REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 123, Makati City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff versus
CRIMINAL CASE. 1001001 FOR: PARRICIDE
TENIENTE GIMO Accused XX---------------------------------------------------------XX
COMMENT/OBJECTIONS (To the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Object and Documentary Evidence) ACCUSED by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully comments and/or objects to the admission of the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Object Evidence as follows: ACCUSED objects to the formal offer of the Bolo as evidence of the Prosecution, marked as Exhibit “C”. The Bolo is inadmissible as evidence due to the reason that it was never identified and offered during the trial of the case. There is no basis for its admissibility thus making its purpose moot and unwarranted. The ACCUSED further objects to the purpose of the offer as follows: EXHIBITS “A”
DESCRIPTION Affidavit of Ms. Maria Mae Killing
COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS The Accused objects to the purpose of the offer specifically which is to attest to the incident pertaining to the commission of the crime of parricide by the accused. It has been declared in open court and that the records would attest that the primary witness admitted that she was not present at the precise moment of the commission of the crime. Thus, the testimony of the witness with regard to this matter would all be hearsay and is inadmissible as evidence. At cross, she categorically admitted that she did not see the actual killing, thus, her assumption that it is the Accused who killed the victim is mere speculation inadmissible in evidence.
“B”
SOCO Report of Bernardo Carpio
The Accused objects to the purpose of the offer specifically which is to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of the
Page 1 of 5
crime. The Investigator being a mere responder after the crime has already been committed is incompetent to testify or to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime during its actual commission. The investigator has no personal knowledge nor has a well-grounded belief that the accused was at the scene of the crime for the obvious reason that he was not present at the time the crime was committed. The Accused also objects to the purpose of the offer which is to establish the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. The witness himself admitted that he did not see the killing and the fact that he arrived only when the crime had already been committed negated actual knowledge on the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, thus, there was no way for him to exactly establish the facts on the actual commission of the crime. Whatever he may conclude from the things he had collected are pure speculations inadmissible in evidence. The Accused also objects to the purpose of the offer which is to testify and correlate the pieces of evidence acquired from the scene of the crime with the commission of said crime. Again, being not present during the actual commission of the crime, the witness is incompetent to correlate the pieces of evidence acquired from the scene of the crime, and not being offered as an expert witness, his testimony regarding this matter is mere speculation thus, inadmissible in evidence. The Accused also objects to the admissibility of the report to prove the time of death of the victim due to its being inconsistent with the Information and because said witness also is incompetent to testify as to the time of death not being a medico-legal officer. “C-1”
Blanket marked with “Property of Teniente Gimo”
The Accused objects to the purpose of the offer specifically which is to prove the fact that the accused is the owner of thing used in killing the victim. The records will show that the primary witness admitted that it was only in one occasion that she went to the house of the accused. Thus ownership of the properties that can be found inside the house of the accused cannot be accurately established by the witness by just mere one instance. The witness is
Page 2 of 5
incompetent to testify to this matter and all she said was hearsay which is inadmissible. Supposing without admitting that the blanket was a property of the Accused, it could not prove, either directly or indirectly, that the Accused was the one who killed the victim. The crime being committed in the house of the Accused, it is but natural that his belongings could be found there and with the victim. This however does not prove in any degree that the accused killed the victim. Thus, it is inadmissible in evidence being irrelevant and immaterial. “E”
Fingerprint Analysis Report
The defense admits the genuineness and due execution of these documents as they are public documents and forms part of public records. However the findings integrated on these reports are hereby being opposed since the very object that was examined as the basis of this analysis report is inadmissible in evidence pertaining to the Bolo marked as Exhibit “C”.
“F-1”
Medical Necropsy and Toxicology
The Accused objects to the purpose of the offer specifically which is to corroborate the testimony of the first witness based on this medical report. Under Section 34 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified. The offer made by the prosecution is a general offer which must be rejected. The admittance made by the defense was only with regard to the genuineness and due execution of the public document and it is wanting on how this piece of document can corroborate the testimony of the witness. The primary witness has testified on a lot of matters which the prosecution failed to clearly specify on what specific areas the medical report corroborates the testimony of the witness.
“F-2”
Picture of dead Maria Labo
The best evidence that can prove the death of the victim is not through photographic images but by presenting the victim’s death certificate. Thus, the Accused objects to the purpose of its offer.
“G-1”, “G-2” & “G-3”
Crime Scene picture of the kitchen, Crime scene picture of the Cauldron and Crime Scene picture of the body on the table, covered with the Blanket
The Accused objects to the purpose of the offer specifically To corroborate the testimony of the two witnesses presented. As mentioned above the purpose for which the
Page 3 of 5
(“C-1”)
evidence is offered must be specified. Clearly, it is confusing on the part of the defense on what part of the testimonies of the two witnesses presented these pieces of evidence corroborates. Being the case, this prejudices the defense on its right of raising the necessary allowable defences provided by law and the rules to protect the interest of the accused.
RELIEF WHEREFORE, Accused most respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the foregoing object and documentary exhibits mentioned above be denied admission for the reasons above stated. The Accused further prays for such other relief as may be just and equitable under the premises. Makati City. August 14, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Counsel for the Accused Teniente Gimo PRADAC Law Office 37th Floor, LKG Tower 6801 Ayala Avenue, Makati City ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN PTR 345756, 1/10/15, Makati City IBP No. 01023 Lifetime Member Roll No. 37435 MCLE Compliance III-000913, April 19, 2014
Copy Furnished by Personal Service to: BIAG NI LAM-ANG City Assistant Prosecutor Makati City
BAHMMM LAW OFFICE Unit 143 44th Floor, Garampingat Bldg. 6969 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1229 Page 4 of 5
EXPLANATION The filing of this Comment/Objection was done through LBC due to time, distance and manpower constraints.
ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN
Page 5 of 5
