REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 20
LIPA CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus – Crim. Case No. 101001-2015

For: GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION

SELYA BATUMBAKAL,
Accused.
x ----------------------------------------------- x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The Accused SELYA BATUMBAKAL, 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 365). The
charges against an accused must be dismissed if there is no competent or sufficient
evidence adduced that would sustain the charges against him, should the same be
raised in a demurrer to the evidence. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides:
“Sec. 23 After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the
prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the
accused with or without leave of court.
x x x”

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 179 SCRA
20). 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.
(People vs. Lati, 184 SCRA 336). Failing in this, the presumption of innocence will
prevail. (Sec. 1 (a) Rule 115).

1
 ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The witness presented by the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove in court the
following: (1) no evidence was presented by the prosecution to positively identify
SELYA BATUMBAKAL who actually uttered the words “Hay naku! Dumaan na naman
ang mukhang bangkay” directly and exclusively to private complainant MARIO
AMAROK; and (2) the speaking of alleged base and defamatory words tend to prejudice
MARIO AMAROK in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood.

The witness presented by the prosecution is the private complainant himself,

Mario Amarok who failed to prove that the alleged defamatory words “Hay naku!
Dumaan na naman ang mukhang bangkay” pertains directly and exclusively to him. As
a matter of fact, his testimonies only falls squarely on the alleged grudged of Selya
Batumbakal against him because of the past election campaign that resulted to their
bitter relationship. Nothing was ever shown that the office or position of Mario Amarok
as barangay captain was prejudiced by reason of Selya Batumbakal’s alleged
defamatory words. What is more dubious is that if indeed Selya Batumbakal’s utterance
of such words really pertain to Mario, there must be further actions or a positive overt
act like pointing of finger or looking straightly in his eyes or ensued heated arguments
once Mario Amarok confronted Selya Batumbakal; however, instead of any further acts,
when Mario Amarok confronted Selya Batumbakal, the latter merely ignored him and
went on her way. Such action only indicates that the latter has no intention to defame
anyone nor to make any further arguments that would cost just a waste of time for her. It
can also be noted that his testimonies are extremely doubtful. Mr. Amarok mentioned
that during that time, he was inside the public market where there are many people, all
of them are busy talking with each other; hence, from his very own admission, he heard
the alleged defamatory words at his back and never saw who actually uttered such.
Since a public market is a crowded place, there could have been possibilities that such
words do not pertain to him and/or never came at all from Ms. Batumbakal.

Furthermore, there were no other witnesses who could possibly testify that it was
actually Ms. Selya who uttered the alleged defamatory statements, other than the self-
serving and speculative testimonies of Mr. Amarok himself which is based on his
speculations and mere conjectures. Just because Mr. Amarok hold a grudge against
Ms. Selya, does not necessarily mean that the latter is the one who uttered the alleged
defamatory statements. In other words, the elements of grave oral defamation as well
as the identity of the accused was not sufficiently established.

2
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable

Court that this Demurrer to Evidence be granted and that the criminal charge of Grave
Oral Defamation against the accused SELYA BATUMBAKAL be DISMISSED.

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

Lipa City, Philippines, March 9, 2017

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Public Attorney’s Office
Hall of Justice, Lipa City.

By:

ATTY. MARIA SOPHIA DE CLEO

Public Attorney II

NOTICE OF HEARING
Hon. Lea Sulpicio
Assistant City Prosecutor

Clerk of Court
RTC 20

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence for the approval and
consideration of the Honorable Court on 10 March 2017 at 8:30 a.m.

SELYA BATUMBAKAL

Copy Furnished:

Hon. Lea Sulpicio

Assistant City Prosecutor