Republic of the Philippines

Province of Apayao
6th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
KABUGAO-CONNER
Second Judicial Region
Kabugao, Apayao

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NOs. 346-2023-CR

Plaintiff 247-2023-CR & 348-2023-CR

-versus- For:
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS (Art. 172, RPC)
IAN LABO y DEO
(Purok 05, Bulanao, Tabuk City
Kalinga)
Accused.

x---------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS BY WAY OF

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

Accused, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most

respectfully states:

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION

That the prosecution in the above entitled case has already rested its
case. Accused thru counsel filed for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence and on May 24, 2024, the Honorable Court, ruling on the motion
on May 29, 2024, ordered accused to file Demurer to Evidence within ten
(10) days. The same order was received by the undersigned thru his email
address on June 6, 2024 hence has until June 15 to file the same. The 10th
day falls on a Saturday and the next working day is the preceding Monday
However said Monday, June 17, 2024 is declared a public holiday in
celebration of Eid-Ul-Adha, hence this Motion to Dismiss is deemed filed on
time;

Page 1 of 11
 BASIS FOR THE DEMURRER

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence sufficient to

prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) the
precise degree of participation herein by the accused.1

The charges against the accused must be dismissed if there is no

competent or sufficient evidence adduced that would sustain the charges
against him, should the same be raised in a demurrer to evidence. Section
23, Rule 119 of the Revised Ruled of Criminal Procedure provides:

“Sec. 23: After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss
the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer
to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of court.
Xxx”

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent

until the contrary is proved. To justify the conviction of the accused, the
prosecution must adduce the quantum of evidence sufficient to overcome
the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution must stand
or fall on its evidence and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence of the accused. Accordingly, when the guilt of the accused-
appellants have not been proven with moral certainty, it is our policy of long
standing that their presumption of innocence must be favored and their
exoneration be granted as a matter of right.2

When the accused files a motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to

evidence, it is incumbent upon the trial court to review and examine the
evidence presented by the prosecution and determine its sufficiency to
sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. If competent
evidence exists, the court shall deny the demurrer and the accused may still

1 Gutib vs Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 365

2 People v. Lim, 435 Phil. 640, 664-665 (2002).
Page 2 of 11
adduce evidence on his behalf if the demurrer was filed with leave of court.
If filed without leave, the accused submits the case for judgment on the basis
of the evidence of the prosecution. On the other hand, if the court finds the
evidence insufficient to support a verdict of guilt, the court shall grant the
demurrer and the criminal case shall be dismissed.

GROUND/S FOR THE MOTION AND DISCUSSION/S

That the defense believes that the evidence of the prosecution against
the accused in the charges against him for “FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT (Art. 172, Revised Penal Code)” were insufficient to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and to establish his
conviction;

Based on the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution and the

testimonies of prosecution’s witnesses, the prosecution CLEARLY failed to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in all cases. Thus
the charge is of no merit warranting acquittal of the accused.

Accused stands charged for three (3) counts of FALSIFICATION OF

PUBLIC DOCUMENT under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code when it
was found out in the AUDIT OBSERVATION MEMO (Exhibit “C” for the
Prosecution) that accused allegedly falsified the PHILGEPS Certificate of
Registration of DEO BALNAO LABO CONSTRUCION AND SUPPLY (owned
by herein accused) by altering the validity date of said certificates he
submitted in relation to R.A. No. 9184 in a procurement of government
projects he conducted within the jurisdiction of the complainant;

During the Pre-trial stage of the proceedings on July 07, 2023,

prosecution submitted mere photocopies of documentary exhibits marked
as Exhibit “C”3, Exhibit “D” and the reservation on Exhibit “E”4. The
Prosecution was likewise ordered by the Honorable Court to bring into Court

3 TSN dated July 07, 2023 page 12 of 27

4 TSN dated July 07, 2023 page 13 of 27
Page 3 of 11
the ORIGINAL copies of said documentary exhibits on the next trial date5.
Later during the same proceedings, the Honorable Court reminded all
parties to submit the original documents before the Initial Reception of
Evidence6;

Trial ensued and before the presentation of the initial witness for the
prosecution, the Honorable Court revisited the Pre-Trial Order and asked for
the submission of ORIGINAL copies of documentary exhibits. Prosecution
however failed to present the ORIGINAL copy of Exhibit “C”. Trial however
proceeded when, without objection it was allowed in the meantime but under
the condition that same ORIGINAL COPY of Exhibit “C” be presented on the
next trial date and with the manifestation from the Prosecution to present
said ORIGINAL COPY of the “Audit Observation Memo”7.

On October 20, 2023, during the continuation of reception of

prosecution evidence, the Honorable Court reminded the submission of
ORIGINAL COPIES of Exhibit “C” (Audit Observation Memo” and Exhibits
“D” and “E” (PHILGEPS registration)8. Prosecution however failed to submit
to the court said ORIGINAL COPIES of documentary exhibits are repeatedly
required;

On November 24, 2023, during the presentation of prosecution witness

Ms. Marvelyn Domingo, the state auditor who was supposed to be in
possession of the ORIGINAL COPY of Exhibit “C” testified in open court that
it was a member of the Audit Team Ms. JOY B LONGAN, who discovered
the alleged falsification of the PHILGEPS registration when she
conducted the Post-Audit Investigation and she likewise made the
report.9 During the same proceedings on November 24, 2023, the
prosecution again failed to submit to the Honorable Court the ORIGINAL
COPY of Exhibit “C” as observed by the defense duly placed on record that

5 TSN dated July 07, 2023 page 14 of 37

6 TSN dated July 07, 2023 page 19 of 37
7 TSN dated September 01, 2023 pages 3,4,5,6 of 24
8 TSN dated October 20, 2023 pages 3,4,5,6,7,8 of 68
9 TSN dated November 24, 2023 pages 18 and 19 of 26
Page 4 of 11
what was in possession of witness Domingo was an Annual Audit Report10.
In fact, witness Domingo further testified during her cross examination that
the Annual Audit Report is different from the Audit Observation
Memorandum11 which was marked by the prosecution as Exhibit “C”, hence
then again prosecution failed to present the ORIGINAL document (Audit
Observation Report) despite ample time to produce the same and submit the
same to the Honorable Court;

After having failed to present their last witness in the name of Rosa
Maria Clemente from the COA, Manila, Prosecution rested its case and made
its formal offer of evidence for the prosecution. In a Joint Order12, acting on
the Formal Offer of Evidence by the Prosecution the Honorable Court
admitted Exhibits “A” and “B”. Exhibits “C”, “D” and series, and “E” were
“admitted only as part of the records of the case but were not admitted for
the purposes unto which they were offered on the ground that the
Prosecution failed to submit the originals for identification and
comparison despite having been repeatedly reminded by the Court not the
copies duly authenticated in Court”;

In the case at bar, witnesses for the prosecution testified but failed to
establish the guilt of the accused on the allegation that he FALSIFIED his
PHILGEPS Certificate of Registration. In fact it was established during the
course of the trial that not one of the prosecution witnesses ever
personally discovered the alleged falsification. Said alleged falsification was
merely discovered after witnesses Dangoy, Pancho and Kegan received an
Audit Observation Report (Exhibit “C”) claiming that accused falsified his
PHILGEPS Certificate of Registration. The ORIGINAL copy of said
documentary evidence marked as Exhibit “C” for the prosecution was
unfortunately never presented or submitted to the Honorable Court.
Likewise, as testified into by witness Domingo, it was a member of the Audit
Team Ms. JOY B LONGAN, who discovered the alleged falsification of
the PHILGEPS registration. Ms. Longan, however, was not presented in

10 TSN dated November 24, 2023 page 9 of 26

11 TSN dated November 24, 2023 pages 22 and 23 of 26
12 Joint Order dated May 03, 2024
Page 5 of 11
Court to attest to such testimony or to corroborate the testimony of witness
Domingo;

Under Section 36, Rule 130 of the same Rules, witnesses can testify
only to those facts which they know of their personal knowledge, that
is, which is derived from their own perception, except as otherwise provided
by the rules. They are not generally allowed to testify on their opinions or
conclusions but must state facts within their knowledge as it is the
province of the court to make deductions from pertinent facts placed
in evidence and to decide matters directly in issue. Their testimony
must be confined to statements of concrete facts within their own
observation, knowledge, and recollection – that is, facts perceived by the use
of their own senses – as distinguished from their opinions, inferences,
impressions and conclusions drawn from such facts, which are incompetent
and inadmissible.13

The crux of the controversy is the alleged falsification of accused

PHILGEPS CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. After the presentation of
prosecution evidence, herein accused cannot be held liable as the evidence
is insufficient to support a verdict of guilt;

The case stemmed from a DOCUMENT and it is basic in the rules on

evidence that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of the document,
“NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT” The Rules of Court provides:
RULE 130
Rules of Admissibility
A. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
Section 1. Object as evidence. — Objects as evidence are those
addressed to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact
in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.

B. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

13 Francisco, The Revised Rules of Evidence in the Philippines, Vol. II, Part I, 1997 Edition, p. 635.
Page 6 of 11
 Section 2. Documentary evidence. — Documents as evidence consist
of writing or any material containing letters, words, numbers, figures,
symbols or other modes of written expression offered as proof of their
contents. (n)
1. Best Evidence Rule
Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When
the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following
cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party
against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after
reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time
and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of
the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer
or is recorded in a public office. (2a)

Section 4. Original of document. —

(a) The original of the document is one the contents of which are the
subject of inquiry.
(b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the
same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals.
(c) When an entry is repeated in the regular course of business, one
being copied from another at or near the time of the transaction, all the
entries are likewise equally regarded as originals. (3a)

2. Secondary Evidence
Section 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original
document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the

Page 7 of 11
offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a
copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (4a)

Section 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or

control. — If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse
party, he must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and
after satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)

Section 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public

record. — When the original of document is in the custody of public officer
or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified
copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (2a)

Section 8. Party who calls for document not bound to offer it. — A party
who calls for the production of a document and inspects the same is not
obliged to offer it as evidence. (6a)

