Julito Juntila and Crisanto Sususco

(In his Affidavit it was only Juntilla who attended to him)

 8

Q. What was the participation of Juntilla at the time when you

bought rice hull or what was he doing when he attended to you.

A. He made arrangement of the items of the store.

Q. What about the other store helper, what was he doing?

A. Entertaining

Q. How many kilos that you bought?

A. Six kilos

(In his affidavit, he said three (3) kilos)

Q. May I ask you who took the six kilos of rice hull?

A. This Juntilla

Xxxxxxx

Q. At the time when Juntilla doing that (sic) the other worker what
was he doing?

A. Also entertaining to me

Q. What do you mean by entertaining, what was he doing?

A. He is talking to me that “Kol naa mi gikulata gabii”

Q. Who told you that?

A. Sususco

Q. How about Juntila?

A. Juntila was inside and that he went out and I asked

permission to go home

(This is also inconsistent with his testimony that Juntila

attended to him and even weighed the rice hull)

Q. Are you telling this Honorable Court that it was Sususco who told
you that they mauled somebody?

A. Yes ma’am

Q. A while ago you were asked if you understood the affidavit that
you executed at the police and you said yes?

A. Yes Ma’am
 9

Q. Do you understand that in your affidavit you testified or you

stated that it was Julito Juntilla who confided to you they mauled
somebody contrary to your statement today that it was Sususco?

A. The two of them

To answer question above, clearly the testimony of Rendula is

not credible as it is not in conformity to our knowledge,
observation and experience. Rendula is not close to Sususco and
Juntilla. In fact, as can be gleaned from the totality of his testimony and
affidavit, he only learned the names Juntila and Sususco belatedly. To
quote his affidavit:

“While I was assisted by one of the store helper which I later

identified him as Julito Juntilla alias Junjun”

Xxxxxx I have found out that the two male suspects identified
to me later as Julito Juntilla and Crisanto Sususco. ( This
indicates the he does not really know who is Juntilla and Sususco,
contrary to his claim

Why would they make such confession to him considering that

Rendula is a stranger to him? Another missing element in the evidence
of the prosecution is the motive of the accused to commit the crime. It
was not shown that these accused harbor grudge against Primitivo Mutia.

Extra-judicial confession on the other note, is made out of court,

one is during custodial investigation when the accused is brought before the
law enforcers for an interrogation. Extra-judicial confession to be
admissible must be a) voluntary; b) made with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel; c) express; and d) in writing.2 These
requirements must be strictly complied and observed for a confession to be
accepted as evidence by the court. (People of the Philippines vs.
Tuniaco, et al., G.R. No. 185710, January 19, 2010). This was not
what transpired when allegedly accused confided to Rendula.

Another witness is in the person of Janet Moron (Moron for

brevity) , the victim’s niece-in-law and as testified by her, she is like an
adopted daughter of the victim and his wife. That the victim is very dear to
him and would do everything to convict the herein accused. But despite this,
during the preliminary investigation of the case, this Janet Moron did not
participate thereto. In fact, she did not execute any affidavit in relation to
this case, despite his claim that he had a conversation with Primitivo Mutia
on July 23, 2014

This tainted doubt to the testimony of Moron. Accused cannot prevent

himself from entertaining the idea that her testimony is an
AFTERTHOUGHT, apart from being FABRICATED and
HEARSAY.

The prosecution is trying to introduce this hearsay evidence as Part of

a Res Gestae. Accused would like object on this as illustrated below:
 10

Taken as a whole, the testimony of Moron will not qualify as part of

the Res Gestae, apart from the glaring loopholes in the testimony of Moron
and Rendula. To elucidate:

TSN page 10 of Janet Moron, October 10, 2019

Q. Can you remember when was the first time when you saw
(sic) Julito Juntilla?

A. July 23

Q. What year

A. 2014

Q. How about Crisanto Sususco

A. The same July 23, 2014

Q. What time?

A. Around 7:00 o’clock in the morning)

(This is contrary to the claim of Rendula that On July 23,

2014 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, he bought rice hull at
Pondoyo’s Store and was attended to by Juntilla and Sususco.
How could Moron see Sususco and Juntila on that time when the
two were at Pondoyo’s Store, or how could the two be in the store
and as claimed by Rendula allegedly confided to them?) This
discrepancies in the testimony of Moron and Rendula are badges of lies.

