DISCUSSION

A. The prosecution
failed to establish the
elements for the crime
of murder.

1. I was informed by my counsel that in the case of

People v. Valdez, the Supreme Court ruled that:

“In criminal cases, it must specify therewith and state in

the information the details of the crime and any
circumstance that may qualify the crime or aggravate an
accused's liability. Thus, it is no longer sufficient to
merely allege the qualifying circumstances of "treachery"
or "evident premeditation" without including supporting
factual averments. And so, the prosecution must now
specify in the information the actions and circumstances
constituting the alleged attendant circumstance in the
crime committed.”

2. I cannot be convicted with what is charged against

me when the only basis assertions that I murdered Mr. Pat
when there is nothing to support the said assertions.

3. Assuming arguendo, under the first given attendant

circumstance which is –

Under their information on discussion, it lacks and doesn’t

match their arguments.

4. Hence, for accused-appellant Mr. Delos Reyes to be

convicted of Murder, the prosecution must not only establish
that he killed Mr. Pat; it must also prove, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the killing of Mr. Pat was attended by treachery or
evident premeditation.

5. In line with this, it is impossible for Mr. Delos Reyes

to commit such act, considering the time of the crime; my wife
and I had an out of town vacation in Cebu at the time mr. pat
was murdered.

6. Therefore, I was informed by my counsel that in the

case of People v. Caliao, the Court found the accused therein
guilty of Homicide only, not Murder, because there was no

1
showing that the accused made any preparation to kill the
victim in such a manner as to insure the commission of the
crime or make it impossible or difficult for the victim to
retaliate or defend himself.

7. Furthermore, the Court also ruled on the same case

that "when aid was easily available to the victim, such as when
the attendant circumstances show that there were several
eyewitnesses to the incident, including the victim's family, no
treachery could be appreciated because if the accused indeed
consciously adopted means to insure the facilitation of the
crime, he could have chosen another place or time.

8. Similar to Mr. Pat, there is no showing in this case

that accusedappellant Mr. Delos Reyes carefully and
deliberately planned the killing in the manner that would
ensure his safety and success.

9. Moreover, the testimony of the eyewitness SG

Cortina is not sufficient to confirmed that Mr. Pat was shot
point-blank by Mr. Delos Reyes since the familiarity to him
and in the presence of the place and blood relation to the
victim discredited the essence of his sworn statement.

B. The Doctrine of
Proof Beyond
Reasonable Doubt is
applicable.

10. I was informed by my counsel that – [t]he doctrine

of
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt provides that in a criminal
case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt
is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

11. Assuming arguendo, that I was the one seen

shooting in the house of Mr. Pat, my motive is not absolutely
enough per se to establish liability on my end since there is no
evident premeditation and the qualifying circumstance under
Art. 248 are refutable, and the element was not met.

12. It must be noted that my wife and I stayed for two

days at beach resort when the crime happened.
2
 13. With regard the current case, I was informed by my
counsel that in the case of People of the Philippines v.
Natindim, the court further elaborated that evident
premeditation as a qualifying circumstance cannot be
appreciated in this case for failure of the prosecution to
specifically allege in the Information the acts constituting it.
Mere reference to evident premeditation is not sufficient
because it is in the nature of a conclusion of law, not factual
averments.

14. Additionally, the court also cited that evident

premeditation is attendant when the following requisites are
proven during trial: (1) the time when the offender determined
to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that
he/she clung to his determination; (3) a sufficient lapse of
time between the determination and execution, to allow
him/her to reflect upon the consequences of his/her act, and
to allow his/her conscience to overcome the resolution of his
will.

15. Hence, it presupposes a deliberate planning of the

crime before executing it. The execution of the criminal act, in
other words, must be preceded by cool thought and reflection.
There must be showing of a plan or preparation to kill, or
proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his/her
decision to execute the crime.

16. In this case, evident premeditation was not clearly

established because the prosecution’s evidence was limited to
what transpired in the house of Mr. Pat at 5:30 AM in the
morning of February 16, 2023, when accused-appellant Mr.
Delos Reyes shoot Mr. Pat, while the time is inconsistent, and
there is no specified detail of the time at sunrise when gunshot
heard.

17. In addition to that, the prosecution did not present

any proof showing when and how accused-appellant Mr. Delos
Reyes planned and prepared to kill Mr. Pat.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

3
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my
signature this 09th day of March 2023 at the Pasig City,
Philippines.

RUBEN DAVID y SANTIAGO

Affiant