REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 203
MUNTINLUPA CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintif,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 14-

435
For: Robbery

MARVIN CLACIO y
PURA
ROLDAN TURLA
And ONE (1) JOHN
DOE
Accused.
x------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO PROSECUTIONS
EVIDENCE

Accused, through undersigned counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the dismissal of the
afore-going criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence and in support thereof avers that:

In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the

offender, like the crime itself, must be established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the
first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the
crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for
even if the commission of the crime can be
established, there can be no conviction without
proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable
doubt.1

1
People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011.
1
 In Criminal Case No. 14-135, both Accused are being
charged of Robbery, allegedly committed as follows:

On or about the 15th day of

September 2013, in the City of
Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one
another, with intent to gain and with the
use of violence against and intimidation
on the person of private complainant
Lorna Lat-Miranda, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously steal,
take and divest the private complainant
of the following: one (1) HP Laptop
worth Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php
60,000.00), one (1) Lenovo Laptop
worth Thirty Four Thousand Pesos (Php
34,000.00), one (1) Nokia Cellphone
worth Two Thousand Pesos (Php
2,000.00), one (1) Cherry Mobile
Cellphone worth Four Thousand Pesos
(Php 4,000.00), one (1) LG Cellphone
worth Four Thousand Pesos (Php
4,000.00), one (1) PSP worth Ten
Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000.00), and
cash amounting to more or less Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00), all
with the total amount of One Hundred
Sixty Four Thousand Pesos (Php
164,000.00), by barging inside private
complainants house and then by telling
her and all the occupants therein
WALANG KIKILOS, DUMAPA KAYO
LAHAT, ILABAS ANG PERA and
KAPAG HINDI NIYO ILABAS ANG PERA
AY PAPATAYIN KO ANG BATANG ITO
while pointing a knife at them, to the
damage and prejudice of the private
complainant, in the aforesaid amount of
Php 164,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Muntinlupa City, June 17, 2014.

2
 Originally raffled to the Regional Trial Court Branch 256,
the case was transferred to this Honorable Court by order of
the Hon. Leandro Catalo dated February 3, 2016.

Accused Roldan Turla, who has been detained since July

14, 2015, pleaded Not Guilty when he was Arraigned on April
1, 2016. Accused Marvin Clacio, on the other hand, was
Arraigned on April 19, 2016, likewise pleading Not Guilty.

Private complainant Lorna Lat-Miranda (hereafter called

Mrs. Miranda) was presented as a witness only on November
29, 2016 after a Show-Cause Order was issued against her
by this Honorable Court on October 4, 2016. On the other
hand, the second prosecution witness, Archie Castro
(hereafter called Castro), has never been presented.

On March 24, 2017, the prosecution filed its Formal

Offer of Evidence. The Accused, through counsel, made their
Comments/ Oppositions thereto in open court. This
Honorable Court acted on the Prosecutions Formal Offer of
Evidence afterward.

TIMELINESS OF THE DEMURRER

TO EVIDENCE

A Motion for Leave of Court to file Demurrer to

Prosecution's Evidence was made orally by the Public
Attorney's Office, through the undersigned counsel, on March
24, 2017. The Honorable Court granted said Motion for Leave
of Court to file Demurrer in the same proceeding and gave
accused, through counsel, within ten (10) days from notice of
the resolution on the Formal Offer of the Prosecution within
which to submit Demurrer to Evidence.

Thus, this Demurrer to Evidence is timely filed, the 10th

day falling on April 3, 2017.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DISMISSAL

OF THE INSTANT CASES

The pieces of evidence presented by the State are

insufficient to prove that both accused should be held guilty
for the crime of Robbery based on the following arguments:

3
 DISCUSSION

THE TESTIMONY OF LORNA

LAT-MIRANDA IS NOT ENOUGH
TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS
OF THE OFFENSE.

Robbery is committed when an offender: 1) with intent

to gain, 2) shall take any personal property belonging to
another, 3) by means of violence against or intimidation of
any person.

