REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

____TH Judicial Region
BRANCH xxx, _____ City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case. No. M-LLP-xx-xxx-xx
FOR: Serious Physical Injuries
AAA,
Accused,
x--------------------------------x

CONSOLIDATED COMMENT/OBJECTIONS

Accused AAA, through the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully submits his comment and objections to the
Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence as follows:

EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS

“A”, “A-1, A-2” Joint Judicial Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent as to the
and “A-3” Affidavit of guilt of the Accused. As a matter of record,
prosecution witness testified that they responded
Apprehension
at the scene after they received a call from a
radio operator about the hacking incident. As
such, he has no personal knowledge as to what
transpired during the said incident or as to the
factual basis in the arrest of the accused as a
person who has just committed an offense.

"B” and “B-1” Spot Report on Immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent as to the
Physical Injury guilt of the Accused. As matter of record,
prosecution witness who was made to identify
this document was incompetent to testify as to its
due execution and authenticity as the same is
unsigned by the purported author.

"B-2" Photograph of the Inadmissible for lack of proper identification or

Kitchen Knife authentication from the person who took the
photograph or by a person sufficiently acquainted
with the object to prove that the object depicted
in the photograph is the very same object
recovered by the witness.

As a matter of record, there was no statement

from the witness that the photograph faithfully
represents the knife they alleged to have
recovered from whom and where. Witness
merely stated that he arrested the accused and

1
 gave no statements as to the circumstances
subject of the offer.

"C" to “C-6” Judicial Affidavit of Inadmissible for the purpose of proving that the
JJJJ alleged hacking was unprovoked as this judicial
affidavit indicates that it was private complainant
who made an unlawful aggression against the
accused by punching the latter in the face
resulting to injury and that the private
complainant went back to attack the accused,
thus, private complainant was hacked (Answer to
Question No. 4). This statement was affirmed by
witness when he testified in open court.

"D" to “D-10” Judicial Affidavit of Inadmissible for the purpose of proving that the
BBB alleged hacking was unprovoked as private
complainant testified in court that he punched
the accused in the face before the alleged
hacking happened.

Inadmissible for the purpose of proving the

severity or seriousness of his injury as the
witness is incompetent to testify on this issue.

As a matter of record, prosecution witness Dr.

DDDD testified that the injury is not life
threatening and will only result to death if the
wound would continue to bleed for more than a
day.

"D-4" and Medical Certificate Inadmissible for the purpose of proving the
“D-10” dated July 27, 2016 “fatal” nature of the wound sustained by the
private complainant as this is contrary to the
declaration of prosecution witness Dr. DDDD that
the injury is not life threatening and will only
result to death if the wound would continue to
bleed for more than a day.

As regards the Omnibus Motion to tender excluded evidence

invoking Section 40, Rule 132 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Accused most respectfully objects as the tender of excluded evidence has
no basis as the documents attached in the Omnibus Motion were not
formally offered in the first place. Section 40, Rule 132 of the Rules on
Evidence provides:

Sec. 40. Tender of excluded evidence. – If documents or

things offered in evidence are excluded by the court, the
offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the
record. If the evidence excluded is oral, the offeror may state

2
 for the record the name and other personal circumstances of
the witness and the substance of the proposed testimony.

Thus, the tender of excluded evidence presupposes that the subject

of the tender are documents or things previously offered but were
excluded by the court. Considering that the documents attached in the
Omnibus Motion were not formally offered, the same cannot be said to
have been excluded by the court. As borne by the records, it was the
prosecution itself which excluded these documents or objects for failure
to present them in accordance with the rules and make the formal offer
also in accordance with the rules.

As the Omnibus Motion appears to be in the nature of a

supplemental formal offer of evidence, the accused strongly objects on
the same for failure of the prosecution to state the specific purpose or
purposes for which the attached documents were offered in violation of
Section 34, Rule 132, Rules on Evidence which provides that “The court
shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered.
The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified.”

Other than the failure to specifically state the purpose for which the
attached documents were offered, there is nothing in the records which
will support the admission of the “still images” of the alleged video
recording of the incident wherein the accused was allegedly brandishing a
bladed weapon and was in the act of attacking the private complainant.
As borne by the records, the accused objected to the presentation of the
alleged video as the witnesses who were made to identify and
authenticate the same were incompetent to do so. And despite the
opportunity provided by this Honorable Court, on the day the prosecution
was supposed to present a witness to prove the existence and
authenticity of the video, the prosecution manifested before this
Honorable Court that it will rest their case. As such, this Honorable Court
may only infer from the previous, contemporaneous and subsequent acts
of the prosecution that they intended to forego with the presentation of
any other witness for the purpose of proving the existence and
authenticity of the alleged video.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, ACCUSED AAA, most

respectfully prays that the Omnibus Motion for the tender of excluded
evidence be denied for lack of factual and legal basis and that the

3
attached documents be denied admission by this Honorable Court for the
reasons above-stated.

Other reliefs, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

November 11, 2019, _______ City for _______ City, Philippines.

Counsel for the Accused