1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 69
JOEL CORPUS and
ARITSTOTLE BINUYA,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. C-85986
- for
ATTEMPTED MURDER

- versus NESTOR LEPON,

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

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
COMES NOW the accused, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency
of the prosecutions evidence to justify a conviction, respectfully states:
That no presented evidence proving the commission of the crime of attempted murder and
other evidences proving their precise participation therein but the mere testimonies of
Doctor Susana Caseria, medico legal that examined the complainant and the Complainant
Nester Lepon which was stricken off by the court.

To be considered sufficient evidence, the same must prove (1) the commission of the crime and
(2) the precise degree of participation therein of the accused.
Attempting to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution
merely presented the testimonies of Doctor Susana Caseria, medico legal, that examined the
complainant and the Complainant Nester Lepon which was stricken off by the Honorable Court.
There was neither the evidence proving, that the accused is the one who committed.
The main element of attempted or frustrated murder is the accuseds intent to take his
victims life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every
possible doubt regarding murderous intent. In consonance with the foregoing, since the
testimony of the complainant has been stricken off the record, the intent of the accused to take
the complainants life cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the nature and
circumstances surrounding the case can no longer be established due to the striking off of the
testimony of the complainant.

Likewise, the testimony of Doctor Susana Caseria, the medico legal which examined the
case, is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony
merely provides evidence to the medical condition of the victim after the commission of the
crime. Her testimony does not constitute as evidence to prove the elements of the crime of
murder under Sec 248 of the Revised Penal Code which states which are; 1. That the accused
intended to kill the complainant; 2. That it was attended with any of the qualifying circumstance
to constitute murder; and 3. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is respectfully prayed of the
Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the case action for insufficiency of
evidence against the accused.
Caloocan City, April 25, 2013.
NARUTO, LALO & CHARING
Counsel for the Accused