REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 12, MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- ve!"! # Ci$inal Ca!e N%& '12()*
F%+ Ra,e
JUAN MIGUEL LEE,
A--"!e.
/ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 /
DEMURRER TO E1IDENCE
The Accused JUAN MIGUEL LEE, through the undersigned counsel, most
respectfully submits its Demurrer to Evidence and avers:
BASIS FOR THE DEMURRER
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence sufficient to prove
beyond reasonable doubt (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the precise degree of
participation therein by the accused (Gutib vs. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 3!". The
charges against an accused must be dismissed if there is no competent or sufficient
evidence adduced that would sustain the charges against him, and the same should be
raised in a demurrer to the evidence. Section !, "ule ##$ of the "evised "ules of
%riminal &rocedure provides:
#Sec. 23 After t$e prosecution rests its case, t$e court ma% dismiss t$e action on
t$e &round of insufficienc% of evidence (1" on its o'n initiative after &ivin& t$e
prosecution t$e opportunit% to be $eard or (2" upon demurrer to evidence filed b% t$e
accused 'it$ or 'it$out leave of court.
( ( ()
It is well'settled rule that conviction for a criminal offense should be based on
clear and positive evidence and not on mere assumption. (Gaerlan vs. CA 1*+ SCRA
2,". The burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt rather that upon the accused to prove that he is in fact innocent.
(-eople vs. .ati, 1/0 SCRA 33". (ailing in this, the presumption of innocence will
prevail. (Sec. # (a) "ule ##)).
ARGUMENTS2DISCUSSION
The first witness of the prosecution, the private complainant herself, *S.
%+A"*AI,- ITA./- was not credible. +er testimony during the direct e0amination
alleged that the penis of the accused was introduced into her private parts contradict
what she said upon cross'e0amination that the penis was not introduced but instead
she stated that it was the finger of the accused which was used. It can also be pointed
out that she testified that the accused used two fingers and was successful in
penetrating her vagina. It is impossible for the accused to have used two fingers for the
simple reason that a nine year old child1s vagina cannot accommodate such a large
2ob3ect4. *oreover, her testimony contradicts her statement that she 5nows of the fact
that the accused was paraly6ed from waist down. She stated that she her legs was
spread open on top of the table and that the accused was able to get on top of her.
despite of the accused1s disability.
The second witness of the prosecution, 7"A. I89 %ATI&:,, the e0pert witness
who e0amined the private complainant is also not credible and her findings were
inconclusive. +er medical report did not specifically state that the private complainant
was raped. It only indicated that there was forced used upon the outer part of the
vagina. She e0plained that the force could have been brought about by anything even
by the simple washing of the private parts. She also stated that the hymen of the
private complaint was intact and that there were no lacerations inside her vaginal canal.
*oreover the medical report stated that there was the presence of semen near the thigh
of the private complaint. This is so despite the fact that the alleged rape happened one
wee5 before the said medical e0am was conducted. This would leave us to assume
that she had an intimate relationship with someone.
This being said, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. There being no other evidence presented, the charges against the
accused must be dismissed if there is no competent or sufficient evidence adduced that
would sustain the charges against him.
P R A 3 E R
;+-"-(:"-, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the +onorable
%ourt that this 7emurrer to -vidence be granted and that the criminal charge of "ape
against the accused JUAN MIGUEL LEE be 7IS*ISS-7.
:ther reliefs, 3ust and e<uitable, are li5ewise prayed for.
*anila &hilippines, *ay ), =#>.
?@-"@.I, /A; :((I%-
@nit # A.% Towers *alate, *anila
.y:
Atty. "einer :. ?uerubin
%ounsel for the &laintiff
I.& ,o. #!>)A BC'D'#B *anila
&T" ,o. A)>!# BC'$'#B *anila
"oll ,o. #!>)
*%/- -0emption ,o. III'#!>)A
Tel. ,o. !)!'==>A
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLER4 OF COURT
"-EI:,A/ T"IA/ %:@"T
."A,%+ #, *A,I/A
&lease submit the foregoing demurrer to evidence to the court for its
consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and 5indly include the
same in the court1s calendar for hearing on !=
th
of *ay =#> at #=:== in the morning.
Att5& Reine O& 6"e"7in
%ounsel for the Accused
%opy furnished:
Att5& L"8vi$in.a Li$-a"-%
%ity &rosecutor
:ffice of the prosecutor
%ity +all of *anila