REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 16, MANILA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM.CASE NO.04222213-15
- versus -

PETER RODRIGUEZ AND QUINTIN PAYAWAL,

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

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(With Leave of Court)

Accused, PETER RODRIGUEZ AND QUINTIN PAYAWAL, through the

undersigned Public Attorney, unto this Honorable Court
respectfully pray for their ACQUITTAL on the ground that the
prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“The presumption of innocence is based on the

principle of justice. The presumption is not
designed to protect the guilty but prevent the
conviction of one who is innocent, for it is a rule
that accusation is not synonymous with guilt. Proof
must survive the test of reasons. The conviction
must be based on moral certainty, for it is better
to acquit a guilty person rather that convict an
innocent man.” (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
DRAMAYO, 42 SCRA 60).

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

PETER RODRIGUEZ AND QUINTIN PAYAWAL stands charged

for Violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165
under Criminal Case Nos. 04222213-15
allegedly committed as follows:

Criminal Case No. 04222213

That on or about December 20, 2003, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being
authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did
 then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
have in his possession and under his custody and
control one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing three point eight eight four
(3.884) grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops,
which is a prohibited drug. Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 042222115

That on or about December 20, 2003, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being
authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
have in his possession and under his custody and
control one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing three point five three five
(3.535) grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops,
which is a prohibited drug. Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 04222214

That on or about December 20, 2003, in the City of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give
away to another any dangerous drug, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or
offer to sell for Fifty Pesos (P50.00)(1) heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three
point five three five (3.535) grams of dried
marijuana fruiting tops, which is a prohibited drug.
Contrary to law.

When arraigned on both accused entered a plea of Not

Guilty to the offense charged. After pre-trial conference was
terminated, trial commenced. The prosecution was able to
present two witnesses.

ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

WAS ABLE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF
THE ACCUSED AND PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT
 THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED AND PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

Accused, through the undersigned Public Attorney, most

respectfully submits that they are entitled to acquittal as
the prosecution failed to present the quantum of evidence to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The following reasons warrant the acquittal of the

accused.

1. That Police Officer Gonzales testified that it was Police

Officer Conrado who arrested Payalaw. However when It was
Officer Conrado’s turn to testify, he admitted that it
was another officr who made the arrest.

Q: What is your participation in this case?

A: We were beside near LRT Pureza Station and far
away from that place when the two accused were
arrested sir.
Q: Have you seen the fact of arrest?
A: No sir, I have not seen the actual arrest of the
two accused. I just saw them when they were already
arrested by PO Pastor and when they were boarded in
the motorcycle.
2. That when Police Officer Benjamin Gonzales testified, he
admitted during his cross examination that it was another
police officer who had personal knowledge of the alleged
violation committed by both accused.

Q: Am I correct to say that initially, the person

you saw as you have stated was Peter Rodriguez
holding a piece of paper and at that time you saw
him he was not doing anything?
A: PO1 Pastor was the one who saw him sir.
Q: So you have no personal knowledge as to the fact
of the apprehension of the accused by PO1 Pastor
because PO1 Pastor was the one who saw Peter
Rodriguez?
A: Yes sir.

3. That the testimonies of both prosecution witnesses not

only contradicted each other as far as Payawal was
concerned but both actually testified that it was another
officer who had personal knowledge regarding the alleged
violations of the law committed by the accused.
4. In violations of Sec 5 and Sec 11 of Ra 9165, the State
must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the corpus delicti
of the crime, i.e. the illegal drug (People vs. Laxa
2001), and in Sec 5 cases, identity of the buyer,
seller, object and consideration (People Vs. Dumlao,
 2008 G.R. No. 181599). In this case, the prosecution
failed in doing so. The witnesses presented by the
State, by their own admissions, did not have
personal knowledge of said facts. The quantum of
proof to sustain a conviction is totally lacking.
x x x

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that this Demurrer to Evidence
be granted and the herein accused be acquitted of the charges
against him.
General relief is likewise prayed for.
City of Manila, Philippines.
Oct. 6, 2008

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Manila District Office
4th Floor W. Godino Building
350 Arroceros Street
Ermita, Manila

By:

ATTY. JASON R. MIGRIÑO

NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC-Branch 16, Manila

ACP Eduardo Meneses Jr.

Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

Greetings:

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the

forgoing Demurrer to Evidence for the resolution and approval
of this Honorable Court immediately upon the filing thereof.

ATTY. JASON R. MIGRIÑO

Copy furnished:

ACP Eduardo Meneses Jr.

Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila