People v.

A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 1 of 12

Republic of the Philippines

[Nth] Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch [N+1]
L City, A

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Crim. Case No. 1234

Plaintiff,

-versus-

A,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------x

TRIAL MEMORANDUM

The Accused, A, through undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully submits his Trial Memorandum, as
follows:

Prefatory Statement

“For the time-honored rule is that it is the lesser evil to set a

hundred guilty men free than to have one innocent person
languish in prison.”1

-Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc

This maxim firmed by the Supreme Court in numerous

decisions plainly shows the dread, nay injustice, of wrongly blaming
and punishing a man for a crime that he did not commit. This grave
mistake that will be committed by the entirety of our State against A
in finding him guilty of the crime of Slight Illegal Detention is what
this Trial Memorandum seeks to avoid.

Narration of Events

1. At the dawn of the year 2007, the chapel of the I in Barangay B,

L City was showered upon by stones thrown by private
complainant C. W1, a deaconess of the I, reported that incident
to the barangay officials later that morning.

1
People v. Decierdo, G.R. No. L-46956, May 7, 1987, 149 SCRA 496, 512.
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 2 of 12

2. The confrontation at the barangay was set at around 3:00 PM. It

was presided by W2, then a barangay kagawad of B. The parties
met at the barangay hall, with C on the one hand, and the I, as
represented by W3, on the other. Other I members were at the
meeting, including A.

3. The face-off did not take long as C complained of having a

hangover from last night’s drinking. He got angry and banged
the barangay logbook hard on the table. He even said
“Papatayin kita!” to W3. His actuations prompted the presiding
barangay officer to postpone the meeting.

4. The attendees of the confrontation, including A, went on their

separate ways. A immediately headed home to Barangay N, L
City where he entertained some guests. He stayed at his
residence for the night. A brother in the faith notified A of
another stoning incident involving the church and its premises
after the barangay confrontation but A thought of it as the same
as the first occurrence and thus dismissed it as such. The church
and appurtenant structures in the I compound were damaged.

5. A series of litigation then ensued. The I instituted criminal cases

against several culprits, including C, for the damages it
incurred due to the pelting of stones to its properties. This
resulted in the filing of a case for Grave Threats against C and
Malicious Mischief against his companions.

6. In retaliation, C filed a complaint for Slight Illegal Detention and

Qualified Trespass to Dwelling against several I members,
including W3, W1 and A. The Office of the City Prosecutor
(OCP) dismissed the Qualified Trespass to Dwelling charge. The
same office moved for the withdrawal of the Information for
Slight Illegal Detention against A that was filed before Branch
N+2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of L City. The said court
dismissed the case on November 14, 2007.2

7. On September 20, 2007, 9 months from the New Year stone-

pelting incident and nearly 2 months before the dismissal of the
first Slight Illegal Detention case against A, C and his wife C2
lodged a Letter-Complaint to the OCP that ripened to the
present case.3

2
Records of Criminal Case No. 1234, 139. [hereinafter Records]
3
Records, 3, 139. The Letter-Complaint that initiated the instant case was dated
September 20, 2007 and not September 30, 2007.
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 3 of 12

Sole Issue

Should A be held guilty of the crime of Slight Illegal Detention?

Arguments

For the reasons that will be discussed below, A must be

acquitted from the charge of Slight Illegal Detention leveled against
him. The Prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the
requisites of the crime charged against him. This is true especially
regarding their unconvincing claim that A illegally detained C. Only
moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind for a judgment of conviction. 4
Otherwise, absent said degree of proof, as in this case, the court is
constrained to acquit the accused.

I. Insufficiency of evidence to
prove illegal detention
committed by A and to
link him to the crime
charged

1. The essential elements of Slight Illegal Detention are: first, that

the offender is a private individual; second, that said offender
kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the
latter of his or her liberty; third, that such detention is illegal;
and lastly, that the crime is committed without the attendance of
any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code on Serious Illegal Detention.5

2. The Prosecution utterly failed to establish beyond reasonable

doubt that A had any participation in the alleged illegal
detention of C.