During trial, the prosecution presented private

complainant. The testimony of the witness failed to establish
that the accused robbed her. In her Affidavit-Complaint
subscribed before the Prosecutors Office, Mrs. Miranda
categorically stated that the two men who broke into her
home that fateful night of September 15, 2013, had their
faces covered. In fact, in the same Affidavit, she also stated
that her son-in-law, Marvin, one of the accused in this case,
was in fact threatened by one of the masked men with a
knife.

Further telling is her testimony in open court:

FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: So ang lahat ho ng iyan, ang may
kagagawan niyan, dalawang (2) lalaki na
may takip ang mukha?

A: Opo.

xxx

FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: Uulitin ko po, maam, ha. Kayo ho
nagsulat dito sa inyong salaysay ninyo
na sinasabi ninyo na dahil nakonsensya
itong isang taong nagngangalang Archie
Castro?

A: Opo.

Q: So kilala nyo ho itong Archie

Castro na ito?
4
A: Hindi ho, bale lumapit lang siya
sa akin.

Q: Hindi ninyo kilala yan?

A: Hindi po.

xxx

FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: [] Ano naman ho maam ang
naging reaksyon ninyo nung sinumbong
nitong Archie na kasama pala niya dito
iyong son-in-law?

A: Eh, sa sobrang takot ko at saka

syempre, emosyon, agad akong
pumunta sa ano para magdemanda nga.

Q: Maitanong ko lang ho, maam

noong bago iyong insidente ng
panloloob, kayo ay may tampuhan
nitong inyong manugang?

A: Bale parang muntik lang po.

Q: Ano ho?

A: Meron ho.

Q: Hindi kayo magkasundo? Sige ho,

sabihin ninyo.

A: Hindi parang medyo hindi

nagkakasagutan.

Q: A, nagkakasagutan?

A: Opo.

xxx
FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: Doon sa lahat ho ng mga pangalan
na nabanggit ninyo, napansin ko, hindi
doon kasama iyong pangalan na Marvin
5
Clacio. Ibig sabihin wala siya doon sa
bahay na iyon?
A: Nandoon din po sa amin.

Q: Nandoon siya sa inyo?

A: Opo.

xxx
FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: Ano ho ang ginagawa niya doon,
maam, bago po ang insidente na iyon?

A: Kasama namin siya.

Q: Ano ho ang ginagawa niya?

A: Nakain kami.

Q: Noon mismong nanloob na iyong

dalawang kalalakihang iyon, nasaan
siya?

A: Ay andito po siya. Siya nga ang

unang tinutukan.

Q: So hindi siya kasama doon sa

nakamaskara ganoon ba?

A: Hindi po.

xxx
FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: Bakit mo iuurong?

A: Eh kasi maling impormasyon lang

iyong nakuha ko sa ibang tao, kaya
inuurong ko na iyong demanda ko.

Q: Iuurong mo. Iuurong mo ang

demanda dito kay Marvin Clacio?

A: At saka doon din kay Roldan.

Q: Paano naman ho ninyo maam

napatunayan na itong impormasyon na
ibinigay sa inyo ay mali?
6
A: Eh kasi po maayos na tayo naman
sila, eh sobrang takot ko lang.
Naniwala agad ako.

Q: Gusto ko lang ho maam makuha

ang tamang sagot sa inyo, na itong
sinasabi ninyong pag-urong ng
demanda, ito ay dahil sa awa ninyo sa
kanila?

A: Hindi po, hindi po.

Q: Bakit po, anong dahilan?

A: Eh kasi nga po, hindi naman

ako dapat naniwala kasipasensya
na kayo kasi nga hindi ako dapat
naniwala kaagad doon sa sabi-sabi
palibhasa sa sobrang takot ko, agad
akong nakapunta doon sa pulisya
para magdemanda.

Xxx

FISCAL BELLEZA
Q: Nung mga panahon po ba na iyon,
kilala ninyo na itong Roldan Turla?

A: Hindi po.

Q: Hindi mo kilala. Ngayon, kilala mo

na siya?

A: Hindi pa rin po kasi nga

nakamaskara sila nung nagpunta sila sa
amin.

