1
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
11th Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1
TAGUM city, Davao del Norte
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Complainant,
- versus - Criminal Case No. 20466
FOR: MURDER
BUENAVENTURA L. ANTOLIN, JR.,
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. There appears serious inconsistencies and doubts with the testimonies of
the witnesses, specially the primary witness who refused to reveal his face
during the examination and his recollection of the events did not coincide
with the injuries sustained by the victim.
b. No other physical or documentary evidence to show that the accused is
guilty of the crime charged.
2. Anent on the first ground, the testimony of the primary witness JAYSON
REBONOSA LABRADO (Labrado for brevity) is doubtful and inconsistent.
According to Labrado, he personally knows the accused for having met and
talked to him on two occasions. The first time was when they went at the house
2
of the accused to drop off Irish Celis, the common law wife of the accused, after
they had gone to New Corella for swimming and the second time was two days
before the shooting incident or on February 23, 2015 when they filed for Affidavit
of Desistance at the Hall of Justice, Tagum City. At these two occasions, the last
being very recent, and considering that the person is a significant member of the
family of the one who raised the witness Labrado as a child, it is incongruous and
irrational to think that Labrado could not tell right away the identity of the suspect
who shot ETHEL GRACE ZAPANTA (Ethel for brevity) the moment the latter was
brought at the hospital and only realized the identity of the accused a day after
when they visited the Police Station. Unless Labrado’s mind was preconditioned
to point the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, it is difficult to understand
how could he not tell immediately and absolutely as to the identity of the accused
if indeed the latter was the one who shot and killed Ethel.
3. Witness Labrado also claimed that the accused pretended to be from the
Department of Education (DepEd) when the latter allegedly went at the house of
Ethel to deliver a letter during the shooting incident. It is very unlikely that a
person already known to the victim and the witness, without concealment of his
face, still had the need to pretend to be someone else. If it was indeed the
accused who went at the house of Ethel at the day of the incident, he could have
been identified instantly both by Ethel and Labrado.
4. In his testimony in open court, Labrado testified that he heard a single shot
during the incident. It is, however, inconsistent with the Certificate of Death of
Ethel which indicates that the victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds.
5. Based on the testimony of Investigator SPO3 BRIGIDO LAGULA, JR., the
accused was already identified on the same night of the incident and a manhunt
operation immediately ensued because of the statements of the star witness
Jayson Labrado and the family of the victim given during the course of the
investigation. This is seriously inconsistent to the testimony of the said star
witness who allegedly realized the identity of the accused on the following day.
3
Again, to stress, unless the accused was preconditioned to be fall guy, these
inconsistencies do not make sense.
Herein accused respectfully submit that this even just this circumstance alone,
already constitutes reasonable doubt.
6. Anent on the second ground, the extract police report (Exhibit “C”), does not
show any specific admission by the accused that he hit Ricky Panganiban
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.
7. 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 Ricky Panganiban in open court as the person whom he
actually examined on September 25, 2005. Moreover, Dr. Libo-on admitted
that he could not even recall what time he examined the private complainant
(assuming it was really Mr. Panganiban) 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.
4
Panganiban) 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.
Bacolod City for Silay City, Philippines. October 3, 2006.
PACIFICO M. MAGHARI, III
Counsel for the Accused
590 Ylac St, Villamonte, Bacolod 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
City Prosecutor, Silay City, Neg. Occ.