3. The only evidence implicating A in the commission of the

alleged offense is C’s testimony that he saw A in the church at
the time he was detained and that the latter participated in
mauling him.6

4
People v. Leonardo, G.R. No. 133109, May 31, 2000, 332 SCRA 717, 729.
5
Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 268 in relation to Art. 267. LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE
– CRIMINAL LAW BOOK TWO 585 (17th ed. 2008).
6
Testimony of C, TSN, February 4, 2011, pp. 25-27.
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 4 of 12

4. However, this claim that he saw A is of doubtful credence. It

must be recalled that he earlier testified that his abductors hit
him in the eye and used tear gas against him:

[Pros. R]
“Q: Mr. Witness, I am just curious, why is that you
can only feel it at that time, what was your
condition at that time?

[The Witness]
“A: At that time there is still no floor that house of
ours has no flooring it is only gravel, so, I can feel it
when they dragged me.

[Pros. R]
“Q: My question was, Mr. Witness, what is your
condition because you cannot see or tell us directly
because your answer is that you can feel it.”

[The Witness]
“A: I cannot any more see because the gun that hit me
hit my left eye while my other eye was tear gas.”7
(Italics supplied.)

The result of these aggressions against him was that he “cannot

any more see.”8 It takes time before the effect of tear gas wanes,9
and it is inconceivable that he already regained full use of his
vision by the time that he was allegedly manhandled to and
beaten inside the church. The I locale in B is just a few meters
away from his house.

5. Likewise, inconsistencies in the complaint-affidavit of C and his

testimony during direct examination reveal that he merely
concocted stories to pin down the accused A. In paragraph 5 of
his Complaint-Affidavit10 dated 4 March 2007, he said:

7
Testimony of C, TSN, February 4, 2011, pp. 14, 18-19.
8
Testimony of C, TSN, February 4, 2011, pp. 14, 18-19.
9
Temporary blindness may persist for about 30 minutes, depending on the type of tear
gas used. OMEGA Foundation, Crowd Control Technologies (An appraisal of technologies for
political control), European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Directorate A,
The STOA Programme (June 2000) xxii. PDF downloadable from
<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/stoa/2000/168394/DG-4-
STOA_ET(2000)168394_EN(PAR02).pdf>. Last accessed: September 15, 2014. Atkinson,
James M., Advanced Chemical Weapons, Granite Island Group, 17, 22, 25, 28. PDF
downloadable from < http://www.tscm.com/advchemw2.pdf>. Last accessed:
September 15, 2014.
10
Complaint-Affidavit of C dated March 4, 2007, Page 12 of the Records
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 5 of 12

“5. While I was sleeping inside or (sic) house at

about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 1,
2007, I was awakened by two armed men who
forcibly and bodily brought me out of our house.
xxx” (emphasis supplied)

6. Yet, in his testimony during direct examination 11, this is what

he has to say:

xxx xxx xxx

“PROS. R:

Q: And while there at the house after coming from

barangay hall you said you sleep, what happened
next if any?

THE WITNESS:

A: After a few minutes somebody went inside our

house whom I do not recognize.

PROS. R:

Q: How many persons you said you do not identify?

THE WITNESS:

A: Three (3) persons.”(emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

7. This glaring inconsistency, even more so that it is but natural

for someone to remember this miniscule detail in a “life-
threatening” event, yet C cannot even get his numbers right, is
an indication that he was merely making up stories.

8. It cannot be denied that A was not present when the “Five (5)
John Does” allegedly took C from his house and brought him
inside the I chapel. Thus, the prosecution would like the
Honorable Court to believe that A induced these men to
commit the illegal detention against C.

11
Testimony of C, TSN, February 4, 2011, p. 10
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 6 of 12

9. However, the allegation that A induced the “Five (5) John Does
who forcibly took C from his residence is likewise baseless. This
assertion crumbles on the fact that witness C2 categorically
denied that she saw force and induce the armed men who took
C from their house against the latter’s will:

“ATTY. Z:

Q: You did not see JA, W3, JJ, A. and W1 force and
induce these five armed members of the I to enter
your house?

“THE WITNESS:

A: I did not.

“THE COURT:

Q: Why did you say so?

“THE WITNESS:

A: Because New Year, I know that they were active at

the chapel.”12 (Italics supplied.)

