Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Branch 75, City of Malolos, Bulacan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 123-M-2018
-versus- For: VIOLATION OF ROBBERY

RODERICK J. UMPER,
 Accused.
x--------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

COMES NOW, the accused by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully submit this Memorandum:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

On 28th day of February 2019, the prosecution (People of the Philippines)

charges the accused Roderick J. Umper with the crime of Robbery for
allegedly stealing a necklace owned by Beau T. Pool.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

In order that this Honorable Court may be enlightened and guided in the judicious
disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder are the material and relevant
facts of the case, to wit:

1. Accused came from his duty as a dispatcher in Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan.

2. He alleged that at more or less 7:00 in the evening of August 1, 2017, he went
to Mcdo Tikay branch to buy food for his family.

3. After the incident happened, Mr. Umper was arrested while he was in his duty
as dispatcher on August 8, 2017, one week after the incident, because he was playing
cara y cruz together with his co-dispatcher for Violation of Illegal Gambling Law.

4. Meanwhile, all of his co-dispatcher already posted bail unfortunately because

of having no money then to pay for the bail bond he was left alone.

5. The private complainant came together with her friend and pointed Mr. Umper
as the one who snatched her necklace on August 1, 2017.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not there is a miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification from the case.

2. Whether or not the accused committed Robbery.

 ARGUMENT

The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body
and home and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one.
Defendant did not commit robbery.

There is every reason to doubt the regularity of the identification by Ms. Pool and
Ms. Palasabat of the accused. From their testimony, it is clear that they did not
positively identify the accused. At the time of the incident they made a very fleeting
glance on the person who snatched her necklace. At that moment, they had the
impression that the accused was inside the jeepney and came down in Tikay. During
the proceedings in the police station where they were supposed to identify the assailant,
they identified the accused as allegedly the person who snatched her necklace, not
because they were certain that the accused-appellant was really the assailant but
because Mr. Umper was the only one in police. He being the only person in the lineup,
by Ms. Pool and Ms. Palasabat pointed to him as "the man." From all indications, the
identification of accused-appellant by by Ms. Pool and Ms. Palasabat was suggested by
the police and this is objectionable. We quote hereunder a portion of the decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court expressing its misgivings on the identification of a suspect in a
police line-up where the influence of improper suggestion is strong.

A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from

mistaken identification has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in
which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pre-trial identification. A
commentator has observed that [t]he influence of improper suggestion upon identifying
witnesses probably accounts for more miscarriages of justice than any other single
factor-perhaps it is responsible for more such errors than all other factors combined. . . .
Suggestion can be created intentionally or unintentionally in many subtle ways. And the
dangers for the suspect are particularly grave when the witness' opportunity for
observation was insubstantial, and thus his susceptibility to suggestion the greatest.

Moreover, "it is a matter of common experience that, once a witness has picked
out the accused at the line-up, he is not likely to back on hip word later on, so that in
practice the issue of identity may (in the absence of other relevant evidence) for all
practical purposes be determined there and then, before the trial.

Based on the presented evidence by the accused, his receipt that he bought
foods in Mcdo on the same time and date when the incident happened is a clear proof
that he was not the criminal in the incident.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court that judgment

be rendered acquitting the accused from the crime charged.

Defendants likewise pray for such other and further relief as this honorable court
may deem just and equitable in the premises.

Malolos City, Philippines, February 28, 2019.

NAME AND SIGNATURE OF LAWYER

IBP NO. ROLL NO.
MCLE NO.
PTR NO.
ADDRESS
TEL. NO.