REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH 23

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. 057396

-versus- For: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Serious Physical
Injury and Damages to Property

JAMES CHRISTIAN M.
TIAMBENG,
Accused.

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

COMMENT/OBJECTION

ACCUSED by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully object and/or objects to the Formal Offer of
Evidence of the Prosecution as follows:

ACCUSED respectfully states that the Formal Offer of Evidence of

the Prosecution was filed out of date. On April 24, 2019, the
Prosecution moved for the Formal Offer of Evidence by the Prosecution
be made in writing. The most Honorable Court issued an order granting
the said motion and ordered the Prosecution to submit the Formal Offer
of Evidence within FIVE (5) days and giving the same period to the
Defense to comment or object to the said offer upon receipt. It is most
respectfully submitted that the Formal Offer of Evidence by the
Prosecution is dated June 7, 2019, more than a month late, and
received only by the Accused on June 15, 2019. It is also most
respectfully submitted that the next trial date scheduled by the most
Honorable Court is on June 24, 2019. Such incident may lead to prevent
the Defense to timely make a comment or objection to the Formal Offer
of Evidence by the Prosecution and for the same to be received by the
most Honorable by the next trial date.

ACCUSED most respectfully state that during the presentation of

the Prosecution witness, the most Honorable Court granted multiple
resetting on the presentation of the said witness due to the
unavailability of the Prosecution witness, which started as far back as
November of 2018, up until April 24, 2019, when ultimately, the most
Honorable Court deemed the presentation of the said witness WAIVED.

ACCUSED most respectfully state that it would be the height of

injustice and violative of the right of the accused to repeatedly allow the
Prosecution to continue with the delay of the proceeding, and then to
continue the same, by belatedly filling its Formal Offer of Evidence
and giving little to no chance for the Defense to timely make its
comment and objection and for the most Honorable Court to receive the
same before the next trial date.

Based on the foregoing, it is most respectfully submitted that the

Formal Offer of Evidence of the Prosecution be deemed WAIVED.

The ACCUSED further objects to the purpose of the offer as

follows:

EXHIBIT DOCUMENT/OBJECT
A Judicial Affidavit of Gonzalo Sevilla Jr.
A-1
A-2
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
statement is Self-serving.

The prosecution has failed to present any

evidence to corroborate the account of Gonzalo
Sevilla Jr on the alleged incident.
EXHIBIT
B Medical Clinical /Abstract issued by Jose R.
B-1 Reyes Memorial Medical Center
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that failed to
prove the due execution and authenticity of the
document as no witness was presented to
authenticate and explain the said Abstract even
after repeated resetting.

The prosecution has failed to medically

interpret the procedures performed, its effects,
as well as its nature and necessity to the alleged
injury sustained.

No account of the severity of the alleged injury

nor the time for recovery was stated in the
abstract.

It is to be noted that, as per the Prosecution’s

own evidence, the time of the alleged incident
 occurred at around 6:00 in the morning based
on the traffic investigation report while the
alleged injury occurred at around 7:00 in the
evening based on the medical abstract. The
Prosecutions own evidence shows conflict as to
the time the alleged injury was sustained. No
explanation was presented as to the discrepancy
of the timing of the alleged incident and the
examination conducted.

It also appears that there is a gap as to the

reporting of the procedures performed from the
1st and 2nd day and then suddenly skipping all
the way to the 18th day. No explanation was
provided by the Prosecution.

It also appears that some information presented

on the abstract was only supplied by a third
person to Dr. Arias and that he has no personal
knowledge as to the nature of the injury and
how said injury was sustained thus, is only
hearsay.

It is also to be noted that the Abstract presented

is not legible. Most of the Abstract was
handwritten and most, if not all of the words in
the said abstract cannot be read due to the
handwriting.
EXHIBIT
C Medical Certificate issued by Jose R. Reyes
Medical Center
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The accused objects on the ground that the
prosecution failed to prove the due execution
and authenticity of the document as no witness
was presented to authenticate and explain the
Medical Certificate.

The prosecution has failed to present any sort of

medical evidence to prove the amount of time
necessary for the recovery of the alleged
sustained.

