Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

xxx

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. xxx

Plaintiff,

- versus - FOR: VIOL. OF SEC. 10(a) in

Rel. to Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 7610

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

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
COMES NOW, the Accused, xxx, through the undersigned Public
Attorney and unto the Honorable Court, most respectfully aver that:
The information against the accused reads as follows:

xxxxxx

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime
of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the
laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the
accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the
child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is
punished under the Revised Penal Code.1

BASIS FOR THE DEMURRER

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, with
1 George Bongalon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013
evidence which stands or falls on its merits, and which cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Unless it
discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt
of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, such as the case at bar,
it is a policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence of the accused
must be favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right.2

ARGUMENTS

The Honorable Prosecutor has already presented evidence for the

Prosecution and has formally rested its case. In accordance with the present
rules on criminal procedure, herein accused now respectfully files this present
Demurrer to Evidence, based on the following grounds, viz.;

I.
What occurred between the boys was nothing more than a scuffle between
old childhood friends.

The herein accused persons are close in age with the private complainant
at the time of the commission of the crime; xxxx then one day away from his xxx
birthday, xxxxx being xxx years old, and xxxxx being xxx years old. As it appears,
what occurred between these boys was nothing more than a scuffle between old
childhood friends.

The private complainant himself revealed that he knew the two accused
because they were former [childhood] friends, the said friendship having lasted
for more or less ten (10) long years. By that estimation, the persons involved
knew each other way back when the alleged victim xxxx was xxx years old and
the accused xxx years old, respectively.
2 People vs. Dindo, G.R. No. 129305, January 18, 2001
 II.
The dearth of evidence concerning the psychological injury suffered by xxx is
fatal to the establishment of the prosecutions case. There were no
witnesses, no evidence, and no unequivocal and convincing testimony from
the private complainant himself.

The records did not establish that the laying of hands on xxx, had been
intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of xxx as a human being, or
that the xxx intended to debase, degrade, demean or humiliate xxx. Moreover,
no proof has been presented regarding the psychological injury suffered by the
accused, except his own self-serving, uncorroborated and cursory allegation that
he was “embarrassed”.

The said incident was even considered by the complainant himself as a

prank:

COURT: (to the witness)

Q: What is the reason why they waylaid and mauled you?

A: I think they made a prank on me. I do not really know.

Under Section 3 (b) (1) of R.A. 7610, child abuse includes psychological and
physical abuse. The law has used the word “and” in the phrase “psychological
and physical abuse.” Thus, to constitute the crime of child abuse, the infliction
of physical injury must be coupled with the infliction of psychological injury.3

Physical injury includes but is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones,

burns, internal injuries, severe injury, or serious bodily harm suffered by a child.4

3 Campanilla, M.B., Special Penal Laws, Volume 1 (2010), page 113

4 Ibid.
 III.
The gravamen of the crime of child abuse lies in the commission of an
act intended to diminish the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
being. This intention, upon which the charge is primarily grounded, is
seriously lacking in the case at bar.

For a person to be convicted under Republic Act No. 7610 for child abuse,
the infliction of physical injury upon a minor must be coupled with
psychological injury, or physical injury intended to diminish the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being. The evidence presented by the
prosecution is wanting as to whether or not the minor-complainant also suffered
psychological injury as a result of the physical abuse. Moreover, no evidence on
record was presented by the prosecution if the physical injury inflicted on the
minor was intended to diminish his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being.
Absence of any direct and clear proof of the foregoing, accused persons cannot
be held liable for Child Abuse.

IV.
The infliction of physical injury upon the person of a minor does not
automatically amount to Child Abuse simply by a finding that the victim is a
minor. No such presumption is supported by law or jurisprudence hence no
such presumption could apply now.

Granting, for the sake of argument, that accused persons inflicted

physical injury on the person of xxx, it did not automatically make them liable
for Child Abuse as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7610. The
infliction of physical injury upon the person of a minor does not automatically
amount to Child Abuse simply by reason of a finding that the victim is a minor.
There is no presumption in law or jurisprudence which could support such a
position. Considering that the prosecution failed to overcome the burden of
proof required by law, what should now prevail is the constitutionally
guaranteed presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

To consider the incident and convict the accused on charges of child

abuse, cruelty or exploitation for the plain reason that the victim is sixteen years
old is both unwarranted and unjust. The situation sets an alarming precedent
where R.A. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act, with its graver penalties and consequences,
is conveniently and improvidently used in every case where the victim is a minor.
Such appears to be the tragedy in the case at bar.

Given the uncertainty of the complainant and the equivocal nature of his
testimony, coupled with the fact that the said testimony has not been
corroborated even by a single witness, only one thing is clear – that the evidence
presented by the prosecution essential to prove the elements of the above
offense is insufficient to warrant a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Since
the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain the charges against the accused,
even more so the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, the dismissal of the case is only proper.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed upon
the Honorable Court that the present case be now dismissed due to lack of
compelling evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
xxx Iloilo, 1 February 2019.

xxx
 Counsel for the Accused

The Clerk of Court

xxx

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence for the kind

consideration and resolution of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
hereof.

xxx