REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Third Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Jaen, Nueva Ecija

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE No. 797-22
-versus- For: Grave Threat
RICKY LAPINA y MANUEL
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(With Prior Leave of Court)

COMES NOW, accused RICKY LAPINA y MANUEL, represented by the Public

Attorney’s Office, with leave of court previously obtained, respectfully submits this
Demurrer to the Prosecution’s Evidence to this Honorable Court on the ground that
the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of his guilt to overcome the
presumption of innocence:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Basic in all criminal prosecutions is the presumption that the accused is

innocent until the contrary is proved. 1 Thus, the well-established jurisprudence is that
the prosecution bears the burden to overcome such presumption; otherwise, the
accused deserves a judgment of acquittal. 2 Concomitant thereto, the evidence of the
prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.3

Rule 133, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence specifically provides that the
degree of proof required to secure the accused's conviction is proof beyond reasonable
doubt, which 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. To stress, "While not impelling
such a degree of proof impervious certainty, the quantum of proof required in criminal
cases nevertheless charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of
establishing moral certainty, a certainty that ultimately appeals to a person's very
conscience."4

STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED

On February 2, 2022, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Zea Mai D. Wycoco-

Santos, filed an information against the accused Ricky M. Lapina, and charged him
with the crime of Grave Threat Under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, the
same is hereunder quoted as follows:

1
Sec. 14(2), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution.
2
People v. Hilario, G.R. No. 210610, 11 January 2018.
3
People v. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, 17 January 2018.
4
Daayata v. People, G.R. No. 205745, 8 March 2017.
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 1 of 6
 INFORMATION

That on or about 05 September 2021, in the Municipality of Jaen, Province of Nueva

Ecija and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the accused RICKY LAPINA y
MANUEL did there and then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threatened to kill the
complainant JECIL PALISOC y MUNAR by uttering “Putang ina mo halika papatayin
kita!” and by pursuing him while armed with aluminum pipe to the damage and
prejudice of said complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the
information. Thereafter, pretrial conference followed, and the prosecution named
the following witnesses, to wit:

1. The private complainant himself (Jecil Palisoc)

2. Maribel Palisoc

Trial ensued and in the presentation of prosecution evidence, only private

complainant Jecil Palisoc and Christian Oliver Guinto, were presented. A written
formal offer of documentary exhibits was filed by the prosecution and a written
comment was submitted by the defense. After formally offering its exhibits, the
Prosecution rests its case. Leave of Court to file demurrer to evidence was prayed by
the defense and the same was granted.

A careful perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence

admitted by the Honorable Court, it appears that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this Demurrer to evidence.

SOLE ISSUE

Whether or not the Prosecution adduced sufficient evidence of guilt to overcome the
presumption of innocence and to shift the burden of proof to the defense.

The Accused humbly answers in the negative. The presumption of innocence has not
been overturned.

ARGUMENTS AND/OR DISCUSSSIONS

I. Prosecution’s evidence failed to

Prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

It bears emphasis that the accused is being charged for Grave Threat. In Grave
Threat cases, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove each of the following
elements beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:

1. The offender threatens another person of committing harm against

him or his family;
2. The threat amounts to a crime; and lastly
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 2 of 6
 3. The threat is not subject to any condition.5

On July 21, 2022, private complainant Jecil Palisoc testified saying that
between 8:30 to 9:00 in the morning, he and his wife were on their way to the town
proper to buy medicines and goods when accused suddenly blocked them in front of
the accused’s house so Jecil stopped and he saw that herein accused took a pipe
from his (accused) tricycle, chased Jecil and uttered the words “Putang ina mo.
Halika, papatayin kita so Jecil went directly to the Barangay Hall. 6

Upon perusal of the documentary exhibits submitted by herein private

complainant, there exists conflicting statements, to wit:

A. It can be gleaned under paragraph nine (9) of his(Jecil) complaint affidavit

stating that the incident happened at 3:58PM Of September 5, 2021 whereas
based on his testimony, he mentioned that the incident happened between
8:30 to 9:00 in the morning. Paragraph nine (9) of Jecil Palisoc’s complaint
affidavit states that:

9. The RESPONDENT’s criminal conduct, was clearly recorded in

the official recordings of Barangay Closed-Circuit Televesion (CCTV)
showing that at about 3:58PM of 05 September 2021 with evident
premeditation RESPONDENT directly and actually, with clear intent to
inflict physical harm and injury against the person of the
COMPLAINANT… xxx

B. Private complainant Jecil Palisoc stated during his testimony that he and
his wife were on their way to town proper when accused uttered the words “
Putang ina mo. Halika papatayin kita so he went directly to the Brangay Hall
however the attached Minutes of the Barangay Blotter dated September 5,
2021 at 9:20 AM, the Blotter states that:

Humigit kumulang 8:58AM habang kami po ay papunta sa San Isidro

N.E ay nadaan po kami sa harapan ni G. Ricky Lapina na nakasakay sa
tricycle. Nagkatinginan po kami at kansunod noon ay minura na po
ako at sabay kuha ng tubo sa loob ng tricycle na sakay niya. Buti nalang
at malapit lang ang barangay hall kaya duon nap o kami dumiretso
upang makaiwas sa gulo.

