You are on page 1of 25


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versusPEDRO SAMPAGA @ a.k.a. “JASPER”, Accused. X---------------------X DRAFT FACTS Accused __________________________ is being charged with the crime of Serious Physical Injuires in an Information which reads as follows: “That on or about December 17, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of one CXXXXXXXXS y AXXXXXA by then and there giving the latter fistic blow on his face and thereby causing the breakage of his gum, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which have required and will require medical attendance for a period of more than thirty (30) days, and incapacitated and will incapacitate said CXXXXXXXXS y AXXXXXA from performing his customary labor during the same period of time. Contrary to Law.” Criminal Case NO. ________ For: Serious Physical Injuries


Accused XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXr” posted Cash Bail for his provisional liberty which was granted by the Court on December 16, 2008. Upon being arraigned in the presence of and with the assistance of counsel de ofico, said accused entered a plea of “Not Guilty” when the Information was read to him in a language known and understood by him. Accordingly, both parties were directed to undergo mediation at the Philippine Mediation Center. On February 27, 2009, the Court was in receipt of Report of the Mediator regarding the proceedings of the mediation which states “unsuccessful”. On March 10, 2009 preliminary conference proceeded. Both parties agreed on the following stipulation of facts, to wit: 1. the identity of the accused and

The jurisdiction of this Court over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the case.

The prosecution marked in evidence the following documentary exhibits, to wit: Exhibit “A”- Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo;

Thus. In the meantime. and David Santarin. The prosecution reserved to mark and present additional evidence. The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses namely: Carmelo Mascarinas.Medico-Legal Slip of Carmelo Mascarinas dated December 18. The defense reserved to mark and present evidence in the course of the trial. Manila . Reyes Memorial Medical Center. affirmed and confirmed the contents of the Sinumpaang Salaysay (Exhibit “A” with sub-marking) he executed in connection with the case that constituted as his . the private complainant. The private complaiannt identified the accused who was present in court.Affidavit of witness prosecution David Santarin (provisional). the defense did not make any proposal for stipulation nor mark any documentary exhibits. He also identified. preliminary conference was terminated. The prosecution presented the private complainant Carmelo Mascarinas as its first witness.Affidavit of witness Fe Mascarinas. 2006 issued by Jose R. Exhibit “C”. and Exhibit “D”.3 Exhibit “B”. The parties further agreed that the issues in this case are whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime as charged in the Information and whether or not the accused is civilly liable as a consequence of the commission of the offense charged.

2009) as a consequence thereof he fell down on the street and his blood oozed from his lips. thus. 2006 issued by the Jose R. Manila. (TSN. The house of Parayno is located at 3554 Buenos Aires Street. likewise. The private complainant further testified that he was about to go to the house of his cousin. Reyes Memorial Medical Center (Exhibit “B”) for the prosecution. par. He was beside the post (in front of the said Barangay) and his child was. in front of him. (Complaint Affidavit) Mascarinas got outside of the house in order to avoid Jefferson. The houses in that place are located in an alley connected with each other. As prayed for. His gum was broken and the set of his teeth was also broken. Francis Parayno. He rather proceeded to Barangay 579 Zone 56. April 28. When Macarinas saw the accused (his former enemy) he did not proceed anymore to the house of Parayno.Legal Slip dated December 18. The private complainant was a tricycle . Sampaloc. Mascarinas. (Complaint Affidavit. the Public Prosecutor was allowed to propound additional questions. testified that he sustained injuries at the left side of his upper lip as evidenced by the Medico. 2009) The private complainant averred that Jefferson Santos punched him and the blow landed on the left side of his upper lip. in order for him to have a drinking spree. just in front of the private complainant’s house. April 28. 4) (TSN. he was playing with his two (2) years old child.4 direct testimony.

