1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sixth Judicial Region
nd
2 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Batad- Estancia
Estancia, Iloilo
-o0o-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

- versus - Criminal Case No. 1828-B

For: Slight Physical Injuries
CALDERON S. SIMSON
Accused.
x------------------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COME NOW, the accused by the undersigned counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver that:

1. The Honorable City Prosecutor has already presented evidence

for the Prosecution and has formally rested its case. In

accordance with the present rules on criminal procedure,

herein accused now respectfully file this present Demurrer to

Evidence which is anchored on the following grounds:

a. The statements/testimony of private complainant

Joel C. Paras do not coincide with the

statements/testimony of Jose Gumapa who is an eye

witness for the prosecution.

b. No weapon was introduced in evidence to match the

alleged injuries of private complainant Joel C. Paras

 2

c. No other witnesses was presented for the prosecution

to prove the said offense

2. Anent on the first ground, the accusatory affidavit (Exhibit “A”)

of private complainant Joel Paras , is highly questionable and

in fact inadmissible as said complainant himself testified in

open court that he signed the subject affidavit four (4)

days after the incident took place on March 13, 2019.

Records would show that the private complainant was asked at

least twice and he specifically stated that she signed the

affidavit four (4) days after March 13, 2019 which is

directly in conflict with the subscribed date of March 17,

2019 on the subject affidavit. It also bears stress that the

complaint affidavit is written in the English language which is

again highly questionable as the private complainant could not

even understand such language and in fact, his very testimony

in court would clearly show that he is only familiar with the

Ilonggo dialect.

When compared closely to the supporting affidavit (Exhibit “B”)

of witness Jose Gumapa, both affidavits lose their credibility

entirely as they clearly appear to be in obvious conflict with

each other. More specifically, the two (2) subject affidavits

when compared on face value show the following conflicting

versions:
 3

a. Complainant Paras stated in his affidavit (exhibit “A”) that

while he was talking to Calderon S. Simson he was

struck from behind while witness Gumapa stated in his

affidavit (exhibit “B”) that Mr. Paras was already on his

way home when he was shouted upon that he would be

hit with a beer bottle.

b. Complainant Paras stated in his affidavit that he was

struck with a beer bottle first and then he was hit by

a steel pipe after while witness Gumapa stated in his

affidavit that Mr. Paras was hit with a steel pipe first

and then he was hit by a beer bottle after.

In his very testimony, prosecution witness Gumapa even

admitted that he is in fact close to the private complainant

(who is his godfather) which puts to question his very

credibility as a witness and not to mention that he is only a

minor.

Finally, it is also worthy to make mention that private

complainant himself admitted that he was drunk, he was

carrying a bolo, he challenged the general public to a fight

and then he was hit from behind while talking to Calderon

Simson. If this were so, it would be clearly impossible for Mr.

Paras to identify at 7:00 P.M. on a farm area who was the one

who hit him if any, or at the very least say with definite
 4

certainty that it was really the accused who hit him as he was

in fact already drunk at that time. Herein accused respectfully

submit that this even just this circumstance alone, already

constitutes reasonable doubt.

3. Anent on the second ground, the extract police report (Exhibit

“C”), does not show any specific admission by the accused

that he hit Joel Paras by the use of a steel pipe nor was he

duly represented by counsel at the time of surrender. It

also bears stress that even though the subject blotter report

made mention of a bolo and a steel pipe, no such weapon or

any physical evidence whatsoever were even introduced in

open court to establish that the same caused injuries to

the private complainant. It is therefore respectfully

submitted by the herein accused that without any physical

evidence shown in open court to explain that the same caused

injuries to the private complainant, this is clearly lack of

evidence which once again constitutes reasonable doubt.

4. Anent on the third and final ground, the testimony of Dr. Jose

Pepito Libo-on who issued the subject medical certificate

(Annex “D”) is clearly inadmissible as records would show that

the said witness did not even positively identify the

complainant Joel Pars in open court as the person whom

he actually examined on March 13, 2019. Moreover, Dr.

 5

Libo-on admitted that he could not even recall what time he

examined the private complainant (assuming it was really Mr.

Paras) nor could he even determine what object or weapon if

any, brought about the alleged injuries to said complainant.

Finally, the medical certificate itself is inaccurate as Dr. Libo-

on himself admitted in open court that the private complainant

(assuming it was really Mr. Paras) did not have any major

injuries, was sent home without need of further admission to a

hospital and could already go back to work if he chose to. This

is in conflict with the medical certification issued stating that

the private complainant would need nine (9) days medical

attention as Dr. Libo-on likewise admitted that he did not

anymore recall having examined said witness afterwards and

that the nine (9) days actually mean “healing period” only and

not the complainant’s capacity to go back to work.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that this case be now dismissed due to lack of compelling

evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt.

Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted.
 6

Bacolod City for Silay City, Philippines. October 3, 2006.

Mary Anthonette Managaytay

Counsel for the Accused
590 Ylac St, Villamonte, Iloilo City
PTR No. 8321341 B. C. Jan. 4, 2006
IBP No. 660782 B. C. Dec. 28,
2005
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 44869

COPY FURNISHED:

HON. LORRAINE H. ATOTUBO

Provincial Prosecutor, Iloilo.