1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 4TH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 69 JOEL CORPUS and ARITSTOTLE BINUYA, Plaintiff, - versus NESTOR LEPON, Accused. x ------------------------------------------ x DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE COMES NOW the accused, assisted by the Public Attorneys Office and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the dismissal of the case on the ground of insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence to justify a conviction, respectfully states: That no presented evidence proving the commission of the crime of attempted murder and other evidences proving their precise participation therein but the mere testimonies of Doctor Susana Caseria, medico legal that examined the complainant and the Complainant Nester Lepon which was stricken off by the court. CRIM. CASE NO. C-85986 - for ATTEMPTED MURDER

To be considered sufficient evidence, the same must prove (1) the commission of the crime and (2) the precise degree of participation therein of the accused. Attempting to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution merely presented the testimonies of Doctor Susana Caseria, medico legal, that examined the complainant and the Complainant Nester Lepon which was stricken off by the Honorable Court. There was neither the evidence proving, that the accused is the one who committed. The main element of attempted or frustrated murder is the accuseds intent to take his victims life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding murderous intent. In

consonance with the foregoing, since the testimony of the complainant has been stricken off the record, the intent of the accused to take the complainants life cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the nature and circumstances surrounding the case can no longer be established due to the striking off of the testimony of the complainant. Likewise, the testimony of Doctor Susana Caseria, the medico legal which examined the case, is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony merely provides evidence to the medical condition of the victim after the commission of the crime. Her testimony does not constitute as evidence to prove the elements of the crime of murder under Sec 248 of the Revised Penal Code which states which are; 1. That the accused intended to kill the complainant; 2. That it was attended with any of the qualifying circumstance to constitute murder; and 3. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered dismissing the case action for insufficiency of evidence against the accused. Caloocan City, April 25, 2013. NARUTO, LALO & CHARING Counsel for the Accused