00) a day. (TSN. On cross-examination. Jefferson suddenly came and asked him “why he was there?”. Their houses are adjoining with each other. the private complainant declared that on December 17. 2006 at around 8:30 in the evening he just arrived home. 2009) He remembered that the incident took place during Sunday because it happened after he went to the Church. but the private complainant was able to get out and proceeded to the house of his cousin. 2009). then he followed. When he peeped. He was sitting in front the post while he was playing with his child. he earns in an estimated amount of FOUR HUNDRED PESOS (P400. (compared with the original). As a result of the said injuries. he saw the accused inside the house of his cousin. he was not able to continue peddling as a tricycle driver for twenty-six (26) days excluding four (4) Sundays. The private complainant thereafter went in front of the Barangay Hall. Jefferson Santos saw him. (TSN April 28. The private complainant showed no proof of his ownership of the tricycle as he already sold it. (TSN April 28. when the . He peddles six days a week from Monday to Saturday. 2009). When the private complainant peeped.5 driver. May 26. 2009) He showed his driver’s license which was marked as (Exhibit “E) for the prosecution. After twenty (20) minutes. (TSN April 28. After smoking cigarettes his cousin passed-by and the latter invited him to go to their house. The house of the private complainant and the house of the accused are within the same address. he was in front of their house smoking cigarettes.

“Hindi naman sa’yo to. On December 17.) Mascarinas was referring to the place where the accused and some other individuals were having a drinking bout. Jefferson Santos asked Carmelo why he was still going there”. he saw Carmelo Mascarinas and Jefferson Santos @ “Aipper” fighting with each other. as a consequence he fell down. bakit ba? (Why. while he was waiting for his customer at around 8:30 p. He testified that he is a Market Vendor. Manila. Mesa. David Santarin was three (3) meters away from the two. (ibid) While Mascarinas was playing with his child outside the house a confrontation between him and the accused was made. further declared. He noticed that “Aipper” was drunk at that time. Santarin. When Santos asked Mascarinas why the latter was still going there? Carmelo replied. 2009) The private complainant further declared that he and the accused had an argument prior to this case but he doesn’t entertain any grudge against the accused. He heard clearly the statements of the accused against the private complainant. The prosecution presented David Santarin as its second witness. He was waiting for his customer to come. June 23. Immediately. He noticed some individuals were having drinking spree inside the house of Mascarinas’ cousin. April 28. thereafter. Santos punched Mascarinas on his right lip portion . 2009). 2006 he was in front of the Barangay Hall on the other side of the street located at Buenos Aires Street Sta. that while Mascarinas was outside.6 private complainant was about to stand up the accused punched him. (TSN. (TSN. this is not yours.m.

David Santarin. if it should be a sort of what. affirmed and confirmed the contents of the Affidavit (Exhibit “C” with sub-marking) he executed in connection with the case. On cross-examination. “ano lang pero hindi eh!” (As a man. likewise. but. When Santarin went to the place. he noticed the hand of Jefferson Santos being wrapped by a cloth. and a confrontation among them was made. 2009). 2007 he was in front of the Barangay Hall. it’s not!) (TSN. I can explain it because when he struck his hand was covered. he tried to punch back the accused but his punch did not reach the accused. in my opinion he Jefferson was carrying something. she was the one who shouted “awatin nyo”.7 he saw personally that the gums a meat from him. of Mascarinas was broken because he showed it to him when Mascarinas bought Carmelo was even wore braces after When Mascarinas went down. There were many people then. The private complainant attempted to fight back. Across the street. Kagawad Ana Bautista was there. David Santarin declared that at around 8:30 in the evening of December 17. dapat sana… at least. identified. nakabalot. “Sa tingin ko may karga kasi lalaki din po ako! Maipaliwanag ko lang. kasi sumuntok. (Stop them) There . David Santarin was just watching the incident he did nothing because both of them are their neighbors. June 23. no. the siblings of the accused arrived. medication. he saw Carmelo Mascarinas and Jefferson Santos were having a fight.

Santarin remembered that Mascarinas and Santos were being pacified by Barangay Tanod Michael Delgado. (TSN. Accused denied the crime charged against him. The are was well lighted then. He was being chased by the people there but failed to do so. except “D” with submarkings were admitted by the Court. The defense presented accused Jefferson Santos as its first witness. He testified that at around 8:30 in the evening he was inside the house of his best friend Francis Parayno. Santarin doesn’t know their names. because there were streetlights around the Barangay. Noting the comments/oppositions thereto interposed by the defense. During the celebration. When Jefferson Santos was asked by his counsel why he was not present during the drinking spree he . Santarin knew their faces only as he stated that even he grew up in that place he could not memorize the names because most of them were living at the back of the houses.8 were many people. August 19. Carmelo Mascarinas was not present. After they were pacified by Barangay Tanod Michael Delgado. he came from his work since that was his first salary he offered for drinks and they celebrated. 2009). 2010. Mascarinas did not bother to counter the attack of Jefferson since he was immediately fell down when Jefferson gave his punched. only their faces. the prosecution formally offered their documentary exhibits. Mascarinas was then punched by Jefferson then Jefferson ran away. Exhibits “A” to “E”. On June 16.

