REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ______, CALOOCAN CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM CASE NO. C – ________

For: Vio. of Sec. 11 Art. II,
___________________________________, R.A. 9165
Accused.
x------------------------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
(With Prior Leave of Court)

ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

WITH PRIOR LEAVE OF COURT, respectfully moves for the acquittal of the
above-named accused on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a Demurrer to Evidence and in
support thereof avers:

Such insufficiency means that further proceedings will waste the precious
time of this Honorable Court.

Above named accused stands charged for allege violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. 9165.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Compared to other kinds of case, the prosecution of criminal cases is the

most exhaustive for the quantum of evidence required to convict the accused is
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Section 14 (12), Article III, of 1987 of the
Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven. Where the state fails to meet the quantum of proof required to
overcome the Constitutional presumption, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
regardless of the weakness or even the absence of his defense. By Constitutional
fiat, the burden of proof is accordingly vested in the prosecution.1

The presumption cannot be overcome by suspicion or conjecture i.e.

probability that the accused committed the crime or that he had the opportunity to
do so. To overcome the presumption of innocence proof beyond reasonable doubt
of every fact essential to constitute the offense with which the accused is charged
must be clearly established by the prosecution.2
1
People vs. Sergio Bato and Abraham Bato, GR No. 113804, January 16, 1998
2
People vs. Mamalias G.R. No. 128073. March 27, 2000 citing People vs. Isla, 278 SCRA 47 (1997).
 Page 2 of 4

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSIONS

The accused was arraigned on May 7, ____ and he entered a plea of not
guilty. Pre-trial ensued and it was terminated on June 4, _____. Thereafter, trial
proper commenced. After formally offering its exhibits, the Prosecution rests its
case. Leave of court to file demurrer to evidence was filed by the defense and the
same was granted.

During the Pre-trial, the prosecution identified four witnesses namely

P/Chief Inspector ___________, the chemist who conducted chemical analysis on
the subject specimen; PO2 __________, the investigator; PO2 __________, the
arresting officer of the accused; and PO2 ____________ as a corroborating witness
and part of the surveillance team together with PO2 ___________.

P/Chief Inspector __________, the forensic chemist, testified on July 4,

2010; PO2 __________, the investigator, testified on June 23, 2011; and PO2
__________, as corroborating witness, testified on March 15, 2012. Their
supposed direct testimonies were dispensed with after both parties agreed to enter
into stipulation. The defense likewise offered counter-stipulation that all of the
witnesses had no personal knowledge with regard to the arrest of the accused as
well as the recovery of the evidence.

The Prosecution was supposed to present PO2 ____________, the arresting

officer of the accused who have personal knowledge regarding the facts and
circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused as well as the recovery of the
evidence. Unfortunately, he was not able to testify due to his repeated failure to
appear in court despite numerous notices given to him. As a result, the Prosecution
was not able to relate the facts of the arrest of the accused and was not able to
identify the specimen subject matter of the case and the identity of the accused.

From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that the corpus delicti of the crime
imputed to the accused was not proven by the prosecution.

In a long line of cases, it was categorically ruled by the Supreme Court that
identity of the prohibited drugs constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense.

Thus, in the case of People vs. Pedronan3, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“The identity of the prohibited drugs constitute the

corpus delicti of the offense.”

The Supreme Court has explained in People v. Del Monte [G.R. No.
179940, 23 April 2008] that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be

3
G.R. 148668, June 17, 2003
 Page 3 of 4

utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The

existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of
conviction [People vs. Mendiola, G.R. No. 110778, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA
116, 120]. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function
of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence
are removed.4

Furthermore, in People vs. Mendiola5, it was held that:

“Considering that in criminal cases, proof beyond

reasonable doubt is required to establish the guilt of the
accused, similarity in identifying the corpus delicti is
insufficient; unwavering exactitude in identification is
necessary. Every fact necessary to constitute the crime
must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt
(People vs. Garcia 215 SCRA 349 [1992]).

Clearly, PO2 __________, who is the most competent person to make the
proper identification being the arresting officer who confiscated the item from the
accused, never actually identified the same.

The failure of the prosecution to have the specimen or alleged plastic sachet
recovered from the accused be indentified in open court by its witnesses is very
fatal to their case. As a necessary consequence of the failure of the prosecution to
prove all the elements of the crime, ACQUITTAL of the accused is an inevitable
conclusion.

With the testimonies thus presented, the prosecution failed to prove by

evidence the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no need
for the accused to present any evidence in his defense and herein accused must be
acquitted of the aforementioned offense.

It goes without saying that conviction must rest on the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence because after all the accused enjoys the constitutional right
to be presumed innocent until contrary is proven. “The evidence of the
prosecution must stand or fall on its merits, and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness or absence of the evidence for the defense.”

PRAYER

4 People vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, October 17, 2008.

5 G.R. No. 110778, August 4, 1994
 Page 4 of 4

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to GRANT the instant Demurrer to Evidence for insufficiency of
evidence based on the aforestated grounds and consequently, for the failure of the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Caloocan City, May 20 2013.

ATTY __________
Address
Roll No. _______
IBP Lifetime Member No. __________
MCLE Compliance No. __________

NOTICE OF HEARING

ATTY. ____________
Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Branch _____
Caloocan City

Greetings:

Please take notice that the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence will be heard
for consideration and approval of the Honorable Court at their most available
calendar date without further argument.

ATTY_________________

Copy furnished:

ACP ___________________
Office of the City Prosecutor
Caloocan City