Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 000, Magic City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case No: 18-0000000

Plaintiff, For: Perjury (Under Article
183 of the Revised Penal
Code)
-versus-

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

ORDER

Before this Court is a Motion to Strike Out Opposition with

Manifestation and Motion for Leave to File and Admit Incorporated
Reply. filed by accused someone through counsel on 26 August
2022.

In the Motion the accused prayed for the striking out of

Prosecutions Opposition the Motion for Leave of Court to file
Demurrer of Evidence dated 15 August 2022. The reason for the
request is that the motion filed by the Private Prosecutors is
without the express conformity of the Public Prosecutor.

On the other note, the accused manifest for the acceptance of

the Reply to the Opposition filed by the Private Prosecutors. For
the reason that the accused deems it necessary to file a Reply in
order to fully thresh out the issues raised and to ensure that this
Honorable Court is not misled by the inaccurate statements of the
Prosecution.

Accordingly, the court finds the reason for striking out the
opposition to be justified.

“In Laude v. Ginez-Jabalde,1 this Court ruled that the

required conformity of the public prosecutor was not a
mere superfluity and was necessary to pursue a criminal
action. A private party does not have the legal personality
to prosecute the criminal aspect of a case, as it is the
People of the Philippines who are the real party in
interest.[43] The criminal case must be under the direction
and control of the public prosecutor. Thus, when the
1
G.R. No. 217456, 24 November 2015.
 public prosecutor does not give his or her conformity to
the pleading of a party, the party does not have the
required legal personality to pursue the case.”
(emphasis supplied)

Established on the above cited cases, conformity of the Public

Prosecutor is necessary to have legal personality in court. Hence,
the instant Motion to Strike the Opposition is hereby GRANTED.

On the Motion to admit Leave of Court to file Demurrer to

Evidence filed by the accused dated 8 August 2022, the Court finds
the said motion to be lacking. Section 23 Rule 119 paragraph 3 of
the Rules of Court provides that:

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

Accordingly, finding the motion for leave of court to file

demurred to evidence lacking to specifically state its grounds. The
motion simply stated in third paragraph of the said motion, to wit:

“3. The accused thus respectfully request for leave

of this Honorable Court to file her demurrer to evidence
since the evidence submitted by the Prosecution is
insufficient to substantiate and prove all elements of
perjury which she has been accused of. In particular, the
prosecution failed to prove that the Accused made
statements upon a material matter and that the same were
stated in bad faith. Consequently, the Prosecution
likewise failed to prove the Accused’s guild beyond
reasonable doubt.”

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Strike

Out Opposition is hereby GRANTED. The Motion for Leave of
Court to file Demurrer to evidence is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
September 1, 2022. Magic City, Philippines.

AMAZING
 Presiding Judge

Copy furnished: