REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 85, LIPA CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NOS. 0210 & 0211-12

-versus- FOR: VIOLATION OF CDDA

OF 2002

ARCHIE LIWANAG y MARALIT,

Accused.
x----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, by counsel, through the Public Attorney’s

Office and unto this Honorable Court, with prior leave of
court, most respectfully move to dismiss the above-entitled
criminal cases, due to insufficiency of the prosecution’s
evidence, and respectfully aver:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Archie Maralit Liwanag was criminally indicted for
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 under two informations alleging among others the
following:
“That on or about the 8th day of May, 2012 at
about 10:00 o’clock in the evening at Brgy. San Carlos,
Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, dispose or

1
 give away to a police poseur buyer 0.03 grams of
Methampethamine Hydrochloride, locally known as
“shabu”, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law.”

“That on or about the 8th day of May, 2012 at

about 10:00 o’clock in the morning at Brgy. San Carlos,
Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his custody,
control and possession 0.05 grams, 0.03 grams and
1.92 grams with the total weight of 2.0 grams of
Methampethamine Hydrochloride locally known as
shabu, a dangerous drug contained in one (1) plastic
sachet.

Contrary to law.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On arraignment, the above-named accused, with the

assistance of the undersigned counsel, entered “NOT GUILTY”
pleas. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The factual rendition of the case for the State, through
the testimonies of police officers Joseph Valencia and Arnold
Quinio was presented as follows:
According to the prosecution, the present indictments
against the accused were the result of a buy-bust operation
that was jointly conducted by police officers Arnold Quinio,
Joseph Valencia, Rodel Linatoc, Rodolfo Dimaculangan Jr. and
Dan Gonzales. In the ensuing entrapment operation against
Archie Liwanag, Police Officer Quinio acted as the team leader,
Joseph Valencia assumed the role of a poseur buyer while
Rodolfo Dimaculangan Jr. and Rodel Linatoc served as
perimeter security and back-up arresting officers. The sting
operation against Archie Liwanag was hatched by virtue of a
tip, which came from a trusted informant who reported via a
phone call that a certain “Archie” was the source of illegal
drugs in Bgy. San Carlos, Lipa City. The informant further

2
added that “Archie” usually frequents Barangay San Carlos as
he always fetches a girl at Robinsons Mall. In fact, the asset
has already bought shabu from “Archie” for a number of times
and the latter was known in Barangay San Carlos as “Archie
De Luna”. Based on the intelligence report that was supplied
by the confidential informant, the team was dispatched
purposely to conduct monitoring and surveillance against the
suspected drug pusher. During the surveillance, the team
observed that several personalities were conversing with
“Archie” and they suspected that these personalities were
buying illegal drugs from him. Based on what they saw during
the conduct of surveillance, the team surmised that the
accused was indeed involved in such a nefarious activity. The
team wasted no time and immediately planned a buy-bust
operation against Archie Liwanag. As part of the standard
operating procedure, the team accomplished the following:
Coordination Form, Pre-Operation Report, buy-bust money
and the Blotter Entries. After complying with the necessary
paper works, the team proceeded to their target area in front
of Anfa Hotel at Barangay San Carlos, Lipa City. Upon
reaching the site, Dan Gonzales (poseur buyer) and the asset
alighted ahead from their vehicle and went straight to Archie
Liwanag who was standing at the exit of Robinsons Mall facing
Anfa Hotel. The other members were left inside the vehicle
and they parked in a strategic location where they could all
witness the consummation of the sale of shabu with ease. The
asset was then asked by “Archie” on the amount of shabu that
they are intending to buy and simultaneously, Dan quickly
handed over the marked money to “Archie”. “Archie” in turn
gave something to Dan which is suspected to be a sachet of
shabu. From inside the vehicle, police officers Laygo and
Valencia witnessed the poseur buyer handing out the marked

3
money to “Archie” while the latter gave out something in
return to the poseur buyer. After the hand-off, Dan Gonzales
introduced himself to “Archie” as an officer of the law and
“Archie” was caught by surprise. Seeing the whole incident,
the rest of the team storm out from their vehicle to effect the
arrest against Archie Liwanag. Upon apprehension, the
following items were confiscated from the accused: the
marked money (Five Hundred Peso Bill with serial number
“NM 893070”) which was retrieved by Police Officer Linatoc
from the person of the accused, four plastic sachets of
shabu, three sachets of shabu were confiscated by Police
Officer Dimaculangan upon frisking the accused while the
other shabu pertains to the one bought by the poseur buyer
from Archie Liwanag. Following the arrest of the accused, he
was apprised of his basic Constitutional rights. While the
team was still at the area of operation, Police Officers
Valencia and Dimaculangan made the appropriate markings
on all the specimens that were seized from the accused. With
the completion of the markings, the accused was criminally
charged for violating the provisions of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act. (Transcript of Stenographic Notes
dated October 4, 2011, pages 2-22; April 2, 2013, pages 2-
10; May 3, 2013, pages 2-8; August 6, 2013, pages 2-18;
April 25, 2014, pages 2-6; September 6, 2014, pages 2-6;
October 28, 2014, pages 2-11)
The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, police officers
Herbert Berena and Herminia Llacuna are dispensed with due
to stipulations that were entered into between the prosecution
and the defense.

4
ISSUE/S TO BE RESOLVED

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION DISCHARGED

ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THE GUILT OF ALL THE
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED

ARGUMENTS & DISCUSSION

“The criminal accusation against a person must be

substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
Court should steadfastly safeguard his right to be
presumed innocent. Although his innocence could be
doubted, for his reputation in his community might not be lily-
white or lustrous, he should not fear a conviction for any
crime, least of all one as grave as drug pushing, unless the
evidence against him was clear, competent and beyond
reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence in
his favor would be rendered empty.” (People vs. Andaya, G.
R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014)
Postulating from the above quoted legal dictum, the
defense strongly advances its hard stance that the prosecution
has miserably failed to discharge its burden of proving the
guilt of all the accused beyond any whisper of doubt due to the
following grounds: failure of the prosecution to establish
the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty;
credibility of prosecution witnesses; failure of the
prosecution to establish compliance with the requisites of
Section 21 of RA 9165;

5
WEAKNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE

a) The “Chain of Custody” Requirement

“In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic

substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense
and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in
establishing the corpus delicti. The chain of custody rule
performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The rule
seeks to settle definitively whether the object evidence
subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court is
the same object allegedly seized from appellant. (Fajardo v.
People, G.R. No. 185460, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 541)
“Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines chain of
custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources
of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.”
The chain of custody rule requires that there be
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment
the object seized was picked up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched it
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession,
the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.” (People v.
Gutierrez, G.R. No. 170213, September 3, 2009)

6
 In the present case, the prosecution’s evidence failed to
establish the chain that would have shown that the four
sachets of shabu presented in court were the very same
specimens which were seized from the accused.
The defense is of the considered view that the linkages in
the chain of custody of the seized illicit drugs were heavily
compromised and broken in different stages. It is a glaring
fact that the records are bereft of evidence that shows
every link in the chain of custody of the seized shabu. As
can be gleaned from the testimonies of Police Officers Valencia
and Quinio, they failed to provide a clear picture on how the
subject specimens changed custody from one possession to
another. There is a nagging question as to how the specimens
were handled and who exercised custody and possession of
the same from the time of seizure of the said specimens up to
the time that it was offered in court as evidence. What is clear
from the records of this case is that after the confiscation of
the contraband items from the accused, there were two police
officers who initially took custody of the same. These two
police officers were also responsible for the markings of the
four specimens, one was marked by police officer Valencia
while the other three were marked by police officer
Dimaculangan. By analogy, after the seizure of the illicit
items from the accused, Police Officers Valencia and
Dimaculangan were the first persons who exercised custody
and possession over the same. Unfortunately, the evidence
for the prosecution is lacking as to how the subject items
turned up in the possession and custody of Police Officer
Herbert Berena. Police Officer Berena appeared as the third
person in the link as he was shown to be the person who
received the specimens at the crime lab. As reflected in the
records, the stamp markings in the drug test examination

7
request revealed that a certain police officer Dimaculangan
was the one who delivered the subject specimens at the crime
laboratory office. However, the said police officer’s testimony
regarding the delivery of such specimens were stricken off
from the records. Such striking out of the testimony of Police
Officer Dimaculangan left a huge void in the story being
pictured out by the buy-bust team. The lack of testimony of
Police Officer Dimaculangan created the breakage in the
chain of custody of the seized specimens from the
accused. Police Officers Valencia and Quinio never testified as
to how the subject specimens turned out in the possession
police officer Berena. The presentation in court of the person
who turned over the custody of the seized specimens to police
officer Berena should have given a detailed and complete
picture of how the subject shabu changed hands from one
police officer to another but regrettably, the prosecution failed
to do that. Even with the stipulations that were entered into
between the prosecution and the defense, the link
connecting the chain between Police Officers Berena and
the person who delivered the subject specimens at the
Criminal Laboratory was not touched upon during the
aforesaid stipulation. All these weak links in the chain of
custody significantly affected the integrity of the subject items,
which in turn, created a reasonable doubt on the guilt of the
accused. A very strong doubt is now formed as to the
identity and integrity of the alleged sachets of shabu
which were presented before this Honorable Court if it
were really the same sachets of shabu that were
purportedly recovered from the accused.

8
 The prosecution clearly failed to establish the identity of
the confiscated drugs with moral certainty due to the gap
created by the absence of the testimony of Police Officer
Dimaculangan and such omission even warrants a suspicion
that the alleged seized drugs were in reality a by-product of
planting of evidence. The High Court pronouncement in the
case of People vs. Paterno Lorenzo y Casas, G.R. No.
184760, April 23, 2010, is particularly instructive on the
point being raised by the defense and the decision is held as
follows: “In both illegal sale and illegal possession of
prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there
is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The
identity of the prohibited drug must be established with
moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of
possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be
established with the same degree of certitude as that
needed to sustain a guilty verdict.”

b) The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21

of Article II of R.A. No. 9165
 
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of
drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, which states:

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and

control of the drugs   shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and

9
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] 
The above-mentioned procedure, however, was not
shown to have been complied with by the members of the
buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that they
had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the said
statutory requirement in handling the evidence.
As far as compliance with the chain of custody
requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 is concerned,
the prosecution clearly fell short to satisfy the said
procedural safeguards. A meticulous analysis of the records
of this case evidently shows that the inventory of confiscated
items lacked the signature of a representative of the
Department of Justice. The prosecution should be reminded
that the presence of a prosecutor himself or herself is now a
must in the preparation of an inventory. The amendments
under the Drugs Law are clear that not a mere ordinary
employee of the Department of Justice should witness and
sign the preparation of an inventory but it was highly
emphasized that a prosecutor should by no means be present
thereat. No plausible explanation was given by any
prosecution witnesses on why they deviated from complying
with the requirements of securing the signatures of those who
are mandated to witness the preparation of such an inventory.

Another notable flaw in the prosecution’s evidence is

anchored on the failure of the prosecution to comply with the
procedural safeguards with regard to photography
requirements. A careful review of the records of this case
indicated that no pictures depicting the accused together with
the seized evidence were offered in evidence by the prosecution.

10
Not only that, no pictures were also offered in evidence by the
prosecution depicting the presence of the signatories during the
preparation of inventory. Nothing in the records suggests
that the accused was photographed together with the
confiscated items and in the presence of the
representatives of the DOJ and the media and an elected
official. Clearly then, the prosecution deviated again from the
procedural safeguards which are laid down by Section 21 of
RA 9165. Such deviation is fatal to the prosecution’s
case as the twin requirements of inventory and
photography were clearly not followed in the case
against the accused.
 
Nevertheless, an accused can still be convicted in spite
of the circumstance laid above provided that a justifiable
ground for excusing noncompliance with the requirements
under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 has satisfactorily been established
by the prosecution as required by jurisprudence and the law’s
implementing rules. Such justifiable ground is wanting in this
case. No explanation whatsoever was offered by either
Police Officer Quinio or Police Officer Valencia in their
testimonies justifying noncompliance. The prosecution
cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Section 21(a)
of the IRR that non-compliance with the legal requirements
shall not render void and invalid seizures of and custody over
said items. This saving clause is applicable only if prosecution
was able to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of
justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the items. In sum, the procedural
lapses in this case put to doubt the integrity of the items
presented in court. In view of the procedural lapses pointed
out above, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of

11
the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into
evidence. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the
elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on
the criminal liability of the accused. By failing to establish
the identity of the corpus delicti, non-compliance with
Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of
the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.  It follows
that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for
acquittal. 

c) Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses (inconsistencies in

the presentation of a supposed buy-bust operation)
“Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself,
such as the common experience and observation of mankind
can approve as probable under the circumstances.” (Zarraga
vs. People, G. R. 162064, March 14, 2006)
The prosecution is relying on the testimonies of police
officers Quinio and Valencia in order to prove its case against
the accused. However, instead of providing a clear
presentation of facts, the prosecution merely highlighted the
fallibility of its cause due to the contradictions that were
committed by the two police officers Macalintal during their
testimonies. The testimonial evidence offered by the
prosecution clearly revealed inconsistencies and absurdities
which when taken as a whole casts a strong shadow of doubt
over the credibilities of the two police officers and the veracity
of their narrations. The inconsistencies and absurdities
exhibited by police officers Valencia and Quinio during their
cross-examination are shown in the excerpts of their
testimonies and it follows to wit:

12
TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER VALENCIA

On cross-examination

Atty. Castaneda
Q: How many times did your team visit the vicinity of
Robinsons just to conduct surveillance against Archie
Liwanag?

Police Officer Valencia

A: Three (3) times, sir

(TSN, page 7, October 31, 2014)

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER QUINIO

On cross-examination

Atty. Castaneda

Q: From your recollection how many times did you conduct

surveillance?

Police Officer Quinio

A: In surveillance I think it is twice sir.

(TSN, page 3, January 30, 2015)

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER VALENCIA

On cross-examination

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Can you recall the time when you visited or conducted

surveillance against Archie Liwanag in the vicinity of the
Robinsons of Lipa City?

13
Police Officer Valencia

A: During night time, sir.

(TSN, page 7, October 31, 2014)

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER QUINIO

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Can you recall the time when the surveillance was

conducted against Archie Liwanag?

Police Officer Quinio

A: I cannot recall the time sir but it is afternoon.

(TSN, page 3, January 30, 2015)

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER VALENCIA

Atty. Castaneda

Q: How many times did your team visit the vicinity of

Robinsons just to conduct surveillance against Archie
Liwanag?

Police Officer Valencia

A: Three (3) times sir.

(TSN, page 7, October 31, 2014)

Atty. Castaneda

Q: The three times that you have watched Archie De Luna

in the vicinity of Robinsons area, the surveillance will last
for about thirty (30) minutes or more than an hour?

Police Officer Valencia

A: About 30 minutes, sir.

(TSN, page 9, October 31, 2014)

14
TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER QUINIO

Atty. Castaneda

Q: What happened in the surveillance during the first time

that the surveillance was made?

Police Officer Quinio

A: The first time that we made surveillance against the

accused, we saw nothing.

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Where was that conducted?

Police Officer Quinio

A: At Banay-banay sir.

Atty. Castaneda

Q: How about in the second surveillance, where was it

conducted?

Police Officer Quinio

A: Also at Barangay Banay-Banay, Lipa City.

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Where in particular in Banay-banay was the

surveillance conducted against Archie Liwanag?

Police Officer Quinio

A: At the fence at Airbase after the Baseview subdivision.

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Were you able to know, you mentioned of a fence, was

the surveillance conducted in a residential area?

15
Police Officer Quinio

A: Along the highway sir after the Baseview Subdivision.

(TSN, pages 3-4, January 30, 2015)

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER VALENCIA

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Did you notice if anything illegal was being done by Archie

Liwanag when he was fetching that alleged friends of her?

Police Officer Valencia

A: They left the area sir.

Atty. Castaneda

Q: You will agree with me that in that three times

surveillance operation against Archie Liwanag, you have
not seen Archie peddling illegal drugs to anyone?

Police Officer Valencia

A: Yes sir.

(TSN, page 8, October 31, 2014)

TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER QUINIO

Atty. Castaneda

Q: Why was the surveillance conducted in that particular

area in that vulcanizing shop and sari-sari store?

Police Officer Quinio

A: As per information given by our asset that this accused

can be found in that area and sometimes selling drugs in
that place.

16
Atty. Castaneda

Q: Since the information was given to you and this accused

was frequenting at the vulcanizing shop and sari-sari store
and also peddling shabu, was there a time during the conduct
of all your surveillances that you actually saw and any
member of your team witnessing Archie peddling shabu in
that vulcanizing shop?