Q: Ngayon po, itong pangalan na

Roldan Turla, kilala mo na iyong taong
ito, ngayon?

A: Hindi po.

Q: So kung nandidito siya sa

Hukuman, hindi mo siya kayang ituro?

7
 A: Hindi ko po maituturo kasi nga
po nakamaskara sila.

Q: Hindi po, wala tayo doon sa

nakamaskara. Ang tinatanong ko ho sa
inyo, maam, sa ngayon, sa presenting
panahon, kung itong Roldan Turla na ito
na pangalan, iyang katauhan niyan ay
nandidito sa Hukumang ito, kaya ninyo
siyang kilalanin?

A: Hindi po.

Q: Bakit naman ho hindi ninyo kayang

kilalanin?

A: Nadinig ko lang nga iyong

pangalan niya kasi, iyong pagsabi
sa akin. (Emphasis supplied.)

It is very clear from the quoted testimony of Mrs.

Miranda that both Marvin Clacio and Roldan Turla were not
part of the alleged incident being complained of in this case
as the offenders themselves. She duly admitted that she did
not in fact see who exactly robbed her and her family.

It is basic rule in evidence set forth in Section 36 of Rule

130 of the Rules of Court that a witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his own personal knowledge,
that is, which are derived from his own perception;
otherwise, such testimony would be hearsay.

Furthermore, Mrs. Mirandas testimony is not enough to

prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 2 Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that:

In a criminal case, the accused is

entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt
is shown 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

8
 which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.

There is nothing from the testimony of Mrs. Miranda

from which this Honorable Court could derive its decision of
conviction. The degree of proof required from the prosecution
was not met.

The Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Gilbert

Baulite and Libarato Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October
8, 2001, ruled that:

The rule is clear. The guilt of the

accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution, on
its part, must rely on the strength of its
own evidence and must not simply
depend on the weakness of the defense.
The slightest possibility of an innocent
man being convicted for an offense he
has never committed, let alone when no
less than the capital punishment is
imposed, would be far more dreadful
than letting a guilty person go
unpunished for a crime he may have
perpetrated. On the whole then, the
scanty evidence for the prosecution
casts serious doubts as to the guilt
of the accused. It does not pass the
test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to rebut the
presumption of innocence which
the Bill of Rights guarantees the
accused. It is apropos to repeat the
doctrine that an accusation is not,
according to the fundamental law,
synonymous with guilt; the prosecution
must overthrow the presumption of
innocence with proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. (Emphasis supplied)

ARCHIE CASTRO WAS NEVER

PRESENTED IN COURT TO
CORROBORATE THE
TESTIMONY OF MRS.
9
MIRANDA, OR TO EVEN GIVE
LIGHT AS TO WHY HE WOULD
GIVE INFORMATION THAT
ALLEGEDLY, ACCUSED MARVIN
AND ROLDAN ROBBED MRS.
MIRANDA.

The eyewitness of the prosecution in this case was

Castro, who filed a witnesss affidavit in favor of Mrs.
Miranda in this case. However, as borne by the records of the
case, Castro has not been receiving the sub poenas issued
even by the Honorable Regional Trial Court Branch 256. The
returns on the sub poenas issued to the witness has been
bouncing back to the courts, with the annotation RTS
Unknown, as early as February 9, 2016 for RTC Branch 256
and March 31, 2016 for this Honorable Court.

In his affidavit, Castro alleged that Accused Roldan Turla

approached him on September 15, 2013 and asked him to
accompany him to rob Mrs. Mirandas home, and that Turla
threatened him with a mauling if he did not agree and
comply. He further stated that allegedly, Accused Marvin
Clacio was waiting outside the house, left the gate open.
Castro even added that allegedly Marvin told him and Roldan
to cover their faces with T-shirts and gave them a pellet gun
with which to intimidate the residents of Mrs. Mirandas
house.

Castro averred that he gave the information to Mrs.

Miranda about the robbery because his conscience was
bothering him; however, if his allegations were in fact true,
then why did he avoid the processes of the court, and did
not vouch for the veracity of his claims?