The Best Evidence Rule requires that the original document be

produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry14 and in the case
at bar, it is the contents of the PHILGEPS Certificate of Registration is the
subject of Inquiry, hence the original could have been presented and
submitted in Court. During the course of the trial from the initial reception
of evidence for the prosecution on May 12, 2023 until the prosecution rested
its case and formally offered its evidence on May 03, 2024, the Honorable
Court was never remiss in reminding the prosecution to submit the
ORIGINAL COPIES of their documentary exhibits, yet they failed to do so. In
the span of 356 days or almost one year, the prosecution had ample time to
secure and produce the ORIGINAL copy of the Audit Observation Report that
brought about the inception of the case and the ORIGINAL copy of the
PHILGEPS Certificate of Registration allegedly falsified, the same document

14 Tapayan v. Martinez, G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017, 816 SCRA 178, 189.
Page 8 of 11
the CONTENTS of which ARE THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY. Unfortunately,
despite many chances to do so, many opportunities provided by the
Honorable Court, many accommodations provided by the defense in order
for the prosecution to produce and submit the same, the latter failed to do
so.

While it holds true that the Best Evidence Rule accepts exceptions,
none of the modes provided therein falls within the exception in the case at
bar. The ORIGINAL copies of Exhibits “C” “D” and series and “E” were not
lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the
part of the prosecution. No offer or manifestation by the prosecution was
ever undertaken to prove the loss or destruction of the original document. It
was not in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and he failed to produce it after reasonable notice. It does
not consist of numerous account or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the general result of the whole. More so, the
ORIGINAL documents were a public record in the custody of a public officer
or were recorded in a public office yet the same were not produced and
secured and the photocopies presented by the prosecution were not
authenticated and the entries subject to the controversy were not verified;

In the course of the proceedings, the prosecution had all the

opportunity to present and call to the witness stand witnesses that could
have attested to and testified as to the findings of alleged falsification of the
document subject to inquiry, they could have authenticated and identified
photocopies and could have presented in court for comparison the Original
copies of the said documentary evidence, yet then again they failed to do so;

While in the course of trial, the photocopies were utilized during the
presentation of prosecution witnesses, the same were merely
accommodations under the specific conditions that the ORIGINAL copies
were to be presented for identification and comparison and to be submitted
to the Honorable Court. Yet despite the numerous chances accorded the

Page 9 of 11
prosecution, they continually failed to produce and submit the ORIGINAL
copy of their pieces of documentary evidence;

Evidence not objected to be deemed admitted and may be validly

considered by the court in arriving at its judgment, and courts are not
precluded to accept in evidence a mere photocopy of a document when no
objection was raised when it was formally offered15. However, in the case at
bar, while the defense may have consented during trial the use of the
photocopied pieces of documentary evidence, it has made its timely objected
over the same when prosecution formally offered them as evidence.16

All told, with the foregoing, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved. To justify the conviction of the accused, the
prosecution must adduce the quantum of evidence sufficient to overcome
the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution must stand
or fall on its evidence and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence of the accused. Accordingly, when the guilt of the accused-
appellants have not been proven with moral certainty, it is our policy
of long standing that their presumption of innocence must be favored
and their exoneration be granted as a matter of right

PRAYER

Premises considered, in the light of the foregoing and in the interest of

fair play and justice, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
granting this Motion to Dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence considering
that after presenting its case, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Other relief and remedies available under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

15 Lorenzana v. Lelina, G.R. No. 187850, August 17, 2016, 800 SCRA 570, 580-581 citing Caraan v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140752, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 543 and Decaleng v. Bishop of the
Missionary District of the Philippine Islands of Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of
America, G.R. No. 171209 & UDK-13672, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 145
16 Joint Order dated May 03, 2024

Page 10 of 11
 Tuguegarao City, this 15th of June 2024 in Tuguegarao City for
Kabugao, Apayao

ATTY. NICHOLO RUDOLF A. SUPNET

Counsel for Accused
Roll No. 54755
PTR No. TUG3194871/01-13-23/Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
IBP No. Lifetime No. 011542/Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
MCLE Complied (Certificate not yet issued)
Stall No. 3 Mama Remedios Food Hub CHO-LAW COMPOUND
67 Balzain East, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan 3500
405 Gomez St., Carig Sur, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
0916-946-3428 [email protected]

NOTICE

To: The Branch Clerk of Court

SIR/MADAME:

Greetings!

Please be notified that this Motion will be submitted for consideration and
approval of this Honorable Court upon receipt thereof without further argument, the
appearance of counsel is hereby waived

Thank you!

ATTY. NICHOLO RUDOLF A. SUPNET

Copy furnished:

PROS. CYRIL M. DEZA

State Prosecutor on case
[email protected]

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

In compliance with Section 11 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, undersigned
counsel respectfully manifests that the foregoing DEMURER to Evidence is being served by
ELECTRONIC mail on the e-mail addresses of counsel because of time and distance constraints, which
render personal service impracticable.

ATTY. NICHOLO RUDOLF A. SUPNET

Page 11 of 11