REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH __, ________________________CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Crim Case No. _________

-- versus --
For: Homicide

______________, ______________ and

______________,

Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
TO DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

The PROSECUTION, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

states that:

1. The undersigned private prosecutor received the Demurrer to

Evidence of the accused on ______________, thus giving the prosecution until
______________ to file its Comment.

2. In the said Demurrer to Evidence, the accused allege that the

instant case should be dismissed because the prosecution’s evidence is
insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The position of the accused is without merit.

4. The accused focus on the fact that the private complainants

failed to immediately inform the police of the identities of the persons who
shot the victim, ______________, and to immediately file a complaint against them.
This delay in filing the complaint should not be taken against the
complainants-witnesses, and should not necessitate the dismissal of this
case.

5. It must be noted that the complainants-witnesses are neighbors

and live in the same barangay as the accused, whom they know to be
barangay police officers. Naturally, the complainants-witnesses feared for
their lives. As testified by the widow ______________, she did not immediately
inform the police the identity of the person who shot her husband as she was
focused on him and was looking for doctors to give him medical assistance.
She also testified that she was afraid that the accused would get back at her
and her children.

Moreover, ______________, as well as the rest of the family of the

6.
victim, was then grieving and mourning the murder of their loved one, hence
they had to wait until after the burial of the victim to file their complaint
against the accused.

The accused likewise point to certain alleged inconsistent or

7.
questionable statements, which could be properly explained.

8. First, the accused question why witness ______________did not

corroborate the fact that the victim told witness ______________that it was accused
______________who shot him. ______________was informed of identity of the shooter
first while at their terrace, and next, before the victim was brought in the
operating room. Witness ______________need not corroborate such fact since, as
an eyewitness, he already positively identified that accused ______________shot
the victim.

9. Second, the accused state that it is impossible for both

witnesses ______________and ______________to assist the victim board a tricycle from
the place of the incident, considering the disparity of their weight and height.
This however is not impossible since the victim was being assisted by two
persons, and was still actually able to walk. As testified by witness
______________during cross-examination, the victim placed his arms on the
shoulders of ______________and ______________, and that the victim was dragging his
feet and was able to walk a bit.

Thirdly, there is nothing unbelievable about witness ______________

10.
waiting for and following the victim from the tricycle terminal towards the
victim’s house, as one kilometer is not such a long distance to walk.

11. All told, the credibility of witnesses ______________ and

______________are beyond question as their testimonies are compatible with
human knowledge, observation and common experience of man.

The rest of the testimonies questioned by the accused are

12.
matters involving minor inconsistencies pertaining to details of immaterial
nature that do not tend to diminish the probative value of the testimonies at
issue. The Supreme Court ruled on this subject in Avelino v. People,1 to wit:

“Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its

capacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident,
slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a
witness hardly weaken their probative value. It is well-settled
that immaterial and insignificant details do not discredit a
testimony on the very material and significant point bearing on
1
G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013, citing Madali v. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 274, 294.

2
 the very act of accused-appellants. As long as the testimonies
of the witnesses corroborate one another on material points,
minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility.
Inconsistencies on minor details do not undermine the
integrity of a prosecution witness

Moreover, in People v. Dadao et al.,2 the High Court held “that

13.
where there is no evidence that the witnesses of the prosecution were
actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not so actuated and
their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. In the case at bar, no
imputation of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses was
ever made by appellants.”

Based on the above discussion, the accused clearly do not have

14.
any basis to state that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient to establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Contrary to the claim of the accused, the prosecution was able

15.
to paint and prove the complete picture surrounding the instant case. It is
now the turn of the accused to prove their side on the matter.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Prosecution respectfully prays that the Demurrer

to Evidence of the accused be denied for lack of merit.

Other reliefs, just or equitable, are likewise prayed for.

____________________________.

______________
Private Prosecutor

CONFORME:

PROS. ______________
Public Prosecutor

2
G.R. No. 201860, January 22, 2014.