Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1. Re: Exhibit “A”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on record.
2. Re: Exhibit “B”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
3. Re: Exhibit “C”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
4. Re: Exhibit “D”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purpose of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
4.3. The affiant xxx did not personally testify before the Court
to affirm her subject Affidavit, dated June 28, 2010, and she was not
subjected to cross examination by the two defense counsel, thus,
the said exhibit is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates
the constitutional right of confrontation/cross examination of the
accused xxx
5. Re: Exhibit “E”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
6. Re: Exhibit “F”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
6.4. The affiant xxx did not personally testify before the Court to
affirm his subject Affidavit, dated July 8, 2010, and he was not subjected
to cross examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit
is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional
right of confrontation/cross examination of the two accused.
7. Re: Exhibit “G”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
7.4. The three affiants, who are NBI agents, namely, xxx, xxx,
xxx, did not personally testify before the Court to affirm their subject
Joint Affidavit, dated July 8, 2010, and they were not subjected to cross
examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit
is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional
right of confrontation/cross examination of the two accused.
8. Re: Exhibit “H”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
8.4. The affiant, who an NBI agent, namely, xxx , did not
personally testify before the Court to affirm their subject Joint Affidavit,
dated July 8, 2010, and he was not subjected to cross examination by
the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit is HEARSAY under the Rules
of Evidence and violates the constitutional right of confrontation/cross
examination of the two accused.
9. Re: Exhibit “I”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements
or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere
conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the evidence on
record.
10. Re: Exhibits “J”, “K”, and “L”, with submarkings, of the Offer, which are
Cash Vouchers and Bank Deposit Slips, the accused xxx opez objects to the
purposes for which they are being offered, for the reason that the said
statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are
mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence
on record, and that the purposes stated are irrelevant and immaterial to the
allegation of threat and coercion allegedly committed by the accused xxx
10.1. A voucher and a bank deposit slip are not proofs of threat,
coercion, harassment, and compulsion. They are merely proofs of
payment by the debtor and proofs of receipt of such payment by the
creditor.
11. Re: Exhibits “M”, “O”, and “P”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the
accused xxx objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said
statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are
mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence
on record, and that the alleged threat and coercion are not shown in and by
said documents.
11.1. The author of Exh. “P” (NBI transmittal letter to the Chief
Prosecutor of xxx City), i.e., NBI Dep. Dir. xxx was not presented in
court to authenticate the said document and he was not cross
examined. He had no personal knowledge of the crimes charged in
the instant cases. He merely relied on the hearsay statement of NBI
agent xxx as part of his transmittal letter to the Chief Prosecutor of
xxx City.
12. Re: Exhibit “Q”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of th Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions
of law, that the same are not supported by the evidence on record, that the
stated purposes are irrelevant and immaterial to the nature and
contents of the Certificate of Incorporation of the subject
Corporation issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and that the attached document thereto, entitled
“Extraction/Hustlings/Stockpiling/Hauling and Loading Contract” is not part
of the said exhibit and was not issued by the SEC and was not
marked as a submarkings of the said exhibit. It was merely inserted in
the Offer for unfair reasons.
14. Re: Exhibit “S”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purpose of said Offer, for the reason that the said statements or
allegations of purposes do not prove the crimes of threats and coercion. It
merely proves probable cause (a duty of the Office of the Prosecutor to
establish after a preliminary investigation).
16. Re: Exhibit “X” (judicial affidavit of xxx with submarkings, of the Offer,
the accused xxx objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the
said statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving, that the same
are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record, that the same does not prove beyond reasonable doubt
the crimes of threat and coercion charged in the instant cases, and that it
does not corroborate the testimony of the private complainant as allege din
the Purpose Column.
LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Accused xxx
Unit 15, Star Arcade, CV Starr Ave.
Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740
Tel. Nos. 8725443 & 8462539
X x x.
Cc:
Atty. x x x.
Private Prosecutor
Xxxx.
Reg. Rec. No.
Date PO
EXPLANATION
Copies hereof are served on the Court, the opposing counsel and the public
prosecutor via LBC Express Corp./registered mail due to the lack of field
staff of undersigned counsel at this time and due to the urgency of filing the
same.