During the confrontation they were shouting each other “nagkahamunan na kami” ikaw anong gusto mo?” That. while the latter was still talking. Mascarinas was just staring at him and he asked Mascarinas “why he was staring. Accused admitted that he was drunk at that time they had consumed one (1) case of small Colt 45 of beer But the accused said that Carmelo Mascarinas was also drunk. At that time both of them were on the second floor and Jefferson went outside the house and when he needed to comfort himself Carmelo followed him. Accused admitted that when he threw his first blow against Mascarinas it was just a retaliation of the punch that Mascarinas thrown to him. 2006. Thereafter. he added.” He further asked why he went there and Mascarinas replied “anong pakialam mo? Bahay mo bay yun? Santos told Mascarinas that it was his fault. Mascarinas asked Santos what do you want and after hearing those words Mascarinas was about to punch Santos. Mascarinas was the one who challenged him for a fight but he did not reply for that challenge because he was avoiding Mascarinas and yet Mascarinas was always following him.9 answered that Carmelo Mascarinas punched him. Mascarinas punched him. while facing. He did nothing. he just went outside. He turned his back to Mascarinas. Mascarinas was about to punch Santos and Santos evaded. But Carmelo did not answer he was just staring at Jefferson madly. but That the father of that was prior to December 17. He further declared that he did not notice that was following him. because he was still following Jefferson. and. Mascarinas. ran after him and a day after. His cousin Elmer .

10 Pineda. August 25. (ibid) When cross-examined. it is stated in the Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo of Macarinas “na habang binabantayan ko ang aking anak sa kanyang paglalaro sa tabi ng nasabing kalsada at habang ako ay naka-upo sa tabi ng post ng meralco (squatting position) ng biglang dumating at lapitan nitong lasing na si “AIPPER” he was sitting on the post. Parayno was not with them at that time because he was in Cavite. but then. 2010). accused stated that Francis Parayno is the owner of the house and a cousin of the private complainant. Mascarinas followed you. did not run yet. he saw him. An hour before the incident the private complainant went inside. They did not have a drinking spree with Parayno but with SK Chairman Renden Esguerra. That Carmelo went also to the house where Jefferson and company were having a drinking bout. After giving one punch Carmelo’s cousin who was an SK Chairman whispered Jefferson that he was going to be mauled and advised Jefferson to run. Carmelo did not join them while they had a drinking session. When clarified by the defense counsel that Mr. Jefferson admitted that he was at the house of his friend and he went down where he was staying because he stays there at the same time he is the Administrator of that house. (TSN. but he. went outside and pacified both of them. Jefferson answered that “umakyat po sya sa bahay. . That the truth was that Carmelo followed him when he went downstairs.

m. The accused admitted that prior thereto he had no personal knowledge of where the private complainant was nor he had knowledge whether the private complainant indeed drunk at the time he met him. Jefferson admitted that he was the one who first asked Carmelo what the latter was doing there because Carmelo had an “atraso against Jefferson. When the accused was asked by the Public Prosecutor: Fiscal : I am correct to say that you do not want to see the face of the private complainant in that place? Answer : No. he saw Carmelo seated at around passed 8:00. . (ibid) That. he went outside. and the private complainant followed him and was merely staring at him. 2006 that the punched of the private complainant landed on his eye but he was not able to press charges against the private complainant.m. ma’am.m. (ibid).11 Before the incident. When asked by the Public Prosecutor “So before 8:00 p. “Yes. Accused was referring to the incident prior to December 17. He first saw Carmelo only at about 8:00 p. ma’am because he came from work. But when he bought Colt 45 Carmelo was already drinking alone in front of his house at around 8:00 p. you saw the private complainant? Jefferson answered. That he agreed that the act of the private complainant in punching him was unreasonable and he further agreed that it was normal for him to harbor ill feelings against the private complainant.

ma’am. : Specifically. : You will agree with me that despite that you and the private complainant have a grudge with each other the private complainant has the right to be anywhere he wants? Answer Fiscal : Yes. ma’am. X x x : What prompted you to confront the private complainant is the hatred that you were then feeling against the private complainant because of the punching incident that occurred between you and the private complainant? Answer Fiscal : Yes.12 Fiscal : But you were asking the private complainant why he was there? Answer Fiscal : Yes. ma’am. ma’am. he has the right to go near your premises. : You admitted having punched the private complainant a while ago? Answer : Yes. . ma’am. am I correct to say that? A Fiscal : Yes.