Police Officer Quinio

A: On the second surveillance we saw this accused

conversing with some person and we had suspicion that
these person was buying illegal drugs.

(TSN, page 4, January 30, 2015)

With these mounting and clear inconsistencies,

nothing is left but to conclude that the story being
painted by police officers Quinio and Valencia is more
fiction rather than truth. Both officers contradicted each
other as to the number of times that they placed the accused
under surveillance. Police Officer Valencia was straight-
forward in his answer that his team conducted a three-time
surveillance operation against the accused. On the other
hand, Police Officer Quinio sang a different tune when asked
regarding the frequencies of surveillance that was done
against the accused. Police Officer Quinio categorically stated
that they conducted surveillance against the accused only for
two times. Both police officers also gave conflicting accounts
on the area of their surveillance against the accused. For
one, Police Officer Valencia narrated before the Honorable
Court that all the surveillances against the accused was
conducted in the vicinity of Robinsons Lipa City. Such fact
was diametrically-opposed by the answer of Police Quinio
during his cross-examination. Police Officer Quinio asserted
that they conducted their surveillance in Barangay Banay-

17
banay, one at the Airbase of Lipa City and the other in a
vulcanizing shop along Banay-banay, Lipa City. The two
police officers also gave different recollections on the time of
surveillance which their team conducted against the accused.
Police Officer Valencia bluntly told the Honorable Court that
they conducted surveillance against the accused at nighttime
while Police Officer Quinio asseverated that the surveillance
was conducted in the afternoon. The seemingly palpable
inconsistencies committed by police officers Quinio and
Valencia generated doubt on whether the identity of the
evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to marking and inventory and then given to the
Crime Laboratory for examination by the forensic chemist.
The clear inconsistencies in the presentation of facts by
the prosecution are indeed fatal. It creates doubts whether
the transaction really occurred or not. These conflicting
statements of the prosecution effectively broke the chain
of custody of evidence of the sale of dangerous drug.
With the foregoing facts and circumstances being
established, the defense emphatically advanced the notion
that the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence being afforded to every accused.
The prosecution cannot merely rely on the presumption
that regular duties have been regularly performed by the
arresting police officers and so everything else that is
connected with the fact of arrest resounds with a tinge of
biblical truth. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not
conclusive. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole
performance and should make the presumption unavailable.
The presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing
in the records suggests that the law enforcers involved
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided

18
for in the law. But where the official act in question is
irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course. The case of People
vs. Cantalejo, G. R. No. 182790, April 24, 2009, is
particularly instructive on the point being raised by the
defense and the decision is held as follows:
“As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who
apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and
credit because of the presumption that they have performed
their duties regularly. However, when the performance of their
duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is
effectively destroyed.

While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of

regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption
cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is
merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by contrary
proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be
regarded as binding truth.”

All told, the defense most respectfully submits that the

prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt
of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt, due to the
prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 and with the chain of custody requirement of the
said Act, raising reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the
corpus delicti. The foregoing flagrant inconsistencies in the
testimonies of police officers Valencia and Quinio which
directly constitute the recollection of events of buy-bust
together with the failure of observance of chain of custody of
evidence effectively broke the links to sustain a conviction for
the accused and so the defense most humbly implores for an
acquittal.

19
 The present case shows that the prosecution fell short in
proving with certainty the culpability of the accused and
engendered a doubt on the true circumstances of the buy-bust
operation. In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to
culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt
inevitably becomes a matter of right. (Zafra vs. People, G. R.
No. 190749, 25 April 2012)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, it is

most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that this

Demurrer to Evidence be favorably acted upon and that the

two Informations against the accused be dismissed for

insufficiency of evidence.

Other measures of relief which are deemed just and

equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Lipa City, March ___, 2016.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Lipa City District Office
Hall of Justice Building
Maraouy, Lipa City

By: ATTY. ROMMEL C. CASTAŃEDA

Public Attorney II
Roll No, 49312, IBP No. 05694
MCLE Compliance No. II-0007492

20
 NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court

RTC, BRANCH 85
Lipa City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration

and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
thereof or at a date which is most convenient to your calendar.

Rommel C. Castaneda

Copy Furnished:

City Prosecutor’s Office

21