REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH __, ________________________CITY

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,

Crim Case No. _________

-- versus --
For: Homicide

______________, ______________ and

______________,

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

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
TO DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The PROSECUTION, unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully states that:

1. The undersigned private prosecutor received the

Demurrer to Evidence of the accused on ______________, thus
giving the prosecution until ______________ to file its Comment.

2.In the said Demurrer to Evidence, the accused

allege that the instant case should be dismissed because the
prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to establish their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The position of the accused is without merit.

4. The accused focus on the fact that the private

complainants failed to immediately inform the police of the
identities of the persons who shot the victim, ______________, and
to immediately file a complaint against them. This delay in
filing the complaint should not be taken against the
complainants-witnesses, and should not necessitate the
dismissal of this case.

It must be noted that the complainants-witnesses

5.
are neighbors and live in the same barangay as the accused,
whom they know to be barangay police officers. Naturally,
the complainants-witnesses feared for their lives. As
testified by the widow ______________, she did not immediately
inform the police the identity of the person who shot her
husband as she was focused on him and was looking for
doctors to give him medical assistance. She also testified
that she was afraid that the accused would get back at her
and her children.

Moreover, ______________, as well as the rest of the

6.
family of the victim, was then grieving and mourning the
murder of their loved one, hence they had to wait until after
the burial of the victim to file their complaint against the
accused.

The accused likewise point to certain alleged

7.
inconsistent or questionable statements, which could be
properly explained.

8. First, the accused question why witness

______________did not corroborate the fact that the victim told
witness ______________that it was accused ______________who shot him.
______________was informed of identity of the shooter first while at
their terrace, and next, before the victim was brought in the
operating room. Witness ______________need not corroborate such
fact since, as an eyewitness, he already positively identified
that accused ______________shot the victim.

9.Second, the accused state that it is impossible for

both witnesses ______________and ______________to assist the victim
board a tricycle from the place of the incident, considering
the disparity of their weight and height. This however is not
impossible since the victim was being assisted by two
persons, and was still actually able to walk. As testified by
witness ______________during cross-examination, the victim placed
his arms on the shoulders of ______________and ______________, and that
the victim was dragging his feet and was able to walk a bit.

10. Thirdly, there is nothing unbelievable about

witness ______________ waiting for and following the victim from
the tricycle terminal towards the victim’s house, as one
kilometer is not such a long distance to walk.

11. All told, the credibility of witnesses ______________ and

______________are
beyond question as their testimonies are
compatible with human knowledge, observation and
common experience of man.

2
 12. The rest of the testimonies questioned by the
accused are matters involving minor inconsistencies
pertaining to details of immaterial nature that do not tend
to diminish the probative value of the testimonies at issue.
The Supreme Court ruled on this subject in Avelino v.
People,1 to wit:

“Given the natural frailties of the human

mind and its capacity to assimilate all material
details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies
and variances in the declarations of a witness
hardly weaken their probative value. It is well-
settled that immaterial and insignificant details
do not discredit a testimony on the very material
and significant point bearing on the very act of
accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies of
the witnesses corroborate one another on
material points, minor inconsistencies therein
cannot destroy their credibility. Inconsistencies
on minor details do not undermine the integrity
of a prosecution witness

13. Moreover, in People v. Dadao et al.,2 the High

Court held “that where there is no evidence that the
witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill motive, it
is presumed that they were not so actuated and their
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. In the case at
bar, no imputation of improper motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses was ever made by appellants.”

14. Based
on the above discussion, the accused
clearly do not have any basis to state that the prosecution’s
evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

15. Contrary
to the claim of the accused, the
prosecution was able to paint and prove the complete
picture surrounding the instant case. It is now the turn of
the accused to prove their side on the matter.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Prosecution respectfully prays that

the Demurrer to Evidence of the accused be denied for lack
of merit.
1
G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013, citing Madali v. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 274, 294.
2
G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014.

3
 Other reliefs, just or equitable, are likewise prayed for.

____________________________.

______________
Private Prosecutor

CONFORME:

PROS. ______________
Public Prosecutor