: You were able to punch the private complainant at the time that he was hugging you? Answer he hugged me. because as you said. X x x (TSN. that is the time that complainant first punched you. ma’am. he was hugging me. August 25. after I punched. 2010). Fiscal : So you will agree with me when the private : No ma’am. : The private complainant did not follow it up. am I correct to say that.13 Fiscal : Only that you claim that you hit the private complainant after you avoided his punch against you? Answer Fiscal : Yes. you were able to punch him back? Answer Fiscal : No ma’am. Luckily. he hugged me. he did not follow it up with another punch? Answer : After I punched him. The accused further stated that it was the private complainant who first punched him. he was able to avoid the punch of the private complainant because he was .

The private and simultaneously punching him. you did not state that? : After I punched him. ma’am. ma’am. Xxx : My question is you will agree with me that the private complainant did not punch you anymore despite the fact that he can still punch you? Court Answer : The witness may answer. . : But a while ago. you did not follow it up with another punch? X x x Answer Fiscal : Not anymore. ma’am. complainant choked The Public Prosecutor further asked the accused: Fiscal : So you are telling us now that the private complainant was able to hit you? Answer Fiscal Answer Fiscal : Yes. after the private complainant first punched you. : Yes. he hugged me.14 able to punch him back. : What I am asking you.

15 Fiscal : And that is because after that. Mr. That the incident that accused filed together with his father happened after the incident subject matter of this case. when I avoided his punch. that considering the fact that you already able to avoid the punch of the private complainant. On re-direct. Jefferson explained that it was . During the incident that the private complainant punched the accused and the latter evaded the punch of the former and until such time that they were exchanging blows the span of time was only for a seconds. you were able to punch him back? Answer Fiscal : (ibid). That they filed Frustrated Murder against the father of the complainant on December 17. ma’am. but it happened on the same date. on the following day. the accused explained that prior to the said incident. 2006. “napasuntok na rin po ako”. witness. : You will agree with me. there is no more need for you to punch him? Answer : No ma’am. despite the fact that the private complainant punched him and the father of the private complainant ran after him he did not file a case against the private complainant’s father because said father had killed someone during that time and the mother of Jefferson told him not to file case anymore because his siblings might be implicated.

2006 she was in her house.16 only five (5) to ten (10) minutes was the interval of time that the Frustrated Murder happened after the incident that took place between him and Carmelo. (ibid) The defense presented Sophia Ruyeras as its second witness. she testified that on December 17. it was just a simple boxing. She can not recall if there were any other persons who were watching at that time. It was near the Barangay Hall. On the following day. (ibid) The prosecution and the defense stipulated the distance of five meters (from the witness stand up to the door of the courtroom) from the actual location of the incident took place to the actual position/place of the witness. On initial direct examination. She was surprised because there were people who were having a quarrel outside her house. The accused and the private complainants are neighbors.) Shopia Ruyeras saw two (2) persons were boxing each other. She recalled the fight was . Ruyeras could not recall where the fist blow coming from Carmelo landed because Carmelo’s back was turned against her. She could not recall also where the first blow coming from Jefferson landed since she was not able to see it clearly. she got surprised when she was informed that the private complainant had himself medically treated and the latter’s teeth were removed since she had witnessed the figh. To her. they see each other often times.

She noticed that Carmelo went home after the fight but returned back together with his brother Derek. Carmelo left and Derek. That’s the reason why the witness got surprised when people informed her that the teeth of the private complainant were removed. After the fight Carmelo went back brought with him a jungle bolo and Derek. They were not able to look for the accused then. around five (5) minutes. Nestle. remained in the place of the incident.17 only a short while. (approximate). She could not even recall the appearance of Carmelo when asked by the defense counsel if she had to see him again. When the defense counsel made follow up questions to the witness: PAO Answer PAO : Can you recall what date was the following day : December 16. his brother. Thereafter. “whether Carmelo was blooded when he returned” the witness answered. his brother. looked for Jefferson. Derek gestured to hit Nestle with a bat but failed to do so because Derek evaded. : The following day? . the brother of Jefferson arrived. The court made a follow-up question to the witness. “No ma’am”. Ruyeras could not recall how long the interval of time from the end of the fistfight until the time he saw Carmelo again. She did not know the reason why the two were fighting. but Jefferson avoided Carmelo (ibid). Carmelo was still looking for Jefferson ‘til evening but he did not see Jefferson.

they filed it on 17. 2008. Then the defense counsel moved for continuance. On November 17. 2006 when the fistfight. 2010 the continuation of direct examination of witness Sophia Ruyeras was set. November 17. She was in her house at that time she was looking on to her screen it was just near the place where the incident happened. 2006 at 8:45 in the evening in the following night? Answer PAO Answer : That is the date of their fight. (TSN. why do you say so? Answer PAO : Because that is the birthday of my daughter.18 Answer PAO : It happened December 16: You mentioned that it was December 16. : Do you know something happened between Jefferson and Carmelo on December 17. : 17or 16? : That was 16. She testified now that the fist fight between Jefferson and Carmelo happened on December 17. It happened at 3548 Buenos Aires near the Barangay Hall. 2010) She heard the private complainant and the accused exchanging words and saw them exchanging blows but the fight was just a .

Since the witness is staying in that place way back 1977 she frequently see Carmelo. seemed like a toothless. he is a friend of her . (ibid) Actually the latter fetches water from her so she knows Carmelo well. But. Both the accused and the private complainant had bruises then when pacified by the Barangay Kagawad. Ruyeras said that the incident happened at 8:00 in the morning. a little bit dark and a curly hair. their neighbors were the ones who pacified them. That she did not see one David Santarin. The witness did not know when the private complainant went back after going home and was pacified.19 short while. children. She further testified that she knew the complainant to be such that distinguishing feature (toothless) for a long time because he passes everyday and prior to the said incident Carmelo was toothless already. There were no other persons involved of the fight. quite short. As to Jefferson. 2010 Ruyeras was recalled to the witness stand. prosecution witness. she described the person of the private complainant such as. However. The witness testified that there were no other person aside from the SK Chairman as well as Elmer who were present and pacified Mascarinas and Santos. That Marcelo was the first one who first threw a blow to Jefferson. the private complainant was not present. On November 17. the SK Chairman and Elmer.

The witness failed to recall the exact date when the incident happened because it happened several years back and the witness admitted that she failed to recall because of her memory lapse. the other half of her door was made of screen and the other half was made of cement. Before the fight ensued. said witness testified that per her recollection. the fist fight incident between the private complainant and the accused happened on December 17. she suddenly changed her answer. Ruyeras did not agree to the Public Prosecutor that there were certain matters that she could not recall regarding the incident. Said witness testified that she remembered having testified that when the incident subject matter of this case was taking place she was looking through her house screen door.20 When the Public Prosecutor conducted her partial cross-examination to witness Shophia Ruyeras. the case was set for continuation of the cross-examination of witness Sophia Ruyeras. Carmelo went to the house . she was already present at that specific place in her house. She was inside her house then. 2011. The witness apologized the Public Prosecutor. 2008 to December 17. 2006. the Public Prosecutor tried to refresh the memory of Ruyeras wherein she was informed that the Information filed in this court and per testimony of the private complainant and the accused that the incident subject matter of the case actually happened on December 17. She knew where Jefferson came from because the latter had a drinking bout inside the house. (ibid) On January 5. But. from December 17. 2008. Thereafter. except for the date and year. 2006.