This is in direct contradiction to her statement in her

Complaint-Affidavit that forms as a foundation of the charge
against A:

“5. That I executed this Complaint-Affidavit to

attest to the truth of the foregoing allegations and
to prove that JA, W3, JJ, A, and W1, who by their
moral ascendancy, forced and induced the other
five (5) armed members of the I to unlawfully enter
our house without our consent and against our will
and thereby commit violence against me and my
husband.”13

A’s supposed presence in the place where the alleged detention

took place was mere conjecture borne out merely by C2’s belief
that he was an active member of the I as seen in her testimony
in open court earlier quoted.14

12
Testimony of C2, TSN, August 13, 2010, pp. 52-55.
13
Paragraph 5, Complaint-Affidavit of C2 dated September 21, 2007.
14
Testimony of C2, TSN, August 13, 2010, p. 55.
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 7 of 12

10. And significantly, these accusations against A are clearly

rebutted by his candid testimony that he was not at the I church
of B when C was purportedly hurt and deprived of his liberty.
He was in his home when the alleged crime was committed.

11.Taken altogether, the conclusion is inevitable that A was absent

at the time when and the place where the alleged illegal
confinement of C occurred. A neither joined the “Five (5) John
Does” in depriving C of his liberty nor persuaded them in
doing so.

II. The prosecution failed to

prove the existence of
conspiracy between A and
the Five (5) John Does

1. At the outset, the theory of the prosecution is that A was acting

in conspiracy with the “Five (5) John Does” in committing that
crime of slight illegal detention against C.

2. In fact, the whole case of the prosecution is built upon this

allegation of conspiracy, hence the Information reads:

“ That on or about January 1, 2007 at around 3:00

o’clock in the afternoon at Barangay B, L City, A
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, Five (5) John Does and A,
conspiring and confederating with each other in
pursuance of a common purpose, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deprive
C of his liberty by forcibly detaining him without
cause and against his will at the I compound located
in Brgy. B, L City, for not more than three (3) hours,
to the damage and prejudice of C.” (emphasis
supplied)

3. However, no evidence has been presented by the prosecution

that there exists a conspiracy between A and the “Five (5)
John Does”. He was never present when C was allegedly taken
from his house. In contrast, A has candidly testified that he
went home after the meeting in the barangay and was never at
the I chapel when the alleged mauling of C took place.
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 8 of 12

4. The prosecution anchors its theory of conspiracy on one single

allegation from C – that A was one of the persons who mauled
him when he was brought inside the I chapel, hence:
xxx xxx xxx

“PROS. R:

Q: You said that you were brought inside the chapel by

the three (3) unidentified three (3) persons, what
happened next after that?

THE WITNESS:

A: While they were stoning the church of the I, I was also

being mauled.

PROS. R:

Q: Who was mauling you Mr. Witness?

THE WITNESS:

A: I recognized him to be one of those who are mauling

me.

(Witness pointed to the accused)”

xxx xxx xxx

5. It would seem that the prosecution’s standard for determining

conspiracy is that one must just be present in the scene of the
crime and commit some overt act, even if unrelated to the
crime, and he or she may be deemed a co-conspirator.

6. Law and jurisprudence cannot be any more clear on this matter:

conspiracy cannot be presumed. Thus, the Supreme Court
said:

“Well-settled is the rule that the existence of

conspiracy cannot be presumed. Quite the contrary,
the evidence for it must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt. As this Court has repeatedly
stated, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts,
not on mere surmises or conjectures. Prior agreement
or assent is usually inferred from the acts of the
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 9 of 12

accused showing concerted action, common design

and objective, actual cooperation, and concurrence of
sentiments or community of interests. Mere presence
at the scene of the crime or even knowledge of the
plan or acquiescence thereto are not sufficient
grounds to hold a person liable as a conspirator.
Therefore, the task in every case is to determine
whether the particular acts established by the
requisite quantum of proof reasonably yield that
inference.”15(emphasis supplied)

7. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that A was indeed in the I

chapel at that time and participated in mauling C, will that
prove conspiracy to commit slight illegal detention? The
answer is a resounding no.

8. Following the logic of the prosecution, if indeed there was

community of criminal design between the “Five (5) John Does”
and A, why then are the other persons present in the I chapel at
that time not charged with slight illegal detention? The only
logical explanation that the Accused can think of is that the
allegations against him were merely tailored-fit to enable the
prosecution to include him in the Information for slight illegal
detention.

