REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES-BRANCH 2
BATANGAS CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 55770

Plaintiff,

- versus - for

PETERSON ILAGAN, VIOLATION OF SEC.3.19,ORD.NO.10,S-2012

y Caguete Accused. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR ORD. 2012 OF BATS. CITY
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel de oficio for accused

PETERSON ILAGAN in the above-captioned case after leave has been
granted by the Honorable Court, most respectfully moves that this case be
dismissed on the ground that the evidence adduced by the Prosecution is not
sufficient to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt in the
instant case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

An Information was filed against PETERSON ILAGAN for

Violation of B.P.6 amending P.D.9, to wit:

“That on or about November 30, 2012 at around 1:30 o’clock in

the afternoon at Sampaguita St.,Dolor Subdivision, Brgy 6, Batangas City,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally
stand-by the roadside, a public place, naked waist up, which is a clear
violation of the above-cited Ordinance.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Accused entered a plea of not guilty during arraignment. Preliminary

conference and pre–trial were held and trial ensued thereafter.

PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE

To support its allegation, the prosecution presented PO3 Christian

Boy Aranza, PO1 Ruther Carandang and SPO1 Santiago Matibag, Jr.
(investigator).The would be testimony of PO3 Carlos Llegado was agreed
upon through stipulations.

In the sworn statement of PO1 Ruther Carandang, he said that on

November 30, 2012, more or less 1:00 in the afternoon, while he was on

1
duty as a member Station Anti-Illegal Drugs an Special Operation Task
Force (SAID SOTF), he received a call from a resident of Dolor Subd., Brgy
6, Batangas City, asking for help regarding a person named Peter, who is
causing trouble in their place.

He told the said report to police officers Christian Boy Aranza, Jonas
Guarda, and Ponciano Asilo. Then, they went to the aforesaid place and saw
a male person, naked waist up, shouting while walking. They approached
him, the person ran away, but the police officers were able to immediately
catch him. PO1 Carandang frisked his shorts and allegedly found in his
pocket an illegal drug. He informed him of his constitutional rights and they
went to the Brgy. Hall of Barangay 6.

The prosecution formally offered their documentary evidence. The

Honorable Court, after considering the Comment by the Defense, admitted
the exhibits offered in evidence by the prosecution. The latter rested its case,
hence, this Demurrer to Evidence.

DISCUSSION

A. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE

OF THE ABSENCE OF TICKET. THERE IS NON-
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.

Assuming without admitting that accused violated the aforesaid

ordinance, however, no ticket was issued to him by the arresting officers.
There is also no ticket in the documentary evidence offered by the
prosecution to prove the violation. More so, Section 13, Ordinance No.10,S-
2012, Otherwise Known as the“Anti-Social Behavior Ordinance 2012 of
Batangas City provides that, “SECTION 13. ADMINISTRATIVE FINE. Any
person found violating this ordinance or apprehended for violation of this
Ordinance may settle his obligation by paying the corresponding amount for
each violation stated in Sections 3 and 4 of this ordinance in the Office of
the City Treasurer within 72 hours from his apprehension. Upon receipt of
the payment of the administrative fine, the city waives its right to file a case
in court for violation of this ordinance or its implementing rules and
regulations..xxx”

SPO1 Santiago Matibag Jr. testified during cross-examination about

the absence of ticket.

Atty.Gamella-Barola to SPO1 Matibag:

Q So there were no documents presented to you or no ticket
presented to you?
A What I know, mam, none.
(TSN p.6, August 15, 2013)

2
 The ticket is a vital evidence to determine if the violator paid the fine
within 72 hours, if not, that is only the time that a case can be filed in court
for the violation of the ordinance. A ticket is necessary as a basis in
computing the 72 hour period for the accused to pay the fine. There should
be first an exhaustion of administrative remedy before a case is filed in court
in the instant case. In the first place, there is no violation of this ordinance,
so to speak, because of the absence of the ticket.

Where a remedy is available within the administrative machinery, this

should be resorted to before resort can be made to courts, not only to give
the administrative agency the opportunity to decide the matter by itself
correctly, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts.

B. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF

ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Again, in criminal cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to

establish its case with the utmost degree of proof that can produce a
conviction of an unprejudiced mind, with the evidence that stands or falls on
its own merit and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of evidence for defense (People vs. Quitorio, 285 SCRA 196). In
the instant case, after a careful evaluation of the evidence presented by the
prosecution, it is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt because of the absence of ticket.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein accused most

respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the above-entitled case be
dismissed and that herein accused be acquitted of the crime charged on the
ground that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

Such other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Batangas City, September 19, 2013.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BATANGAS DISTRICT OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING
PALLOCAN, BATANGAS CITY
Counsel for the Accused
By:

3
 MARIA THERESA O. GAMELLA-BAROLA
Public Attorney 2
Roll No. 53917
MCLE Compliance No.IV-0012777

Noted:

EMILIO G.ACLAN
District Public Attorney

The City Prosecutor

Batangas City

The Branch Clerk of Court

MTCC
Branch 2, Batangas City

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that this Motion will be submitted for hearing on
September 24, 2013 at 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon or at any date most
convenient to the calendar of the Honorable Court without further oral
argument.

MARIA THERESA O.GAMELLA-BAROLA

Copy furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor

Batangas City