she was closely watching the fight between the two and they were exchanging blows. Ruyeras remembered she having testified that Carmelo was alone. in your testimony given on October 13. The witness confirmed the distance of five (5) meters where she was standing inside her house and the place where the fistic blows happened as well as her observation that it was just a simple exchanged of punches. She also remembered having testified that she could not recall where the fistic blows landed on each of them because Carmelo was turned against her. to wit: Fiscal However. At the distance of five (5) meters the witness said that she was not able to hear their utterances because they were noisy. .21 where the drinking session took place. are you changing now your previous testimony? Answer Of course. Cirilo: “Were there any other people watching the said fight?” you answered “None ma’am. She did not see the child of Carmelo. Ruyeras testified further that she was inside her house watching the incident she did not know whether there were other people watching. 2010 when you were asked by Atty. The witness suddenly changed her answer when asked by the Public Prosecutor. The basis of which was the back of Carmelo that turns against her. When re-confirmed by the Public Prosecutor whether there were any other persons involved or present during the incident the answer of the witness was in negative.

The second box on which the witness placed . Witness drew an “x” marking. now you will agree with me that there could be persons other than you who may have witnessed the incident but you failed to notice? Answer Yes. She pointed her house and drew an “x” marking. the basketball court area. where the private complainant and the accused boxed each other. ma’am.22 Fiscal answer? A Fiscal So you are changing your previous Yes. ma’am. she labeled it with (basketball court). On February 9. The Public Prosecutor moved for continuance which was granted by the court. So. The witness was familiar with the gym the former gym located near the area. She just let someone drew the lines and then she herself labeled it. wherein said witness drew a box with marking “x” in front of the Barangay which is near her house. She was asked by the Public Prosecutor to draw the basketball area with reference from the Barangay Hall or the Street. Buenos Aires Street. Xxx (ibid) The Public Prosecutor asked the witness to draw a sketch of the area where the boxing incident allegedly took place. 2011 the case was called for continuation of the cross-examination of the same witness Sophia Ruyeras.

On March 9. On February 16. for failure of the defense witness to appear despite notice the defense counsel was constrained to rest her case. is the house of the witness. 2011. The prosecution was given the same period to file comment and/or opposition thereto. only the testimonies of their witnesses presented and thereafter rested its case.23 an “x” marking. She was given ten days of even date to formally offer their documentary exhibits. The third portion which the witness made a marking “x”. On March 30. the defense counsel admitted that their witness Sophia Ruyeras may not have seen any other person. a subpoenae were issued to the intended prosecution witnesses Dr. for failure of the defense counsel to formally offer their documentary exhibits. As prayed for by the Public Prosecutor. 2011. is the basketball court or the old gym. there were gym equipments therein for exercising purposes but it was covered by a tent covering the floor. Bagnes . Although. as prayed for. However. The witness clarified that nothing could obstruct her vision towards the basketball court or the former gym because it was an open area/ exercising area before. before the Public Prosecutor expounding additional questions. the defense was given another ten days to file thereof. counsel for the accused manifested that they had no documentary evidence to offer. 2011.

Considering that the Medical Records Officer of Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. Ho. Jerome R. Medico Legal Slip dated December 18. the prosecution had no available witness to present considering that the return of the subpoena sent to the Medical Doctors of Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center state that they were no longer connected with the said hospital. Ryes Memorial Medical Center. when the hearing was called for the presentation of rebuttal evidence. 2011. when the case was called for rebuttal evidence. Manila was not duly notified. The witness for the prosecution was supposedly the duly authorized representative of Jose R. HNS at Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. the Public Prosecutor proposed for stipulation the existence of the following documents to which the defense admitted. ENT. representative of both parties appeared. 2011. the case was reset. Manila for the presentation of rebuttal evidence. when called for hearing. On May 11. the Medical Records Officer of Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. As prayed for by the Public Prosecutor. the prosecution had no available witness. and . 2011. a subpoena was issued to another prosecution witness. On April 27. On April 6. However.24 and Dr. to wit: 1. 2006 (Exhibit B).

noting the comments/objections thereto which will be considered in the appreciation and weighing of evidence on record. the testimony of the representative of the Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center was dispensed with. There being no sur-rebuttal evidence as manifested by the counsel for the accused. marked as Exhibit “F”.25 2. Exhibits “B” and “D” were admitted for the purposes for which they were being offered and as part of the testimony of the witnesses who identified them. Thereafter. Consultation Report dated Febraury 7. 2007. the Public Prosecutor orally offered Exhibits “B” and “D” as rebuttal evidence. The counsel for the accused interposed her comments/objection thereto. In view of the above admission. the case was submitted for decision. .