9. Quite interestingly, these allegedly “Five (5) John Does” remain

phantoms as of date. And as shown above, the unity in criminal
design was not substantiated by facts but remain as a product
of mere speculation. This falls short of the quantum of evidence
required to establish conspiracy, which is proof beyond
reasonable doubt.16 Therefore, the acts of these armed
phantoms cannot be imputed to A.

10. Indeed, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove

conspiracy, not even an implied one, between the “Five (5) John
Does” and A.

III. Case filed only as

leverage against A and the
I

1. It must be stressed that the instant case is based on the same

allegations as that of Criminal Case No. 2345 for Slight Illegal
15
People v. Tolentino, et al., G.R. No. 139179, April 3, 2002
16
Quidet v. People, G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010, 618 SCRA 1, 10.
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 10 of 12

Detention lodged before Branch N of L City RTC. The OCP

moved for the withdrawal of the Information pursuant to the
Department of Justice’s Resolution on the Petition for Review of
I.S. No. 2007-N+3 & N+4. Said court eventually dismissed the
case.17

2. C initiated the filing of the original complaint after the lapse of

two months from the alleged commission of the crime against
him. This was after the I instituted the filing of a case for Grave
Threats against C. The private complainants offered no
explanation for the delay they incurred in filing the original
complaint, and even the long time it took for them to start the
instant case. This unexplained sluggishness in prosecuting
one’s purported claim was already seen by the Supreme Court
as giving the impression that the case was filed merely as
leverage against the adverse party.18

IV. Defense was able to prove

that A was not present at the
scene where the crime was
allegedly committed and that C
only filed the case as a leverage

1. While the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish that A acted

in conspiracy with the “Five (5) John Does”, his testimony and
that of his witnesses proved that he did not commit the crime
charged and was in fact not present during its alleged
commission.

2. W119 and A himself both testified that A went home after the
confrontation in the barangay hall. It will be recalled that the
confrontation did not last long because it has to be terminated
when C started complaining and threatening the group of A. C
even threatened to kill witness W3.20

3. A himself candidly testified in open court that he immediately

went home after the confrontation in the barangay. While his
defense is that of an alibi, it has been corroborated by other
witnesses and must be believed over the inconsistent
statements of the prosecution’s witnesses.

17
Consolidated Pre-Trial Order dated February 4, 2010, A. 8-10, found in Records, 139.
18
Chan v. Go, A.C. No. 7547, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 145, 154-155.
19
Testimony of W1, TSN, November 6, 2013, p. 13
20
Testimony of W3, TSN, July 24, 2013 p. 6
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 11 of 12

4. And as discussed above, it would seem that the filing of cases

against A is borne of the desire of C to seek leverage against the
charges brought by A’s group for the stoning of the I chapel
committed by C and his cohorts.

V. Prosecution failed to overcome

presumption of innocence in favor
of A

1. All told, the prosecution’s evidence against A has utterly failed

to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of innocence

of A lies with the prosecution, and for that, it has
overwhelmingly failed.

3. Settled is the rule that the prosecution must rest on its own
merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense 21. In
fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of
evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence
on its behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence shall
prevail and, hence, the accused shall be acquitted.

4. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt, A’s acquittal is in order.

Reliefs

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the Accused A be ACQUITTED of the
crime of Slight Illegal Detention, the instant case against him be
DISMISSED, and the bail posted be RELEASED in his favor.

Other reliefs just or equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Q City for L City, 29 December 2014.

LAW FIRM
Address

21
People v. Jorge, 231 SCRA 693, 700 (1994)
 People v. A
Crim. Case No. 1234
Trial Memorandum
Page 12 of 12

Tel No.: 3456789

By:

LAWYER1
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 0987654/QC/ [date]
IBP Lifetime No. 23456
Admitted to the bar xxxxx

LAWYER2
Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
PTR No. 9876543/QC/[date]
IBP No. 34567/QC/[date]
MCLE No. XX-xxxxxx; [date]

Copy furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor

L City, A

C
B, L City, A

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch N
L City, A

Greetings:
Kindly submit this Trial Memorandum for the kind consideration of this
Honorable Court.

EXPLANATION

The filing and service of this Trial Memorandum is being done by

registered mail due to lack of sufficient personnel to effect personal filing and
service.
LAWYER2