Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL Judicial Region, Quezon City
Branch 103

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 1536-

015
For: Grave Threats
PO2 JULIUS BALTAZAR, ET.
AL.,

Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO FILE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The ACCUSED, by and through the undersigned Law Firm, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the instant Motion, and in
support thereof, avers: That—

1. On 22 July 2019, the undersigned Law Firm received the Order

of the Honorable Court dated 22 March 2019 ruling on the Prosecution’s
Formal Offer of Evidence. By virtue of the said order, the Prosecution is
deemed to have rested its case.

2. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure provides:

Sec. 23. Demurrer to evidence. After the prosecution

rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own
initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to
be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the
accused with or without leave of court.
….
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be
filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution

1
 may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period
of five (5) days from its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the

demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose
the demurrer to evidence within a similar period from its
receipt.
[Emphasis and underscoring ours]

3. Herein Accused has five (5) days from receipt of the above-
mentioned order of the Honorable Court to file the instant motion. Thus, the
instant motion is filed on time.

THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION IS

INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GUILT OF ALL THE
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

4. Accused were charged with the crime of Grave Threats under

Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code with the following Information:

“That on or about the 13th day of October 2014, in the

Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, in conspiracy with each other, moved by
personal resentment which they entertain against one DANILO
DENNIS ADRALES, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously threaten said DANILO DENNIS ADRALES,
with an infliction upon his person of a wrong amounting to a
crime of homicide, that is, by uttering the following words, to
wit:

“PUTANG INA MO, MAY PAGLALAGYAN KA SA AKIN”

and

“PUTANG INMO, ARMY KA LANG, PULIS AKO, GUSTO

MONG PATAYIN NA KITA NGAYON, HINDI MO AKO
KILALA”

thereby creating fear and apprehension on the part of the said

complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
San Mateo, Rizal
2
 December 8, 2014”

PROSECUTION FAILED TO
PROVE THAT HEREIN ACCUSED
HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION
FIREARMS DURING THE
INCIDENT.

5. The evidence adduced by the prosecution absolutely failed to

prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt as it failed to
establish that herein Accused, during the time of the subject incident, each
had in their possession any firearms/guns which were allegedly used as a
means to threaten Private Complainant Danilo Dennis Adrales (“Private
Complainant”, for brevity) of harm.

6. In Private Complainant’s direct testimony, he stated that he was

poked hard on his chest by Accused PO2 Julius Baltazar while uttering the
words, “Putang ina mo, army ka lang, pulis ako, gusto mong patayin na kita
ngayon, hind mo ako kilala”, as the latter was positioning himself to
“draw his gun”.1 Private Complainant further testified that PO2 Julius
Baltazar was “clutching his gun tucked on his waist.”2

7. However, during cross-examination, Private Complainant

himself invalidated his own earlier statement during direct examination and
categorically stated that he NEVER ACTUALLY SAW A GUN in the
possession of all the herein Accused. To wit:

“ATTY. DELA PAZ:

Q. Did you actually see a gun?
A. I didn’t see a gun except the clutch bag that they were
carrying, sir.

ATTY. DELA PAZ:

So, I am not misleading, your honor. The witnessed
mentioned that he never saw a gun.”3
[Emphasis and underscoring ours]

8. As a rule, self-contradictions and contradictory statement of

witnesses should be reconciled, it being true that such is possible since a
witness is not expected to give error-free testimony considering the lapse of
time and the treachery of human memory. But, this principle, learned from
lessons of human experience, applies only to minor or trivial matters –

1 Page 2, Question No. 5, of Exhibit “I” of the Prosecution (Amended Judicial Affidavit of Msgt Danilo
Dennis Adrales)
2 Page 3, Question No. 9 and 10, of Exhibit “I” of the Prosecution (Amended Judicial Affidavit of Msgt
Danilo Dennis Adrales)
3 Page 14, TSN taken down during the hearing of the above-entitled case on 7 August 2018.

3
innocent lapses that do not affect witness’ credibility. They do not apply to
self-contradictions on material facts. Where these contradictions cannot
be reconciled, the Court has to reject the testimonies,  and apply the
maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.4

9. To completely disregard all the testimony of a witness based on

the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, testimony must been false as to
a material point, and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate
intention to falsify a material point. In other words, its requirements, which
must concur, are the following: (1) that the false testimony is as to one or
more material points; and (2) that there should be a conscious and
deliberate intention to falsity.5

10. Private Complainant’s testimony should not be given any

credence whatsoever as it suffers from a glaring inconsistency regarding a
material point, which is the alleged possession of a firearm by the Accused;
the object which is the root of the supposed grave threat.