THERE IS NO DIRECT
EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LINK
THE ACCUSED TO THE
COMMISSION OF THE
ALLEGED OFFENSE; THE
CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
SHOULD BE UPHELD.

It needs to be emphasized that though the private

complainant appeared before this Honorable Court to testify,
10
her testimony would not overcome the presumption of
innocence both Accused enjoy in their favor. There was no
eye witness presented that would categorically point to the
two Accused as the culprits.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Rene

Mamalias Y Fiel, G.R. No. 128073, March 27, 2000, the
Supreme Court ruled that:

In the case at bar, the trial court merely

relied on hearsay evidence, particularly on the
testimony of SPO3 Liberato and the sworn
statement of Epifanio Raymundo who did not
testify in the trial court. The records clearly show
that prosecution witness SPO3 Liberato has no
personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the
shooting incident. The Progress Report and the
Booking and Arrest Report he prepared were
based on information related to him by Epifanio
Raymundo almost five (5) months after the crimes
were committed. In fact, contrary to the factual
finding of the trial court that SPO3 Liberato went
to the locus criminis shortly after the shooting
incident, the records show that it was PO3
Edgardo E. Ko who was dispatched by the WPD
Command to investigate the case. For unknown
reason, PO3 Ko was not called to the witness
stand. The records also show that SPO3 Liberato
was not even a member of the team of policemen
that apprehend the accused-appellant on January
4, 1993. He testified that the accused-appellant
was turned over to him only on January 6, 1993,
and he did not know how the accused-appellant
was apprehended. He was also not aware whether
a warrant of arrest had been issued against the
accused-appellant. Clearly, his knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding the shooting incident
was limited to the matters relayed to him by his
co-policemen and the alleged eyewitness, hence,
hearsay.

In the same vein, the sworn statement

of Epifanio Raymundo is merely hearsay
evidence as he did not personally appear in
court to affirm its content. Its probative
value, if any, is little. We have held that in
criminal cases, the admission of hearsay

11
 evidence would be a violation of the
constitutional provision that the accused
shall enjoy the right to confront the
witnesses testifying against him and to
cross-examine them. A conviction based
alone on proof that violates the
constitutional right of an accused is a nullity
and the court that rendered it acted without
jurisdiction in its rendition. Such a judgment
cannot be given any efect whatsoever
especially on the liberty of an individual.

xxx xxx xxx

We emphasize that the great goal of our

criminal law and procedure is not to send people
to the jail but to do justice. The prosecution's job
is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. Conviction must be based on
the strength of the prosecution and not on the
weakness of the defense-- the obligation is upon
the shoulders of the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused, not on the accused to prove his
innocence. Thus, when the evidence for the
prosecution is not enough to sustain a conviction,
it must be rejected and the accused absolved and
released at once.

The Accused guilt could not be determined beyond

reasonable doubt even with the testimony of the private
complainant. Hence, both Accused are entitled to an
acquittal in these cases without need for them to adduce
defense evidence. After all, it is the duty of the prosecution
to furnish the answers to all questions relative to the guilt of
the accused in the form of clear and convincing evidence. If
it is unable to give acceptable answers to some of those
questions, it cannot look to the accused for them. (People
of the Philippines vs. Teofista Bragat vda. De
Cabangahan, G.R. No. 70037. July 7, 1989). Every
accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable
12
doubt, or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only the right of the
accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional duty of the
court to acquit them. (People vs. Gilbert Baulite and
Liberato Baulite, supra.)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that the above-entitled case
be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

27 March 2017, Muntinlupa City.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Muntinlupa District Office
Ground Floor, Muntinlupa Hall of Justice
National Road, Tunasan, Muntinlupa City

By:

KRISTINE DRAEI V. DUMALANTA

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 65497
IBP No. 1057639 01/05/2017 PPLM
MCLE Compliance No. n/a

Copy furnished:

Hon. Joseph Lee Belleza

Assistant City Prosecutor
C/O Office of the City Prosecutor

13
Muntinlupa City

14