Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch ____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. ____

Plaintiff,
-versus-

FOR: ROBBERY WITH RAPE

Accused.
x----------------------------------x
COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS
(To the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Exhibit)
COMES NOW, Accused, through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully comments and/or objects to the following exhibits offered by the
prosecution as evidence in the instant case, to wit:

EXHIBIT DOCUMENT COMMENT/OBJECTION

“A”, “A-1”, Affidavit of Shelame The accused objects to the

A-1-a” Purposes of the Offer, for the
reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are
self-serving.

It has been declared open court

and that the records would attest
that victim admitted that during
the said incident, she only
recognized the person who
allegedly committed the crime as
a silhoette man and that his face
was covered since the place was
not lighted. Thus, the testimony
of the witness with regard to this
matter would be hearsay and
inadmissible as evidence.

To Stress: Allegations in a
Salaysay are not evidence per se.

The accused objects to the

“B” and “B- Affidavit of Arrest Purposes of the Offer, for the
1” reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are
self-serving.

To Stress: Allegations in a

1|Page
 Salaysay are not evidence per se.

“C” Medical Certificate Admits the existence of the said

document but objects to the
purpose to which it was offered
since it is not enough to prove
that the accused was the one who
allegedly rape the victim.

Further, the same is being

objected as to the purpose of the
offer specifically to corroborate
the testimony of the witness
considering that the said doctor
was not presented in Court.

“D” Police Blotter dated Admits the existence of said

February 20, 2019 exhibits, but objects to the
with entry number purpose for which it was offered
2019-02-065
for being irrelevant.

The Police Blotter does not prove

that the alleged crime was
committed by the accused as
claimed by the
complainant/apprehending officer.

It is just a record at the police

station based on the statements
of herein
complainant/apprehending officer.
Such document is considered as
self-serving.

“E” , “E-1”, Photographs The defense objects to the

“E-2” “E-3” depicting: Boxer admission of the same on the
short/brief (E-1) (P) ground of INCOMPETENT
knife (E-2) evidence. The same could not
Pillow Case (E-3) prove that the accused committed
the crime by mere presentation of
the photos.

The said object were not

presented in Court and were not
subjected to any forensic
exmination that would prove that
the said alleged object evidence
belong to the accused.

2|Page
“F”, “F-1”, Photographs The defense objects to the
“F-2” depicting: Towel that admission of the same on the
was used and placed ground of INCOMPETENT
inside the victim’s evidence. The same could not
mouth (F-1) Manhole prove that the accused committed
at the Ceiling of the crime by mere presentation of
Comfort Room (F-2) the photos.

The alleged Towel was not

presented in Court or subjected to
any forensic examination that
would proved that the said towel
was used in the incident. In
addtion, it is common to human
nature that if a person has
committed a crime, any evidence
that would point him as the
perpetrator would be material and
hence the same must be hidden.
In this case, the alleged towel
used by the accused was
intentionally place at the gate of
the victim.

Further, it has been declared in

open court and that the records
would attest that the
Investigating officer who
conducted the investigation, that
the alleged assailant entered the
house of the victim through the
manhole from the house where
the accused was staying going to
the house of the vicitm. However,
when the Court has conducted
ocular inspection of the crime
scene or the place where the
incident happened there was no
entry point on the manhole that
connects to the house of the
accused to the house of the victim
as firewall divides each houses in
the place.

Thus, the assumption that it is the

accused who raped and robbed
the victim is mere speculation and
inadmissible as evidence.

“G”, “G-1’, Photographs The defense objects to the

“G-2”, “G- depicting: Ripped admission of the same on the

3|Page
 3” cycling and panty ground of INCOMPETENT
short of the victim evidence. The same could not
(G-1 and G-2) (“M”) prove that the accused committed
“M” Poloshirt with stain the crime by mere presentation of
of blood of the victim the photos.
(G-3)

“I” Blue Towel used by The defense objects to the

the accused to cover admission of the same on the
the mouth of the ground of INCOMPETENT
victim evidence. The same could not
prove that the accused committed
the crime by mere presentation of
the photos.

It has been declared open court

and records would show that the
victim admitted that the place
where the crime was allegedly
committed was not lighted.
However, despite the fact that
there was not light in the house,
she was able to see the color of
the towel that was allegedly used
by the accused and intentionally
left or hang on the gate after such
crime was committed.

In addtion, it is common to
human nature that if a person has
committed a crime, any evidence
that would point him as the
perpetrator would be material and
hence the same must be hidden.
In this case, the alleged towel
used by the accused was
intentionally place at the gate of
the victim.

“N”, “N-1” Police Investigation The defense objects to the

Report dated admission of the same for the
February 21, 2019 reason that this is considered as a
self-serving evidence.

The investigation report is a mere

rehash of statements relayed by
the complainant and/or
apprehending officers.

4|Page
 The Invetigating Officer has no
personal knowledge of the alleged
crime charged in the instant case.
He merely relied on the hearsay
statement of the the complainant.

Further, the investigation report is

tainted with irregularities since
the alleged manhole were the
assailant gain entry to the house
of the victim does not really exist.

“ O” Knife used by the The defense objects to the

accused to threaten admission of the same on the
the victim ground of INCOMPETENT
evidence. The same could not
prove that the accused committed
the crime by mere presentation of
the photos.

The defense objects to the

“P” Boxerbrief of the admission of the same on the
accused remembered ground of INCOMPETENT
by the victim he evidence. The same could not
wore during the prove that the accused committed
incident the crime by mere presentation of
the photos.

The same was not presented in

Court and was not subjected to
any forensic examination to
determine the existence of DNA of
the accused on the mentioned
brief.

It has been declared open court

and records would show that the
victim admitted that the place
where the crime was allegedly
committed was not lighted.
However, despite the fact that
there was not light in the house,
she was able to see the color of
the alleged brief worn by the
accused on the time of the
incident. Thus, the statement
were inconsistent.

“Q” Photograph The defense objects to the

5|Page
 depicting: Samsung admission of the same on the
Cellphone of victim ground of INCOMPETENT
evidence. The same could not
prove that the accused committed
the crime by mere presentation of
the photos.

Further, it was only identified by

the victim the cellphone itself was
not brought in Court to prove that
such cellphone belongs to the
victim. In fact, it was not
subjected to any forensic
examination to determine that the
cellphone was the same cellphone
that the assailant took from the
victim.

If indeed it was the same

cellphone, the prosecution could
have easily prove such evidence if
it was brought to Court so that
the the vicitm can positively gain
access to the alleged cellphone
knowing that she own and knew
the password but in this case it
never happened. Thus, there is
existence of doubt whether the
cellphone really belong to the
victim.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused respectfully prays that

the foregoing Comments be NOTED and CONSIDERED by this Honorable
Court.
Other measures of relief, just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted. 23 September 2021, ________

COUNSEL

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

6|Page