During the Direct Examination she testified that (TSN page

4, May 3, 2018)

Q. When was the last time you saw him alive?

A. Last July 23, 2014 he went to my pharmacy

Q. Do you remember what time of July 23, 2014?

A. It was 6:30 in the morning.

Q. What happened when he went to your office

A. His face was dark and swelling. He looked weak and in pain. I was
worried and I even asked him are you mauled, then he don’t even answer
me and then he only looked for medicine

( This is illogical since, why would Primitivo Mutia instead of

reporting to the authorities I something really happened, went to the
pharmacy, not even a clinic or hospital to give medical assistance. In short
the medical condition of Primitivo does not require the urgency of medical
attention.)
 11

Xxxxxxxxx

Q. What was the response of Pang Do when you asked him, he was
mauled?

A. He did not answer right a way and then after a while he told me
that I was mauled. And then I asked him, who mauled you and then she told
me ‘ GIKULATA KO SA AKONG DUHA KA BOARDERS. And At that time, I
knew he has only two boarders who was Junjun and Antoy. I knew that by
name because he mentioned it previously. (Here, Primitivo, did not
mentioned the names of Juntilla and Sususco, which could also
create doubt to the truthfulness of the statement, granting
without admitting that it existed)

In PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ANECITO ESTIBAL

y CALUNGSAG,. G.R. No. 208749, November 26, 2014

The Court enumerated three essential requisites for the

admissibility of a given statement as part of res gestae, to wit:

All that is required for the admissibility of a given statement

as part of res gestae,is that it be made under the influence of a
startling event witnessed by the person who made the
declaration before he had time to think and make up a
story, or to concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to
fabricate an account, and without any undue influence in
obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in question or its
immediate attending circum[s]tances.33 (Citations omitted)

There are then three essential requisites to admit evidence

as part of the res gestae, namely: (1) that the principal act, the res
gestae, be a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were
made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a
falsehood; and (3) that the statements must concern the
occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances.34

In People v. Dianos,35 the Court acknowledged that there

are no hard and fast rules in determining the spontaneity of a
declaration, but at least five factors have been considered:

By res gestae, exclamations and statements made by either

the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime, immediately
before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime,
when the circumstances are such that the statements constitute
nothing but spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by
the excitement of the occasion there being no opportunity for
the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement
 12

become admissible in evidence against the otherwise hearsay rule

of inadmissibility. x x x.

There is, of course, no hard and fast rule by which

spontaneity may be determined although a number of factors have
been considered, including, but not always confined to, (1) the
time that has lapsed between the occurrence of the act or
transaction and the making of the statement, (2) the place
where the statement is made, (3) the condition of the
declarant when the utterance is given, (4) the presence or absence
of intervening events between the occurrence and the statement
relative thereto, and (5) the nature and the circumstances of the
statement itself. x x x.36 (Citations omitted and italics in the
original)

In People v. Jorolan,37 the Court emphasized that there

must be no intervening circumstances between the res gestae
occurrence and the time the statement was made as could have
afforded the declarant an opportunity for deliberation or
reflection; in other words, the statement was unreflected and
instinctive:

An important consideration is whether there intervened

between the occurrence and the statement any circumstance
calculated to divert the mind of the declarant, and thus restore his
mental balance and afford opportunity for deliberation. His
statement then cannot be regarded as unreflected and instinctive,
and is not admissible as part of the res gestae. An example is where
he had been talking about matters other than the occurrence in
question or directed his attention to other matters.38 (Citation
omitted and emphasis ours)

In People v. Salafranca,39 the Court cited two tests in

applying the res gestaerule: a) the act, declaration or exclamation
is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact
that it characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction
itself; and b) the said evidence clearly negatives any premeditation
or purpose to manufacture testimony.

The term res gestae has been defined as "those

circumstances which are the undesigned incidents of a particular
litigated act and which are admissible when illustrative of such
act." In a general way, res gestae refers to the circumstances, facts,
and declarations that grow out of the main fact and serve to
illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and
contemporaneous with the main fact asto exclude the idea of
deliberation and fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses
the exclamations and statements made by either the participants,
victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or
immediately after the commission of the crime when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of
the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to
deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. The test of
 13

admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore,

whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so intimately
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself,
and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or purpose
to manufacture testimony.40 (Citations omitted, emphasis ours
and italics in the original)

AAA’s statements to the barangay tanod and the police

do not qualify as part of res gestae in view of the missing
element of spontaneity and the lapse of an
appreciable time between the rape and the
declarations which afforded her sufficient
opportunity for reflection.

