Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court-Branch 63

First Judicial Region
La Trinidad, Benguet

People of the Philippines

Plaintiffs Crim. Case No. 18-CR-12437

-vs- For:
Robbery with Violence and
Intimidation against persons

Roel Valdez y Velasco,

et al.,
Accused
x- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - x

REPLY/REJOINDER
Accused, through the undersigned, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully avers that:

“In fine, the life, liberty and property of a citizen may not be
taken away on possibilities, conjectures or even, generally speaking, a
bare probability1.”

1. The Prosecution has filed its Comment dated August 25, 2020 to the
Demurrer to Evidence of the accused.

2. In the said Comment, the State, through the public

prosecutor, asserted that there was unlawful taking of the
personal properties of the private complainant by the accused
as, to quote, “[i]t could be reasonably inferred that they were
the ones who took it from the place where it was kept as no
other persons were present”. It further argued that “the
amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300, 000.
00) which was part of the Php 957, 500. 00 were actually
recovered from the possession of accused Jonathan Natiguing
while the rest amounting to Six Hundred Fifty Seven
Thousand Five Hundred (Php 657, 500) Pesos was placed in
a black bin bag at the second floor of the building to be sure,
the bag does not belong to the private complainant. It also
mentioned the “process of elimination” as well as the
“principle of constructive possession”.

Moody Mabunga v. People, GR No. 142039, May 27, 2004

1
3. Herein accused maintains that there is no viable and
sufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Apparently, the prosecution would like this Court to
resolve the sufficiency of its case to prove the guilt of the
accused based on inferences, (if not assumption). It wants
this Honorable Trial Court to rule that there was unlawful
taking because the money involved (collection from sales of
the grocery) was taken from the vault of the private
complainant, where the latter kept the same, and found not at
the place where they were kept but were within the locked
premises of the building where accused were found and
arrested.

4. With all due respect, inference, no matter how reasonable or

convincing it may be, can never be a substitute for evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, as dangerous
precedence as it can be, the foundational doctrine in criminal
law -that evidence beyond reasonable doubt is required to
prove the guilt of an accused - will be rendered naught and
nugatory.

5. Moreover, even assuming that the personal properties were

found not at the place where it was kept by the owner but
within the premises where the accused were found or arrested
and where no one is except the latter, does it necessarily
follows that the accused committed the crime? That there is
no possibility at all that some other persons committed it?

6. It must be remembered that the security guard was also

inside at that time. Thus, the accused actually were not the
only persons inside the premises of the private complainant’s
grocery but also the security guard. Curiously, the said
Security Guard was not presented as a witness. The
prosecution is therefore misleading the Honorable Court.

7. The claim that the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos

(Php 300, 000. 00) was recovered from accused Natiguing is
flatly debunked by the records. Rather, the records clearly
reveal the contrary. The prosecution may have alleged in the
its Resolution to file the above-entitled case against the
accused that the Php 300, 000. 00 was recovered from the
possession of accused Natiguing, the same however was never
proven or established by the prosecution’s evidence during
the trial. Of course, a mere allegation is not an evidence. As
already propounded in their Demurrer, what was proven was
 that the money was found not in the possession or within the
control of the accused but in the premises of RSC.

8. As to the argument that the doctrine of constructive

possession could apply in this case, with all due respect, the
defense disagrees. It must be well to reiterate that at that time
the police officers entered the first floor, these police officers
who testified, uniformly failed to mention having recovered
any money from the accused, who were accosted at the second
floor or that the money were within their control or exclusive
dominion. The money was actually recovered by the SOCO
Team who processed the scene and that they recovered the
said personal property at the first floor of RSC, and not at the
second floor. A presumption cannot be founded on another
presumption. It should not thus be concluded that from the
time the money was at the first floor, to the time the accused
was arrested at the second floor, the latter were still in
constructive possession thereof, or exercise exclusive
dominion or control over the same as substantial time had
already lapsed, not to mention the distance in between.

9. The defense therefore most respectfully submits that, as

discussed, the element of unlawful taking was not duly
established by the evidence proffered by the prosecution.

10. Being so, and to reiterate, it follows that the element of

animus lucrandi cannot be said to have been duly proven.
Thus, having established that there was no evidence beyond
doubt to show that the accused illegally took and carry away
the money of the private complainant, necessarily, the
element of intent to gain no longer matters. It cannot even be
presumed from the testimonies of the witnesses.

11. The defense moreover cannot agree that the element of

violence was duly proven by the testimonies of the
responding police officers. It must be obvious now that their
testimonies on this particular matter were, hearsay. The
prosecution was unable to cite a particular evidence wherein
anyone, or some, of the responding police officers testified on
how the violence or intimidation against the private
complainant or the security guard nor how force was
employed upon the RSC Building were committed by the
accused. As already said, these information were only
conveyed to them by the security guard. How could this be
said to have proved the element of the crime of robbery which
 is the use of violence and/or intimidation against persons or
force upon things?

12. Relatively, the prosecution averred that circumstantial

evidence exist to prove the guilt of the accused. Again, he is
mistaken. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction
if there is more than one circumstance; second, the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proven; and finally, the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. First, none of the
prosecution’s witnesses saw that the accused entered the RSC
Building by means of violence, and/or intimidation against
the security guard or by forcing their way inside the said
building. Second, the evidence presented is insufficient to
determine without a reasonable doubt that the cash was lost
due to felonious taking, and, more importantly, that it was
the accused who committed the felonious taking. Even if
believed in its entirety, the testimonies of the witnesses do not
show at all that at that time they entered the RSC Building,
the accused were in possession or carrying the money which
was supposedly the subject of asportation. All that was
shown was that the money was recovered somewhere inside
the premises but not in the possession or near the accused. It
was not even established by the prosecution that when the
accused entered RSC, the latter had the intention to commit
robbery! Third, the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish
that the accused were the ones who took the money out from
where it was kept. And lastly, the prosecution was unable to
prove or even allege that it was impossible for some other
person to have taken the said money. This is more
particularly true when we consider the fact that another
person was there – the security guard 2.The rule in
circumstantial evidence cases is that the evidence must
exclude the possibility that some other person committed the
crime.

13. As to conspiracy among the accused, the latter still maintain

that the same was not duly proven by clear and convincing
evidence. The facts or acts being mentioned by the
prosecution accordingly to prove a common design to rob the
RSC have no factual basis and not even supported by the
records of the case. Not even the allegation that the Php 300,
000. 00 was recovered from accused Natiguing. In short, the
Prosecution’s claim are plain possibilities, assumptions,
inferences or can be even said, bare probabilities.
2
Kyle Anthony Zabala v. People of the Philippines, GR No. 210760, January 26, 2015
 PRAYER

Premises duly considered, it is most respectfully prayed of the

Honorable Court to consider the foregoing, and to grant the reliefs
prayed for and dismiss the above-entitled case.

La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines. September 4, 2020.

Atty. Cyrus C. Calaya

Counsel for the Accused
PTR No. BGTCF 6232438, Jan. 10, 2020
IBP Lifetime No. 08051, Issued at Pasig City
Roll No. 52590, 05-12-2006, Manila
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. VI-0019055; Until April 14,
2022
S & B Bldg., FA 224, Km. 4, National Highway, La Trinidad, Benguet

NOTICE

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC-63, Justice Hall,
La Trinidad, Benguet

Madame:

Please submit the foregoing immediately upon receipt hereof for

the kind approval of the Honorable Court. Thank you.

Atty. Cyrus C. Calaya

Copy furnished:

Trial Prosecutor
Benguet Prosecutors Office
Justice Hill, La Trinidad, Benguet