You are on page 1of 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 123, Makati City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Plaintiff

versus CRIMINAL CASE. 1001001


FOR: PARRICIDE

TENIENTE GIMO
Accused

XX---------------------------------------------------------XX

COMMENT/OBJECTIONS

(To the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Object and Documentary Evidence)

ACCUSED by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully comments and/or objects to the admission of the Prosecution’s Formal Offer
of Object Evidence as follows:

ACCUSED objects to the formal offer of the Bolo as evidence of the Prosecution,
marked as Exhibit “C”. The Bolo is inadmissible as evidence due to the reason that it
was never identified and offered during the trial of the case. There is no basis for its
admissibility thus making its purpose moot and unwarranted.

The ACCUSED further objects to the purpose of the offer as follows:

EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS

“A” Affidavit of Ms. Maria Mae The Accused objects to the purpose of the
Killing offer specifically which is to attest to the
incident pertaining to the commission of the
crime of parricide by the accused.

It has been declared in open court and that the


records would attest that the primary witness
admitted that she was not present at the
precise moment of the commission of the
crime. Thus, the testimony of the witness with
regard to this matter would all be hearsay and
is inadmissible as evidence. At cross, she
categorically admitted that she did not see the
actual killing, thus, her assumption that it is the
Accused who killed the victim is mere
speculation inadmissible in evidence.

“B” SOCO Report of Bernardo The Accused objects to the purpose of the
Carpio offer specifically which is to establish the
presence of the accused at the scene of the

Page 1 of 5
crime.

The Investigator being a mere responder after


the crime has already been committed is
incompetent to testify or to establish the
presence of the accused at the scene of the
crime during its actual commission. The
investigator has no personal knowledge nor
has a well-grounded belief that the accused
was at the scene of the crime for the obvious
reason that he was not present at the time the
crime was committed.

The Accused also objects to the purpose of


the offer which is to establish the
circumstances surrounding the commission of
the crime. The witness himself admitted that
he did not see the killing and the fact that he
arrived only when the crime had already been
committed negated actual knowledge on the
circumstances surrounding the commission of
the crime, thus, there was no way for him to
exactly establish the facts on the actual
commission of the crime. Whatever he may
conclude from the things he had collected are
pure speculations inadmissible in evidence.

The Accused also objects to the purpose of


the offer which is to testify and correlate the
pieces of evidence acquired from the scene of
the crime with the commission of said crime.
Again, being not present during the actual
commission of the crime, the witness is
incompetent to correlate the pieces of
evidence acquired from the scene of the
crime, and not being offered as an expert
witness, his testimony regarding this matter is
mere speculation thus, inadmissible in
evidence.

The Accused also objects to the admissibility


of the report to prove the time of death of the
victim due to its being inconsistent with the
Information and because said witness also is
incompetent to testify as to the time of death
not being a medico-legal officer.

“C-1” Blanket marked with “Property The Accused objects to the purpose of the
of Teniente Gimo” offer specifically which is to prove the fact that
the accused is the owner of thing used in
killing the victim.

The records will show that the primary witness


admitted that it was only in one occasion that
she went to the house of the accused. Thus
ownership of the properties that can be found
inside the house of the accused cannot be
accurately established by the witness by just
mere one instance. The witness is

Page 2 of 5
incompetent to testify to this matter and all she
said was hearsay which is inadmissible.

Supposing without admitting that the blanket


was a property of the Accused, it could not
prove, either directly or indirectly, that the
Accused was the one who killed the victim.
The crime being committed in the house of the
Accused, it is but natural that his belongings
could be found there and with the victim. This
however does not prove in any degree that the
accused killed the victim. Thus, it is
inadmissible in evidence being irrelevant and
immaterial.

“E” Fingerprint Analysis Report The defense admits the genuineness and due
execution of these documents as they are
public documents and forms part of public
records. However the findings integrated on
these reports are hereby being opposed since
the very object that was examined as the basis
of this analysis report is inadmissible in
evidence pertaining to the Bolo marked as
Exhibit “C”.

“F-1” Medical Necropsy and The Accused objects to the purpose of the
Toxicology offer specifically which is to corroborate the
testimony of the first witness based on this
medical report.

Under Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of


Court, the purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified. The offer made by
the prosecution is a general offer which must
be rejected. The admittance made by the
defense was only with regard to the
genuineness and due execution of the public
document and it is wanting on how this piece
of document can corroborate the testimony of
the witness. The primary witness has testified
on a lot of matters which the prosecution failed
to clearly specify on what specific areas the
medical report corroborates the testimony of
the witness.

“F-2” Picture of dead Maria Labo The best evidence that can prove the death of
the victim is not through photographic images
but by presenting the victim’s death certificate.
Thus, the Accused objects to the purpose of its
offer.

“G-1”, “G-2” Crime Scene picture of the The Accused objects to the purpose of the
& “G-3” kitchen, Crime scene picture of offer specifically To corroborate the testimony
the Cauldron and Crime Scene of the two witnesses presented.
picture of the body on the
table, covered with the Blanket As mentioned above the purpose for which the

Page 3 of 5
(“C-1”) evidence is offered must be specified. Clearly,
it is confusing on the part of the defense on
what part of the testimonies of the two
witnesses presented these pieces of evidence
corroborates. Being the case, this prejudices
the defense on its right of raising the
necessary allowable defences provided by law
and the rules to protect the interest of the
accused.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Accused most respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the
foregoing object and documentary exhibits mentioned above be denied admission for
the reasons above stated. The Accused further prays for such other relief as may be
just and equitable under the premises.

Makati City.
August 14, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

Counsel for the Accused Teniente Gimo

PRADAC Law Office


37th Floor, LKG Tower
6801 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN


PTR 345756, 1/10/15, Makati City
IBP No. 01023 Lifetime Member
Roll No. 37435
MCLE Compliance III-000913, April 19, 2014

Copy Furnished by Personal Service to:

BIAG NI LAM-ANG
City Assistant Prosecutor
Makati City

BAHMMM LAW OFFICE


Unit 143 44th Floor, Garampingat Bldg.
6969 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1229

Page 4 of 5
EXPLANATION

The filing of this Comment/Objection was done through LBC due to time,
distance and manpower constraints.

ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN

Page 5 of 5