Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

10th Judicial Region
Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE NO. M-CDO-21-01562-CR
Plaintiff,

-versus- For: ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

ROMULO PASILAN CLARO JR &

DOMINADOR MARIANO MENDOZA

Accused.
X-----------------------------/

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
WITH LEAVE OF COURT

Accused ROMULO PASILAN CLARO JR, thru the undersigned counsel and
with leave of court, most respectfully submits this Demurrer to Evidence on the
ground that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt and in pursuance thereof states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required,
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Nevertheless the
burden of proof still rests on the state. The accused, if he so chooses, need not present
evidence. He merely has to raise a reasonable doubt and whittle away from the case of the
prosecution. The constitutional presumption of innocence demands no less.” [People of the
Philippines vs. Dionisio Tadepa, G.R. No. 100354, May 26, 1995]
THE FACTS [Prosecution]

The factual allegations of the prosecution are as follows:

Sometime on May 18, 2021, at around 9:00 o’clock in the morning, Rodgrigo Mercid
Radoc (Radoc for brevity) was at his shop for tires at Zone 1, Barangay Canitoan,
Cagayan de Oro City when allegedly, the accused arrived and ganged up on him. It

1
was further alleged that Respondent Claro Jr(Claro Jr for brevity) got a stone and
struck Radoc in the head but the latter was able to parry the blow with his hand. In
consequence thereof, all the Accused are charged with Conspiracy for Attempted
Homicide.

ISSUE

Whether or not Prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Attempted Homicide with
Conspiracy?

DISCUSSION

With all due respect, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
accused committed the crime of Attempted Homicide with Conspiracy.

Homicide is committed if the following requisites are present:

a.) A person was killed;
b.) The accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
c.) There is intent to kill;
d.) The killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstance of Murder,
Parricide, or Infanticide.

Correlative thereto, it becomes attempted homicide when the offender commences

the commission of killing, either directly or by overt acts, but he does not perform
all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

In the case at bar, Prosecution failed to prove intention to kill from the Accused
which is one of the elements of Homicide. Without proof of such intent, the felony
may only be serious physical injuries or some other crime/s. Intent to kill may be
established through the overt and external acts and conduct of the offender before,
during and after the assault, or by the nature, location and number of the wounds
inflicted on the victim.1

What happened here was a chance encounter of two men who had a prior business
misunderstanding. Otherwise stated, it was a fight. It goes beyond human nature for
Claro Jr, who is clearly smaller than Radoc, to surreptitiously attack the latter on his
own turf considering that on a vulcanizing shop, there are hard metals which Radoc
can easily access.

The location of wounds also negate intention to kill. The wound was not fatal and if
Claro Jr. would have wanted to kill Radoc, he could have at least targeted vital parts
of the body. It would also be contrary to human response to not immediately seek
1
Alfredo de Guzman Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R No. 178512

2
medical assistance after being injured by an assault. Upon perusal of the annexes
particularly the Police Report vis-à-vis the Medical Certificate, there is substantial
gap of time. Radoc first reported the incident to the nearest police station at 11:00
AM while he only went to the hospital at 9:00 PM. If life and death is on the line,
logic will dictate that going to a hospital first is more important than reporting a
matter to a police. Notwithstanding Radoc’s decision, the substantial gap casts
doubt on his allegations.

There is also no Conspiracy on this case. Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code,
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come into an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and has decided to commit it. Jurisprudence provides that it
may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a
common purpose to commit the crime. 2

Prosecution failed to establish that the accused were motivated by one common
design i.e., to kill Radoc. It merely stated that Radoc was attacked without proof of
conspiracy and confederation among accused.

With respect the proceedings during trial particularly at the cross-examination, the
witness of the prosecution, Mr. Rodrigo Radoc, confided that he was busy at that
time and all of a sudden, Accused Romulo Claro, stopped in front of him to pick-up
a stone to be smashed at the former. This is inconsistent with his answers since the
road is a concrete road. It would be unusual to pick-up a stone weighing one or
more kilo on a concrete road.

There is also inconsistency on the testimony of Rodrigo Radoc vis-à-vis the

testimony of his son, Stephen Radoc. The former stated that Claro Jr stopped in front
of his shop while the latter narrated that Claro Jr. was across the street. Both
witnesses also stated that Claro Jr was mad when he went at the vulcanizing shop.
Assuming this to be true, Radoc could have ran to avoid trouble. Lastly, Stephen
Radoc during the cross-examination did not at all help his father when he was
allegedly attacked, nor prevented his attacker/s. A startling occurrence was taking
place and courts should take judicial notice of a child’s instinct to protect their father
from any harm.

Given the foregoing, it is our humble position that the prosecution was only able to
show mere allegations of intention to kill. Allegations, however, cannot replace
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In light of the foregoing premises, accused cannot be held guilty for violation of
Attempted Homicide as provided in the Revised Penal Code.

2
People of the Philippines vs Robert Santos, G.R No. 227306
3
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this Honorable

Court that this Demurrer to Evidence be granted and that the criminal charge for
Attempted Homicide of the Revised Penal Code be dismissed on reasonable doubt
and for insufficiency of evidence.

Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, October 27, 2022.

MGC Law Firm

Suite #3, 2nd Floor Rego Bldg. (PNB Carmen Branch)
296 Agoho Drive, Zone 1 Carmen
9000 Cagayan de Oro City
By:

ATTY. CYRIL FRANCIS S. CASIÑO

Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 70706
IBP No. 1169, Jan. 17 2022
PTR No. 5162066, Jan. 17, 2022
MCLE VI Complied, awaiting issuance of certification
0905-828-9702 / 0999-834-1444
attycyfrancis@gmail.com

Copy furnished

The Handling Prosecutor

Office of the City Prosecutor
Cagayan de Oro City

Atty. Alvin Roa R. Calingin

2/F Door No. 1 Cinco Building, Pabayo-Gomez Street
Cagayan de Oro City