Here, Primitivo Mutia allegedly went to the Pharmacy purposely

to buy medicine at 6:00 o’clock in the morning in order to buy
medicine and not to make a declaration of alleged mauling of him.
In fact, as can be gleaned from the entire testimony of Moron, the
was no spontaneity in the alleged declaration by Primitivo that he
was mauled by his boarders. The requirement of startling
occurrence was not also present.

xxxxxxxxxx

During Cross Examination (TSN page 11, April 12, 2018),

the answers of Moron unearth strange answers that created doubt
to the truthfulness of her testimony
Xxxxx

Q. In other words you did not bother to tell any of the

relatives that Primitivo Mutia was actually mauled by the two
persons, is that correct?

A. Yes ma’am

xxxxx
Q. Would you confirm that you never actually executed an
Affidavit in relation to this case, is that correct?

A. Yes Ma’am

Q. In fact you did not come to the police station to tell the
police officers about the assailants of this case?

A. Yes ma’am

The reaction of Moron is so strange that she did not even take a
single effort to report to anyone what allegedly was told to him by Pang Do
on July 23, 2013, considering that Pang Do is like a father to him and as
claimed by her so dear to him. Despite also that she claimed that she saw
Juntilla and Sususco on the 23rd of July 2014 at around 7:00 o’clock in the
morning immediately right after Pang Do went to her pharmacy, she never
 14

took any step or effort to report to the authorities. Even on the day the
Primitivo Mutia was sent to the Hospital, she could have disclosed to the
authorities the alleged conversation she had with the former. In short, she
has all the time to do these things in order to surely secure the arrest of the
culprits, but she failed to do so. This behavior is not in conformity to juman
knowledge, observation and experience which are the tests of the credulity
of the testimony in itself. This lapses was not explained by Moron when she
testified.

On the second issue:

It is a hornbook doctrine that conspiracy shall be proven by proof

beyond reasonable doubt, just like the crime charged.

The Supreme Court in the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs.ROBERTO ESPERANZA JESALVA alias "ROBERT SANTOS",
Accused-Appellant, G.R. No. 227306, it acquitted the appellant and
pronounced that:

“Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons

come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action
and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 25 We
explained the reason for the rule, thus:

As a facile device by which an accused may be ensnared

and kept within the penal fold, conspiracy requires conclusive
proof if we are to maintain in full strength the substance of the
time-honored principle of criminal law requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt before conviction.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To determine if accused-appellant conspired with

Menieva and Ilaw, the focus of the inquiry should necessarily be
the overt acts of accused- appellant before, during and after the
stabbing incident.31

On accused-appellant's acts before the stabbing incident,

the OSG argues that conspiracy to kill Ortigosa is evident
considering the proximity in time between accused-appellant's
walking away and re-appearing accompanied by Menieva and
Ilaw. To the OSG, it can be reasonably inferred that when accused-
appellant disappeared, he sought the help of Menieva and Ilaw to
carry out the evil plan against Ortigosa or that accusedappellant
signaled the arrival of the victim for his group to execute their
criminal design. 32

This argument is speculative and remains

unsubstantiated. More, it falters as there is no evidence
that accused-appellant and his co-accused had any
enmity or grudge against the deceased. In the absence of
 15

strong motives on their part to kill the deceased, it cannot safely

be concluded that they conspired to commit the crime. 33

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We emphasize that the prosecution must establish

conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction premised on a
finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere
inferences and presumption. 37 We repeat:

Conspiracy is not a harmless innuendo to be taken

lightly or accepted at every tum. It is a legal concept that imputes
culpability under specific circumstances. As such, it must be
established as clearly as any element of the crime. The
quantum of evidence to be satisfied is, we repeat, beyond
reasonable doubt. 38 (Citation omitted.)

Xxxxxxxxxxxx

Indeed, absent any evidence to create the moral

certainty required to convict accused-appellant, we cannot
uphold the trial court's finding of guilt. Our legal culture demands
the presentation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before any
person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life,
liberty, or even property. The hypothesis of his guilt must flow
naturally from the facts proved and must be consistent with all of
them.41 Moral certainty, not mere possibility, determines
the guilt or innocence of the accused.42

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and

SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant ROBERTO ESPERANZA
JESAL VA alias "Robert Santos" is ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Accordingly, he is
ordered immediately released from custody unless he is lawfully
held for another cause.

In the instant case, no single evidence was presented by the

prosecution that there exist a conspiracy between herein accused Juntilla
and Sususco. In fact, prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations in
in the information.

On the third issue.

Apart from the testimony of Rendula that Sususco confided to him that
they mauled the old man (ALTHOUGH IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, he
testified that it was Juntilla who made the confession), this was
also expressly objected to for being hearsay, no other evidence would
prove that there was a confession. In fact, the alleged statements made by
Sususco or Juntilla or both of them as claimed by Rendula cannot be
considered a confession under the Rule on Evidence. Granting without
admitting that there was a confession, Rendula was not able to testify clearly
who made the same to him because of the material inconsistencies in his
testimony and his demeanor in open court. There was no showing of
willingness and voluntariness.
 16

It is to be noted, that the testimony of Rendula suffered from fatal and

material inconsistencies, the behavior of Rendula when he testified was also
doubtful. His voice was so low when he was testifying, he was looking
everywhere, he was not even sure of the identity of Sususco because he was
able to address Sususco ak.a as Antoy as Junjun. He was not able to establish
why would Sususco and Juntilla would confess to him considering that as
already established, he was a stranger to them, he is not also a public official
whose function is to enforce the law.

We have said that "[i]n the absence of an eyewitness, the

guilt of an accused may be established by circumstantial evidence.
Such evidence, however, must still pass the test of moral
certainty. When inadequate and uncorroborated,
circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction.
Specifically, where the state's evidence does not
constitute an unbroken chain leading beyond reasonable
doubt to the guilt of the accused, the constitutional
presumption of innocence prevails and the accused is
entitled to an acquittal." 52 Thus, in People v. Bato, 53 the
pieces of circumstantial evidence presented there — those showing
that the accused brothers invited the victim (and his son) for a
drink, suddenly tied his hands and took him away; after which his
body was recovered from the river the next day — were ruled to be
inadequate to sustain a conviction based on guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. 54

In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented acquires

significance only when taken together with the appellant's
confession.

The pattern of the tapestry, 55 which the prosecution would

want us to see, is bound by only a single thread — the confession
of the appellant. Due to constitutional infirmity, that one strand
has been cut, and thus the pattern disintegrates. The tapestry
becomes an unreadable puzzle. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, vs.DOMINGO R. MULETA, supra).

In the instant case only the alleged conversation of Primitivo and

Moron which as extensively discussed above is HEARSAY and does not
qualify as part of res gestae. Similiarly, the alleged confession/admission by
Juntilla or Sususco or both, ( since obviously Rendula was not sure of what
he has testified to) is also doubtful. In fact the alleged statements made was
so GENERIC and lacks material details. The Certificate of Death is also
questionable considering that the prosecution was not able to prove how the
Doctor came about with the findings considering that no MRI and
ultrasound was conducted. No single witness has testified that on July 22,
2014, accused attacked or assaulted Primitivo at 10:00 o’clock in the evening.

Settled is the rule that in the hierarchy of evidence, testimonial

evidence is weakest defense because it can be easily fabricated.
 17

All told, accused humbly submit that the prosecution failed to prove
the guilt of the accused and the crime charged by proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

Accused expressly reserves the right to file a Supplemental Demurrer to

Evidence as it seems that he was not able to get a copy of the entireTranscript
of Stenographic notes for the case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this case be

dismissed and or the accused be acquitted of the crime charged.

Such other reliefs and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

ligan City, December 13, 2019 .

GANDAMRA GANDAMRA and ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the Accused
RM 209, Diocesan Centrum
ST Lluch St., Iligan City
Counsel for the Petitioner
Office No. (063) 221-6968
By:

ATTY.KHANINI B. GANDAMRA-ZAMAN
PTR No. 8566373 (1/3/19)
IBP Life Membership No. 010082(5/18/2011)
ROLL NO. 57848 (April 30, 2010)
MCLE Compliance No. VI- 0000293 (July 18, 2016)
Mobile No. 09173120948

Copy furnished:

Pros. Orlando Elias Dagohoy

City Prosecutor’s Office
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
 18

Third: Never in the sworn statement of the private complainant would

reveal that the alleged suspect, employed force, intimation and threat in
consummating the alleged rape. For if these were present she should have
SHOUTED and seek succour from other people in the room or of the house,
or she could have manifested any act that would show any resistance, this
was also wanting in the case.