Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

9th Judicial Region
Branch 4
Zamboanga City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 49699

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

ANTONIO ATILANO y HIPOLITO, GRAVE THREAT

Accused.
X-------------------------------------------------X

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, the Accused, ANTONIO ATILANO y HIPOLITO, through the Public
Attorney’s Office, to this most Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the herein
Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that based on the evidence presented by the
Prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, the Accused cannot be held liable for the
crime charged against him in the Information.

STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED

On February 04, 2011, then Associate Prosecution Attorney-II Nicolas L. Apolinario,

filed an Information against the Accused ANTONIO ATILANO y HIPOLITO, and charged
him with the crime of Grave Threat, committed as follows:

INFORMATION

“That on or about August 22, 2010, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines,

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously threaten with infliction of bodily harm
upon the person of one DANILO MUSTERO y BAYHON by then and there
uttering at the latter, the following phrases in Chavacano dialect, to
wit:“Hindi pa kaba el Agosto ay mata ya iyo kun el man maridable” which
means in English “The month of August will not yet end and I will kill this
couple”, and right away herein accused drew and aimed a shotgun locally
known as sumpak at the said complpainant Danilo Mustero y Bayhon, the
commission of which would amount to a crime.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

1|Page
 When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in the
Information. Thereafter, pre-trial conference followed, and the prosecution named the
following witnesses, to wit:

1. Danilo Mustero y Bayhon;

2. Gerry Mustero y Atilano;
3. Jaymar dela Merced y Atilano;
4. PO3 Harris Abdulmajid Ladja

Trial ensued and in the presentation of prosecution’s evidence, she was able to
present only one witness in the person of PO3 Harris Abdulmajid Ladja. However, his
testimony was dispensed with and in lieu of it, stipulations and admissions of facts and
documents were entered into between the public prosecutor and undersigned counsel.

On September 23, 2020, the Prosecution manifested that she will no longer present her
other witnesses and thus, will be resting the case. Thereafter, she proceeded to formally
offer her documents orally and afterwards, the Honorable Court made its Ruling on the Offer
in open court, to wit:

“WHEREFORE, the court hereby rules to admit Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” to “C-1”
pursuant to the admissions and stipulations entered into by the parties during the
previous hearing on September 09, 2020.”

With the ruling of the Honorable Court on the Formal Evidence of the Prosecution,
the Prosecution was deemed to have rested its case. A careful perusal of the testimonies of
the witnesses and the evidence admitted by this Honorable Court, it appears that the
Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this
Demurrer to Evidence.

DISCUSSIONS/ ARGUMENTS

I. PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE
MISERABLY FAILED TO
PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT:

It bears emphasis that the Accused is being charged for Grave Threat. In Grave
Threat cases, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove each of the following elements
beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:
1. the offender threatens another person of committing harm against him or his
family;
2. the threat amounts to a crime; and lastly,

2|Page
 3. the threat is not subject to any condition. (Revised Penal Code)

It is essential to note that in the case pending before this Honorable Court, the
prosecution has failed to establish any of the above-mentioned elements of Grave Threat as
they have not presented the private complainant and/or any witness to the alleged crime.

The stipulations and admission of facts made by the public prosecutor and the
undersigned counsel is explicit that the private investigator, P03 Ladja has no personal
knowledge as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the case as he was not an eye-
witness to the incident. His participation in the incident is after the alleged commission of
the crime already. Also, that the documents were admitted only as to their tenor but not as
to the truth of the facts contained therein.

Without the testimony of the private complainant or his eye witnesses, the accused
cannot be convicted of the crime charged against him.

Considering all these circumstances, it can be concluded that all the elements of
Grave Threat was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the
accused should be exonerated of the crime charged against him.

In sum, it is evident from the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by

the Prosecution that it failed to discharge the burden of proof as required by Rule 133,
Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which states:

Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt – In a criminal case, the accused is

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

This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused,
relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the
defense of the accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the
due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of the accused to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution. Should the
prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused
must be acquitted. As explained in the Basilio vs. People of the Philippines, citing People vs.
Ganguso:

“An accused has in his favor the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights
guarantees. Unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, he must be
acquitted. This reasonable doubt standard is demanded by the due process

3|Page
 clause of the Constitution which protects the accused from conviction
except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
constitute the crime with which he is charged. The burden of proof is on the
prosecution, and unless it discharges that burden, the accused need not even offer
evidence in his behalf, and he would be entitled to an acquittal.”

To reiterate, the prosecution failed to establish all the elements necessary to warrant
a conviction for the crime of Grave Threat. This being the case, the prosecution has not
overturned the presumption of innocence of the accused as guaranteed to them by no less
than the Constitution, thus, the accused are entitled to an acquittal.

The High Court in People v. Sayat (G.R. No.s 102773-77, June 8, 1993), It ruled the
following, to wit:
“Every circumstance favoring accused’s innocence must be taken into
account. The prosecution evidence must be clear and convincing to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence”, inasmuch as ‘it is a fundamental
evidentiary rule that the prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt
of the accused as a consequence of the tenet ei incumbit probation non qui negat,
that is, he who asserts not he who denies, must prove.”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that the instant Demurrer to Evidence be granted.
Zamboanga City, Philippines, September 29, 2020.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

ZAMBOANGA CITY REGIONAL SATELLITE OFFICE
3rd Floor, Hall of Justice,
Sta. Barbara, Zamboanga City

By:
ATTY. RHEA DOLL B. GONZALO
Public Attorney- II
Roll No: 70752
IBP No.: 042968/ 5-28-2018
MCLE Compliance No.-VI-0014592/until April 14, 2022

4|Page
 NOTICE

The Clerk of Court

MTCC-Branch 4
Zamboanga City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing to the Honorable Court for its consideration immediately
upon receipt hereof, without further oral arguments.

Zamboanga City, Philippines, September 29, 2020.

ATTY. RHEA DOLL B. GONZALO

Copy furnished: PROS. LILIAN SAHIRON JULJANI

City Prosecutor’s Office,
Hall of Justice, Zamboanga City

5|Page