Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Demurrer To Evidence: Regional Trial Court
Demurrer To Evidence: Regional Trial Court
ESTANISLAO y CALUA,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
the elements of the offense charged. If the prosecution proves all the
required elements, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to
disprove the prosecutions case. Based on these presentations, the
court must then determine if the guilt of the accused has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. It may happen though that the
prosecution, even before the presentation by the defense, already
has failed to prove all the elements of the crime charged, in which
case, the presumption of innocence prevails; the burden of evidence
does not shift to the accused, who no longer needs to present
evidence in his defense.”
Where the evidence for the prosecution fails to establish even the
commission of the crime and the existence of the elements thereof, the accused
may demur from the evidence presented, as provided under Section 23, Rule 119 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, thus:
“Sec. 23. After the prosecution rests its case, the court may
dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be
heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or
without leave of court.
x x x”
In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish that the elements
constituting violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” exist. Thus, this demurrer to evidence.
ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSION
Accused, was charged under Informations for Violation of Sec. 5 and 11 Art.
II of R. A. 9165, otherwise known as the comprehensive dangerous drugs act of
2002, as follows:
Contrary to law.
Malolos, Bulacan, Decmber 15, 2015.
3
Contrary to law.
Malolos, Bulacan, Decmber 15, 2015.”
The prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case against the
accused, as the testimonies of its witnesses as to the conduct of the buy bust
operation itself and the chain of custody of the allegedly seized drug are incredible,
inviting doubt as to their truthfulness and revealing non-compliance with the
requirements of the law itself. Further shattering the credibility of the
prosecution’s case is the lack of any documentary or object evidence since the right
of the State to formally offer evidence was deemed waived.
Testimonies of witnesses
As to the conduct of buy-bust
Operation so incredible as to
Inhibit belief
The prosecution was able to present only one other witness: PO2 JOSE
URING, allegedly the poseur buyer.
In his testimony, PO2 Uring testified that on December 03, 2015, he himself
received a tip from a confidential informant regarding the rampant selling of illegal
drugs in Barangay Ilang-ilang. The informant allegedly identified the seller as Jay-
jay Estanislao. After reporting the tip to his superior, he and his team were
commanded to conduct a buy-bust operation. Planning and coordination with the
PDEA followed. According to the witness, after the briefing, he was given a
P500.00 bill to use as buy-bust money which he marked as BL and subsequently,
he and his team were dispatched to proceed to Brgy. Ilang-ilang for to entrap the
alleged seller of illegal drugs.
After receiving the plastic sachet which contained shabu, the witness
announced his true identity: that he was a police officer and that he was arresting
the accused. His back up officer arrived to help him. They were also able to find
two more plastic sachets inside accused’s wallet, after which they proceeded to the
station for the conduct of inventory in front of a barangay kagawad and a DOJ
representative.
In People of the Philippines vs. Cesar Bautista y Santos,2 the Supreme Court
explained the significance of proof of the chain of custody in prosecution for drug
offenses:
xxx
xxx
xxx
6
xxx
In the instant case, the gaps in the chain of custody are so glaring to be
missed.
7
In this case, the chain of custody has completely lost its clasps. An
examination of the supposed links in this case should prove this:
The first link in the chain of custody – the seizure and marking of
the drug evidence.
According to PO2 Uring, he took custody of the seized items, including the
buy-bust money, immediately after the arrest of the accused but he marked them
only at the police station. It became apparent, however, that even at the time of
the inventory, the drug evidence had not been marked at all. The inventory sheet
countersigned by the barangay elected official and a DOJ representative did not
indicate the markings made thereon. Likewise, photographs of the specimen
presented before the witnesses show that they were still unmarked at the time of
the inventory taking. How can it be ascertained that the sachets of suspected
shabu allegedly seized from the accused are the same ones inventoried and
presented during the inventory? How can it be ascertained that there was
confiscation at all?
The photographs, which would have been evidence of the marking and the
inventory taking of the seized evidence cannot establish the first link, since they do
not depict the act of the marking of the evidence itself, or the listing being made in
the inventory sheet. Worse, the photographs clearly displayed the lack of any mark
on the specimen.
There was no testimony as to the identity of the investigator and the details
of turn-over and the return of the seized items to his custody. How, when or who
turned over the drugs allegedly seized from the accused to the person who prepared
the request is not clear.
With the chain of custody broken several times over, there is insufficient
evidence that the sachets of illegal drugs presented before the Honorable Court is
the same ones allegedly seized from the accused or that, there was any such seizure
at all.
9
No documentary or object
Evidence against accused.
For failure of the prosecution to file its formal offer of evidence in due time,
the Honorable Court considered it to have waived its right to do so. Thus, there is
neither documentary nor object evidence to consider against the accused except
with regard to the stipulations made during and after pre-trial. Hence, the drug
specimen could not be considered to have been presented to the Honorable
negating its very existence. This is fatal to the prosecution of the case against the
accused.
In People of the Philippines vs. Gimenez and Gimenez,4 the Supreme Court
explained the effect of failure to formally offer evidence before the trial court, viz:
Our Rules of Court lays down the procedure for the formal offer
of evidence. Testimonial evidence is offered "at the time a witness is
called to testify. Documentary and object evidence, on the other
hand, are offered after the presentation of a party’s testimonial
evidence. Offer of documentary or object evidence is generally
done orally unless permission is given by the trial court for a
written offer of evidence.
Prosecution’s evidence
Insufficient
5 Supra, note 1.
11
The holding in People vs. Andaya6 provides the denouement for the accused-
movant’s arguments:
With the prosecution’s failure on those accounts, the case against accused-
movant should be dismissed.
PRAYER
Copy furnished: