Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff Crim. Case No.
-versus- For: Carnapping
,
Accused.
X-------------------------------------------
------X

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
“When the identity of the appellant (accused) is not established beyond
reasonable doubt, acquittal necessarily follows. Conviction for a crime
rests on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, never on the weakness
of that of the defense. (People of the Philippines vs. Michael Maguing,
G.R. No. 144090, June 26, 2003)

COMES NOW, accused, through undersigned counsel, most

respectfully submits this Demurrer to Evidence, and in support hereof states
the following:

After the presentation of evidence, it is humbly submitted that the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
as required for his conviction under the law.

In every criminal prosecution, the prosecution must prove two things:

(1) the commission of the crime and (2) the identification of the accused as
the perpetrator of the crime. Cursory identification does not suffice to
convict the accused. What is needed is positive identification made with
moral certainty as to the person of the offender. (People of the Philippines
vs. Michael Maguing, G.R. No. 144090, June 26, 2003)

Indubitably, the identification of the accused was solely based on the

testimony of police investigator, PMSg. Joseph Mar Baldo, who himself is
not an eye witness – but bases his accusation on hearsay, and conjecture. As
such, his testimony amounts to hearsay and self-serving declarations or
statements which was never been corroborated by any other witness.

"The rule is clear. The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The prosecution, on its part, must rely on the strength of
its own evidence and must not simply depend on the weakness of the
defense. The slightest possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an
offense he has never committed, let alone when no less than the capital
punishment is imposed, would be far more dreadful than letting a guilty
person go unpunished for a crime he may have perpetrated. On the whole
then, the scanty evidence for the prosecution casts serious doubts as to the
guilt of the accused. It does not pass the test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights
guarantees the accused. It is apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation
is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the
prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert
Baulite and Liberato Baulite, G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001)

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Hermogenes De Guzman,

G.R. No. 192250, July 11, 2012, the Supreme Court further pronounced,
thus:

“In a criminal case, every circumstance favoring the

innocence of the accused must be duly taken into account.
The proof against him must survive the test of reason and
the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway
judgment. Xxx

Therefore, for failure of the prosecution to establish with moral

certainty the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, the case
against said accused must be dismissed.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to
grant the instant Demurrer to Evidence and dismiss the above-captioned
case on the ground that upon the facts and law, the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.