MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO FILE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, accused EDSON MANZANAL y Falcon, through the undersigned public
attorney, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

On September 16, 2014, the Public Attorney’s Office received a copy of the Order
issued by this Honorable Court admitting the exhibits of the Prosecution, and hence, the latter
is now considered to have rested its case;

After a careful and thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the Prosecution,
the undersigned counsel believes that this evidence is not sufficient to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt;

The prosecution was not able to present in open court the witness, PO3 Fernando
Flores, who allegedly arrested the accused. His allegations in his affidavit remain hearsay as
the defense was deprived the opportunity to cross-examine him. Hence, all the elements of the
crime charged were not proven by the prosecution. The testimonies of the investigator, the
Barangay Councilor and the Chemist are merely hearsay as they have no personal knowledge of
what actually happened during the arrest of the accused.

The failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
absolves the latter from the crime charged.

The items allegedly confiscated

from the accused were not identified
by any prosecution witness; hence,
the prosecution failed to prove the
corpus delicti

After perusing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, nowhere could it be found
that the firearm and ammunitions were properly identified by any of them. During the
presentation of PO1 De Villa, it was manifested that the subject firearm was in the possession of
the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory; hence, he did not identify the items. Then, during the
presentation of PO2 Maranan, the latter also failed to identify them because he could not
remember where he placed the markings. Thus:

(Direct-examination of PO2 Lito Maranan)

Q I am showing to you a firearm, will you tell the Court if this has
any relation to the rifle which you had confiscated in the owner type jeep
being driven by Gonzalvo?
A Yes, sir, this is the same.
Q How can you say that this is the rifle that you confiscated from
the accused Gonzalvo?
A Because of the marking browning appearing on the lower portion
of the chamber, sir.
Q You mentioned earlier that you put marking on the rifle LCM-1,
can you go over this rifle and point to the Honorable Court the said
marking?
A I cannot remember where the marking was placed, sir.
Q You also mentioned that there were empty shells that were
confiscated, if that will be shown to you will you be able to identify it?
A Yes, sir.
Q I am showing to you the contents of this brown envelope, will you
please go over this and point to the Honorable Court what relation has
this to the empty shells that you had confiscated from the accused?
A This is the items that were confiscated, sir.
Q How about the two (2) live ammunitions?
ATTY. EDWIN AGUIRRE:
Objection Your Honor, there is no statement as to the live ammunitions, I
only remember 3 empty shells, your Honor.
COURT:
No basis.

PROSECUTOR BELOSO:
Q Aside from the empty shells, were there any other items
recovered?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was it?
A Two live ammunitions and the belt, sir.
Q I am showing to you two live ammunitions together with the three
empty shells, will you kindly tell the Honorable Court if these
ammunitions have any relation to the other items confiscated from the
accused?
A I cannot remember sir because it has no markings.
Q And you mentioned earlier that there was an empty shell
confiscated where was this shell now if you know?
A I do not know, sir. (TSN, April 12, 2012, pp. 7-8)
 Conviction for illegal possession of unlicensed firearms requires that the subject firearm
be positively and categorically identified in open Court. Absent the corpus delicti, the guilt of the
accused has no leg to stand on. It is indispensable that the identity of the firearm which
constitutes the corpus delicti must be established before the Court. Not all the evidence
required for proving the crime charged were presented by the prosecution. Aside from proof of
the actual possession, a conviction for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm requires that the
subject firearm be positively and categorically identified in open court as the very firearm taken
from the accused. With the above-cited testimony of PO2 Maranan, the prosecution failed to
sufficiently establish the identity of the firearm allegedly found in the vehicle of the accused.

In criminal cases, the prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of
the accused – ei incumbit probation non qui negat – he who asserts, not he who denies,
must prove (People vs. Asis 391 SCRA 108). Thus, when the guilt of the accused has
not been proven with moral certainty due to lack and or insufficiency of the evidence for
the prosecution, the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused must be
upheld and his exoneration from the crime charged must be favored as a matter of right.

It is primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and
persuasion so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion.
(Wilma Tabianag v. People, G.R. No. 165411, June 18, 2009)

Due process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the
Government has borne the burden of convincing the fact finder of his guilt. To
this end, reasonable doubt standard is indispensible, for it impresses on the
trier of fact the necessity of reaching certitude of the facts in issue. (People of the
Philippines v. Roldan Morales, G.R. No. 172873 March 19, 2010)

It is basic evidentiary rule in criminal law that the prosecution has the
burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the
prosecution fails to discharge that burden, the accused need not present any
evidence. (People vs. Cachola, G.R. No. 148712 – 15, January 21, 2004). In the
instant case, after a careful evaluation of the evidence presented by the
prosecution, the evidence admitted is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

That the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, absolves the latter for the crime charged.
The alleged gambling paraphernalia and other evidence were marked in the police
station as testified by Police Officer Bay, thus creating doubt as to the genuineness and
authenticity of the corpus delicti. The Police Officer likewise admitted that there was no
table included in the evidence presented and identified in court, thereby casting doubt,
if indeed there was an actual game of mah-jong that transpired during the arrest;