Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 78
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 00089

For : MURDER

JOHN LLOYD E. CRUZ,

Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x.
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Accused, by counsel, respectfully submits the following
Pre-Trial Brief for the consideration of the Honorable Court.
I
STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS OF THE CASE
On or about 8:30 in the evening of November 29,
2014, BRADD D. DIAZ, who was earning his livelihood as a
tricycle driver was on his way home when he was allegedly
invited by respondent JOHN LLOYD E. CRUZ to have a simple
drink at the sari-sari store of NENA C.TESTIGO to which the
deceased acceded. While they were having their drinking
spree, a heated argument allegedly occurred between the
two. Thereafter, respondent, JOHN LLOYD E. CRUZ, allegedly
left the sari-sari store and a few minutes later, came back
with a balisong knife and stabbed Bradd Diaz who fell
down on the ground and died from his injury.
Hence, the Information for Murder was filed.

II
ISSUES
I.

DOES THE EVIDENCE MEET THE

QUANTUM OF PROOF TO CONVICT
THE
ACCUSED
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF MURDER?

II.

IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE

THAT ACCUSED WAS PRESENT AT THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME DURING THE KILLING
OF BRADD DIAZ?

III. DID THE POLICE INVESTIGATE OTHER

SUSPECTS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT IT
WAS JOHN LLOYED E. CRUZ WHO
COMMITTED THE CRIME?
IV.

ASSUMING THAT JOHN LLOYED CRUZ IS

INDEED GUITY OF SAID CRIME,
PROSECUTION FILED THE WRONG
INFORMATION SINCE THE CRIME
COMMITTED BASED ON THE ALLEGATION IS
ONLY HOMICIDE.

III
STIPULATION OF FACTS
I.

THAT THE ACCUSED IS A TEAM SUPERVISOR

HANDLING 24 CUSTOMER SERVICE
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONVERGY'S, MAKATI
CITY, PHILIPPINES.

II.

THAT REGULAR WORK SHIFT OF THE

ACCUSED STARTS AT 12NN UNTIL 9PM WITH
THE AFOREMENTIONED COMPANY.

III. THAT ACCUSED IS A COMMUTER WHO TAKES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM HIS
WORK IN MAKATI CITY.

IV.

THAT THE ACCUSED, ON NOVEMBER 24,

2015, LEFT HIS PLACE OF WORK BETWEEN
11-11:30PM.

V.

THAT THE ACCUSED UPON ARRIVING HOME

WAS ACCOSTED BY 2 BARANGGAY TANODS
WHO DID NOT INFORM HIM THE REASON
WHY HE WAS BEING ARRESTED.

VI.

THAT THE ACCUSED HAS NO PREVIOUS

CRIMINAL RECORD AND HAS NEVER
COMMITTED ANY CRIME ESPECIALLY
MURDER.

IV
WITNESSES
BERTO C. CUERVO to testify that he
was with the accused on November 29,
2014 at 12 midnight.
YURI SINGZON as Operations
Manager to testify that, as, on the night
of November 29, 2014 at around 11:05
pm, John Lloyd E. Cruz personally
submitted to witness the Performance
Reviews of the seventeen (17) agents in
his team establishing the fact that
accused was not at the scene of the
crime the night Bradd Pitt was
murdered.
COL. RICHARD GUTIERREZ - will
testify as an expert witness to prove
that the deceased died of a fatal stab
wound
to
the
heart
disproving
prosecutions allegation of treachery.
DEFENSE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
PRESENT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTARY
AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE IN THE
COURSE OF TRIAL.
VI
LAW/S APPLICABLE
REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances
13. That the act be committed with
evident premeditation;

16. That the act be committed with

treachery (alevosia). There is
treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended
party might make.
VII
JURISPRUDENCE APPLICABLE
Jurisprudence on hearsay evidence:
PEOPLE VS. NEBREJA (203 SCRA 45)
WATEROUS DRUG CORP. VS NLRC
(280 SCRA 738)
Hearsay evidence carries no
probative value.
Jurisprudence on evident premeditation:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,
vs.
ROMEO SANTIAGO, SOLIS DE LEON and
JAIME ILLESCAS, accused,
JAIME ILLESCAS, accused-appellant.
GR No. 129371

We cannot agree with the prosecution's

theory that the 15-minute interval is
sufficient time for the accused to cooly
reflect on their plan to kill the victim. It
has been held in one case that even
the lapse of 30 minutes between
the determination to commit a
crime and the execution thereof is
insufficient for full meditation on
the consequences of the act.
Based on the foregoing disquisition, it is
clear that the court below erred in
convicting accused-appellant of murder.
Absent the qualifying circumstances
of
treachery
and
evident
premeditation
accused-appellant
could only be held liable for
homicide.

VIII
DEFENSE IS AMENABLE TO ENTER INTO
COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT UNDER
TERMS THAT ARE REASONABLE
IX
TRIAL DATES
DEFENSE SUBMITS TO THE CALENDAR
OF
CASES OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
X
DEFENSE OBJECTS TO ANY
AMENDMENT
TO THE COMPLAINT AND/OR
INFORMATION

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Quezon City, January 30, 2015

ATTY. TOM LESTER YBAEZ

Roll NO. 59989
IBP OR # 1889
Quezon City 1/6/15