Republic of the Philippines

12th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 17
Hall of Justice, Kidapawan City

People of the Philippines, Criminal Case No. 2952-2015,

Plaintiff/s, 2997-2015, & 2998-2015
-Versus- -For-
DATU EM EM ABBAS, “VIOL. OF SEC. 5, 11, & 12 ART.
Accused. II OF RA 9165”
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------X

DEMURRER TO THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE

COMES NOW Accused, through the undersigned Counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully move for Judgment and acquitting the Accused to the herein changes by way
of Demurrer to Prosecution’s Evidence:

1. That herein demurrer to the evidence is filed with prior leave of court granted by the
Honorable Court to Accused;

2. That the demurrer is anchored on the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the Accused beyond reasonable doubt;

3. That the prosecution rested their case after presenting the following:

A. One (1) medium heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine

Hydrochloride also known as “Shabu” weighing 0.197 grams marked as PMD-1
allegedly a product of the buy-bust operation;
B. One (1) big heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride also known as “Shabu” weighing 4.173 grams marked as PMD
allegedly confiscated during the body search; and,
C. All allegedly confiscated drug paraphernalia which mentioned in the Information;

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Compared to other kinds of case, the prosecution of criminal cases is the most exhaustive for
the quantum of evidence required to convict the accused is proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Section 14 (12), Article III, of 1987 of the Constitution mandates that an accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. Where the state fails to meet the quantum
of proof required to overcome the Constitutional presumption, the accused is entitled to an
acquittal, regardless of the weakness or even the absence of his defense. By Constitutional
fiat, the burden of proof is accordingly vested in the prosecution.

The presumption cannot be overcome by suspicion or conjecture i.e. probability that the

accused committed the crime or that he had the opportunity to do so. To overcome the
presumption of innocence proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact essential to constitute
the offense with which the accused is charged must be clearly established by the prosecution.

ARGUMENTS / DISCUSSIONS

The accused was arraigned on September 12, 2022,and he entered a plea of not guilty. Pre-
trial ensued and it was terminated on October 12, 2022.
Thereafter,trial proper commenced. After formally offering its exhibits, the Prosecution rests it
’s case. Leave of court to file demurrer to evidence was filed by the defense and the same was
granted. During the Pre-trial, the prosecution identified four witnesses namely P/Chief
Inspector Ma. Kristy Julian, the investigator; PO2 Mark Saban, the arresting officer of the
accused; and PO2 Rich Paul Cosio as a corroborating witness and part of the surveillance team
together with PO2 Jun Rey Guinid .P/Chief Inspector Ma. Kristy Julian testified on; PO2 Mark
Saban, the investigator, testified on October 15, 2022; and PO2 Rich Paul
Cosio as corroborating witness, testified on October 15, 2022. Their supposed direct
testimonies were dispensed with after both parties agreed to enter into stipulation. The
defense likewise offered counter-stipulation that all of the witnesses had no personal
knowledge with regard to the arrest of the accused as well as the recovery of the evidence.
The Prosecution was supposed to present PO2 Mark Saban, the arresting officer of the
accused who have personal knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the
arrest of the accused as well as the recovery of the evidence. Unfortunately, he was not able
to testify due to his repeated failure to appear in court despite numerous notices given to him.
As a result, the Prosecution was not able to relate the facts of the arrest of the accused and
was not able to identify the specimen subject matter of the case and the identity of
the accused. From the foregoing, it is crystal clear that the corpus delicti of the crime imputed
to the accused was not proven by the prosecution. In a long line of cases, it was categorically
ruled by the Supreme Court that identity of the prohibited drugs constitutes the corpus delicti
of the offense. Thus, in the case of People vs. Pedronan , the Supreme Court ruled that:
“The identity of the prohibited drugs constitute the corpus delicti of the offense.”
 The Supreme Court has explained in  People  v. Del  Monte [G.R. No.179940, 23 April 2008]
that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction
for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction [People vs.
Mendiola, G.R. No. 110778, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA116, 120]. Thus, it is essential that the
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The chain of custody
requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity
of the evidence are removed.
 Furthermore, in People vs. Mendiola , it was held that:
“Considering that in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to establish the
guilt of the accused, similarity in identifying the corpus delicti is insufficient; unwavering
exactitude in identification is necessary. Every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Garcia 215 SCRA 349
[1992]).Clearly, PO2 Mark Saban, who is the most competent person to make the proper
identification being the arresting officer who confiscated the item from the accused, never
actually identified the same. The failure of the prosecution to have the specimen or alleged
plastic sachet recovered from the accused be identified in open court by its witnesses is very
fatal to their case. As a necessary consequence of the failure of the prosecution to prove
all the elements of the crime, ACQUITTAL
 of the accused is an inevitable conclusion. With the testimonies thus presented, the
prosecution failed to prove by evidence the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, there is no need for the accused to present any evidence in his defense and herein
accused must be acquitted of the aforementioned offense. It goes without saying that
conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence because after all the
accused enjoys the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until contrary is proven.
“The evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits, and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness or absence of the evidence for the defense.” 
 
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to GRANT

the instant Demurrer to Evidence for insufficiency of evidence based on the afore stated
grounds and consequently, for the failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
October 25 , 2022 at Kidapawan City, Cotabato, Philippines.

Assisted by:
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Kidapawan City District Office
Hall of Justice, Kidapawan City

ATTY. YUSOF ALIUDIN

Public Attorney II
Roll of Attorney No. 72215
Pursuant to RA 9406

NOTICE OF HEARING/SUBMISSION
THE CLERK OF COURT
RTC Br. 17
Hall of Justice, Kidapawan City
THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CPO – Kidapawan City

GREETINGS:

Please take notice on Friday morning ______________, the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court.

ATTY. YUSOF ALIUDIN

Public Attorney II

Copy furnished:

THE CITY PROSECUTOR

CPO – Kidapawan City