11. Further, Private Complainant deliberately and consciously

made a false statement under oath and effectively perjured himself in his
Amended Judicial Affidavit when he mentioned that he saw a gun tucked in
Accused PO2 Baltazar’s waist; which statement he later invalidated during
cross-examination when he categorically admitted that there was no
firearm/gun at all. Private Complainant’s testimony is highly suspect, and
thus, should not be given any credibility whatsoever.

12. Moreover, Mr. Rico Cataan, the Prosecution’s other witness,

during his direct testimony, never mentioned that he saw a firearm/gun in the
possession of each of the Accused; he only saw each of them carrying a
“clutch bag.”6 During cross-examination, Mr. Rico Cataan also
categorically stated that he NEVER SAW A GUN in the possession of any
of the Accused.

13. Thus, the Prosecution having failed to prove that each of the
Accused had in their possession a firearm/gun during the incident, at no time
should have herein Private Complaint felt that he was under any grave threat
of any infliction of a wrong that would amount to the crime of homicide.

14. The most that the Prosecution’s witnesses were able to

establish, if any, is that each of the Accused possessed a clutch bag during
the incident. It would be utterly preposterous to surmise that a “clutch bag”
would be an object sufficient to create in the mind of Private Complainant
that he was under any grave threat.
4 AGPALO, Hand Book on Evidence (2003). Emphasis ours.
5 People v. Pacpac, 248 SCRA 77 (1995), People v. Dasig, 93 Phil. 618 (1953). Emphasis ours.
6 Page 2, Question No. 3, of Exhibit “K” of the Prosecution (Judicial Affidavit of Rico Cataan)

4
 15. It is oft-repeated that a finding of guilt must rest on the
evidence of the prosecution not on the weakness or even absence of
evidence for the defense. Thus, it is required that every circumstance
favoring the innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account. The
proof against him must survive the test of reason and the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway judgment. 7 In the instant case, the
Prosecution’s evidence clearly failed the exacting test of moral certainty that
the law demands. 

16. The foregoing grounds considered, herein Accused are humbly

requesting for leave from this Honorable Court to file a demurrer to
evidence.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that leave be granted by the Honorable Court to allow the Accused to file a
Demurrer to Evidence.

OTHER RELIEFS, as may be just and equitable under the premises,

are likewise most respectfully prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Pasig City for San Mateo, Rizal,

27 July 2019.

THE
LAW FIRM OF
CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES
Counsel for the Accused
nd
22 Floor Philippine Stock Exchange Center
Tektite Tower East, Exchange Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila
Telephone Nos. 634-0741 to 45; Fax No. 634-0736
www.chanrobles.com; cralaw@chanrobles.com

By:

ATTY. JOHN FRANCIS DALISAY DELA PAZ

PTR No. 7913309; 03.05.19; Marikina City
IBP-LRN 0159691; 01.12.17; RSM
MCLE Compliance VI No. 0024421; 4.10.19; Pasig City
Roll No. 61270

NOTICE OF HEARING

7 People v. Mejia, 341 Phil. 118, 145 (2002).

5
HONORABLE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
Municipal Trial Court
San Mateo, Rizal

HONORABLE ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
San Mateo, Rizal

ATTY. ARLYN B. CONCEPCION-SORESCA

CONCEPCION, SORESCA & ASSOCIATES
Private Prosecutor
S2 Silicon Valley Bldg., Sumulong Highway
Antipolo City

Greetings! Please take notice that the undersigned counsel will submit the
foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court
on 5 August 2019 at 8:30 A.M. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be
heard.

ATTY. JOHN FRANCIS DALISAY DELA PAZ

Copy furnished:

HONORABLE ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
San Mateo, Rizal

ATTY. ARLYN B. CONCEPCION-SORESCA

CONCEPCION, SORESCA & ASSOCIATES
Private Prosecutor
S2 Silicon Valley Bldg., Sumulong Highway
Antipolo City

EXPLANATION: Copies of the instant Motion are being served to

the foregoing addressees through registered mail due to lack of material time
and necessary personnel to effectuate the preferred mode of service.

ATTY. JOHN FRANCIS DALISAY DELA PAZ