The length of time confined in the hospital does

equal or even correlate to the time of recovery
of an injury.
EXHIBIT
D Pansamantalang Kasunduan
COMMENT/OBJECTION: Rule 130, Section 27 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, which states:

Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In

civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an
admission of any liability, and is not admissible
in evidence against the offeror.

In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-

offenses (criminal negligence) or those allowed
by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
EXHIBIT
E Traffic Accident Investigation Report
E-1
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
witness presented has no personal knowledge
as to the incident.

As admitted by the witness during the cross-

examination, he merely responded to the alleged
traffic incident and only arrived after the fact.
He did not personally see the incident and
merely produced the report based on the
accounts of others.

The incident report is beret of any findings as to

the fault of any party as regards to the alleged
incident.

The alleged injured party is not necessarily the

one free from fault or negligence.
EXHIBIT
F Sagot sa Kontra Salaysay
F-1
F-2
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
statement is Self-serving.

The prosecution has failed to present any

evidence to corroborate the account of Gonzalo
Sevilla Jr on the alleged incident.
EXHIBIT
G CCTV Footage
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
video is Inadmissible.
 Rule 11. Sec. 1 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, which states that:

Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio,

photographic and video evidence of events, acts
or transactions shall be admissible provided it
shall be shown, presented or displayed to the
court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof.

No footage of the alleged traffic incident was

ever shown in court thus Inadmissible.
EXHIBIT
H to H-3 Screenshot of CCTV Footage
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
screenshots are inadmissible.

In case of a video recording, the whole video

must be presented in court for it to be
admissible.

The prosecution should not be allowed to

“cherry-pick” certain parts of the video and
refuse to present the whole.

As previously stated, no video recording was

presented or displayed in open court for
viewing, thus inadmissible.
EXHIBIT
I Consultation Report
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The accused objects on the ground that the
prosecution failed to prove the due execution
and authenticity of the document as no witness
was presented to authenticate and explain the
Consultation Report.
EXHIBIT
J X-Ray Report
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The accused objects on the ground that the
prosecution failed to prove the due execution
and authenticity of the document as no witness
was presented to authenticate and explain the X-
Ray Report.
EXHIBIT
K Various Pictures of the Traffic Accident
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
Pictures are Inadmissible.

Rule 11. Sec. 1 of the Rules on Electronic

Evidence, which states that:

Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio,

photographic and video evidence of events, acts
or transactions shall be admissible provided it
shall be shown, presented or displayed to the
court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof.
EXHIBIT
L Various Pictures taken in the Hospital
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
Pictures are Inadmissible.

Rule 11. Sec. 1 of the Rules on Electronic

Evidence, which states that:

Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio,

photographic and video evidence of events, acts
or transactions shall be admissible provided it
shall be shown, presented or displayed to the
court and shall be identified, explained or
authenticated by the person who made the
recording or by some other person competent to
testify on the accuracy thereof.
EXHIBIT
M List of all expenses prepared by complainant.
M-1
M-2
M-3 to M-31
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
statement is Self-serving.

No witness was presented to authenticate the

various receipts being presented by the
prosecution.
EXHIBIT
N Employment Certificate
N-1
COMMENT/OBJECTION: The Accused objects on the ground that the
Employment Certificate is Inadmissible.
 No witness was presented to authenticate the
said document.

No proof of any employment was presented by

the prosecution.

No work ID, SSS ID, Tax Return or pay slip was

presented to prove that complainant actually
received the said wages claimed he was
receiving or that the complainant was even
employed aside from bare allegations in the
document which the prosecution failed to
authenticate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

to this Honorable Court that the foregoing documentary and object
exhibits mentioned above be denied admission for reasons above
stated. The Accused further prays for such other relief as may be just
and equitable under the premises

Valenzuela City. June 17, 2019

ATTY. CRISTOPHER JON DR. REYES

Counsel for the Accused
27 Little Baguio Street, Marulas,
Valenzuela City
Roll No. 71475
PTR No. 5872711
Issued on Jan. 3, 2019 at Valenzuela City
MCLE Compliance No. VI – 0024228
Valid until April 14, 2022

Copy Furnished:
City Prosecutors Office-City Government of Manila
Room 325, 3rd Floor, Manila City Hall, Antonio Villegas Street, Manila,
1000 Metro Manila