Considering that the incident happened near the barangay and the
immediacy of the report before the barangay, herein private complainant still
failed to state in his blotter the specific words which are allegedly uttered by
the accused.

The private complainant also failed to present any eyewitness during

the pendency of the presentation of prosecution evidence. Private
complainant stated that he was with his wife when the incident happened bat
he failed to present his wife to testify on his behalf to corroborate his
allegations or to present any barangay official who might have witnessed the

5
Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
6
Page 4 of 9 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated July 21, 2022, Criminal Case No. 797-22, Pp vs. Ricky
Lapina y Manuel for Grave Threats under Art 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 3 of 6
 alleged incident or heard the alleged utterances made by the accused
considering that the incident happened near the barangay.

On January 19, 2023 and February 2, 2023, the second prosecution witness
Christian Oliver Guinto, the Barangay Treasurer was put on the witness stand to
identify the attached CCTV Footage however he failed to bring with him and present
the original copy lifted from the memory of the CCTV of the Barangay for the reason
that the same was deleted.

The Rules on Electronic Evidence (REE), amended in 2002, expressly provide

for the admissibility of video recordings as evidence in court.

Section 1, Rule 11 of the REE provides that an audio, photographic and

video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided
that:

a.  shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court, and

b. shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who
made the recording or by some other person competent to testify
on the accuracy thereof.”

To authenticate means to prove or show to the court the genuineness of the

video footage or the electronic evidence presented from beginning to end, and that
it has not been tampered, altered or manipulated.

In the case of People vs. Eddie Manansala, the supreme court held that Rules
on Electronic Evidence provides that persons authorized to authenticate the video
or CCTV recording is not limited solely to the person who made the recording but
also by another competent witness who can testify to its accuracy. In the case, Asas
was able to establish the origin of the recording and explain how it was transferred
to the compact disc and subsequently presented to the trial court 7

What was presented by the private complainant in the instant case was a
video without sounds taken from the monitor of the CCTV using the private
complainant’s phone showing only the chosen portion of the incident. The original
video was never presented for proper authentication. Christian Oliver Guinto has no
control on the video presented after it was recorded by the private complainant.
Christian was not able to explain how the video from the phone was transferred to
the flash drive and subsequently presented to the trial court.

Human experience dictates that an average mind cannot memorize and recall
a specific video specially those videos which are not of the person’s interest. Even if
Christian mentioned during his testimony that it was the same video, it would be
impossible for him to identify that it was the same video considering that the video
is more than three (3) minutes and that he only watched the video twice. 8 Therefore,
the accused respectfully submits that the CCTV footage was not properly
authenticated.
7
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eddie Manansala y Alfaro, Accused-Appellant; G.R. No. 233104,
September 02, 2020.
8
Page 5 of 5 of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated January 19, 2023, Criminal Case No. 797-22, Pp vs.
Ricky Lapina y Manuel for Grave Threats under Art 282 of the Revised Penal Code.

Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 4 of 6
 After a considerable review of the documents offered by the prosecution,
including a careful analysis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the
defense fervently submits before this Honorable Court that the prosecution has
utterly failed to discharge their burden of proving the guilt of the accused Ricky
Lapina y Manuel beyond reasonable doubt.

Under the above circumstances, the guilt of the accused cannot be established
with moral certainty. The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is burden of the
prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum
of evidence required. In these case, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the
evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of the
accused with moral certainty.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Court to order as follows:

1. To hold in abeyance, the presentation of defense evidence until the instant

demurrer to evidence is resolved; and

2. To grant this demurrer to evidence and to DISMISS the case for insufficiency
of evidence against the accused.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Gapan City, March 27, 2023.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Counsel for the Accused
2nd Floor, Hall of Justice Bldg., Bayanihan
Gapan City, Nueva Ecija

By:

ATTY. JESSA M. BONTAGEN

Public Attorney I
Roll No. 74768
IBP No.289230(01-17-2023)
MCLE Comp. No. VII-0025178(12/28/2022)

and

ATTY. RHODALICE MICHELLE S. VIERNES-GARCIA

Public Attorney III
Roll No. 64331
IBP OR No. 286407(1/12/2023)
MCLE Comp. No. VIII-0001569(1/12/2023)

NOTICE

Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 5 of 6
To: Mr. Pablo Reyes
Branch Clerk of Court
MTC Jaen

Greetings:
Please submit this DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE to the Honorable Court for its
kind consideration and approval.

JESSA M. BONTAGEN

Copy Furnished thru electronic mail:

APP SUSAN M. APOLONIO

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION/EXPLANATION

The undersigned counsel informs the Honorable Court that service of the instant
Demurrer to Evidence was served through Electronic Mail to Fiscal Susan M. Apolonio, at
atty_apol@yahoo.com.ph it being the most expeditious service.

JESSA M. BONTAGEN

Demurrer to Evidence
|Ricky M. Lapina|
Page 6 of 6