Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Objection Formal Offer

    Uploaded by

    Maharshi Cru
    The accused objects to the prosecution's formal offer of exhibits in a criminal case involving reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injury and damage to property. Specifically, the accused objects that several exhibits were only provisional copies and not the original documents, in violation of the best evidence rule. The accused also argues that some exhibits were inconsistent with witness testimony and do not support the prosecution's version of events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Objection Formal Offer

    Uploaded by

    Maharshi Cru
    2K views6 pages
    The accused objects to the prosecution's formal offer of exhibits in a criminal case involving reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injury and damage to property. Specifically, the accused objects that several exhibits were only provisional copies and not the original documents, in violation of the best evidence rule. The accused also argues that some exhibits were inconsistent with witness testimony and do not support the prosecution's version of events.

    Original Description:

    comment/objection to formal offer of exhibits criminal case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused objects to the prosecution's formal offer of exhibits in a criminal case involving reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injury and damage to property. Specifically, the accused objects that several exhibits were only provisional copies and not the original documents, in violation of the best evidence rule. The accused also argues that some exhibits were inconsistent with witness testimony and do not support the prosecution's version of events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views6 pages

    Objection Formal Offer

    Uploaded by

    Maharshi Cru
    The accused objects to the prosecution's formal offer of exhibits in a criminal case involving reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injury and damage to property. Specifically, the accused objects that several exhibits were only provisional copies and not the original documents, in violation of the best evidence rule. The accused also argues that some exhibits were inconsistent with witness testimony and do not support the prosecution's version of events.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Province of Iloilo
    th
    13 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
    Sta. Barbara-Pavia
    Sta. Barbara, Iloilo

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

    Criminal Case No. 4542-P


    - versus -
    For: RECKLESS
    IMPRUDENCE RESULTING
    IN SERIOUS PHYSICAL
    INJURIES AND DAMAGE
    TO PROPERTY.
    CATHERINE GILO,
    Accused.
    x------------------------------------------x

    COMMENT/OBJECTION
    TO FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS BY THE PROSECUTION

    THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully states:

    1. Re: EXHIBIT “A”, with submarkings of the Offer.

    1.1. Comment: The Certification of the Police Blotter Report is self-


    serving and incomplete. The witness Jonlord M. Moleño affirm
    and confirmed during his testimony that the contents of the
    report was incomplete. There was no inclusion whether the
    motorcycle driven by witness Jethro Junco was registered or
    not.

    2. Re: EXHIBIT “B” with submarkings of the Offer, the accused objects
    to the offer that the KIA vehicle driven by the accused was
    traversing the left lane of the road going to the direction of Aganan,
    Pavia at the time of the point of impact and the the same documents
    shows that the accused was negligent and reckless by traversing
    the left lane of the road which was also traversed by the motorcycle
    driven by the complainant Jethro Junco in the right lane going to
    the direction inside of DECA Home Subdivision.

    2.1. To stress: The position of the motorcycle reflected on the


    sketch does not coincide with the pictures marked as EXHIBIT
    “N”.

    The sketch submitted was not corroborated by the pictures


    taken by the investigator upon arrival in the area.

    2.2. Comment: The resting place of the KIA Soul reflects that it is
    traversing the correct way (RIGHT LANE) going to Aganan,
    Pavia from the gate of Deca Homes Subdivision.

    That it is impossible for the KIA SOUL to bumped the


    motorcycle and after the impact from the LEFT LANE the KIA
    Soul would proceed to the resting place (RIGHT LANE).

    3. Re: EXHIBIT “C”, with submarkings, of the Offer.

    3.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


    proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
    contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

    4. Re: EXHIBIT “D”, with submarkings, of the Offer.

    4.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


    proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
    contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

    4.2. Objection: The person who signed the subject document was
    presented in court to identify the document.

    4.3. Comment: The witness Dr. Nilo Soriaso admitted and


    confirmed that while his name appeared on the said
    document, he has no knowledge of the contents.

    5. Re: EXHIBIT “E”, of the Offer.


    5.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no
    proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
    contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

    5.2. Comment: The nature of the injury of the victim Ginalyn


    Salvador is not serious.

    6. Re: EXHIBIT “F”, of the Offer.

    6.1. Objection: The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only.


    There is no proof that the original was offered to the Court
    for the Record, contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence
    Rule.

    6.2. Comment: The person who took the picture was not
    presented in Court.

    7. Re: EXHIBIT “G”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused


    objects to the offer that the family incurred hospital and doctor
    expenses in the treatment of the injuries.

    7.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


    proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record
    contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

    7.2. To stress: No official receipts for payment was presented by


    the prosecution to prove actual and other expenses.

    7.3. Comment: During the testimony of the witness Jethro Junco


    and Dr. Nilo Soriaso, both witnesses affirmed that after the
    victim was released from the hospital, there was no follow-up
    check-up.

    8. Re: EXHIBIT “J”, of the Offer.

    8.1. Objection: The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only.


    There is no proof that the original was offered to the Court
    for the Record nor the photocopy is compare with the original
    document.
    9. Re: EXHIBIT “K”, of the offer, the accused objects to the offer that
    the registration was duly paid.

    9.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


    proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
    contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

    9.2. To stress: The date of the Official Receipt is September 19,


    2017 and the registration at the time of the incident was not
    renewed. The incident happened on September 11, 2017 and
    the Official Receipt was paid on September 19, 2017. In short,
    the registration was expired before the payment for renewal
    and the same registration was expired during the incident.

    9.3. Comment: The witness Jethro Junco testified that he was


    aware that the motorcycle he was driving at the time of the
    incident has an expired registration and was not renewed. The
    private complainant Jethro Junco has no right on the road for
    driving a motorcycle with an expired registration.

    There was a contributory negligence on the part of private


    complainant Jethro Junco.

    10. Re: EXHIBIT “L”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused
    objects to the offer that Jethro Junco and Ginalyn Salvador were
    wearing their respective helmets at the time of the incident as
    requirement for motorists.

    10.1. To stress: The testimony of PO2 Jonlord Moleño and Jethro


    Junco were conflicting. While PO2 Moleño testify that he was
    able to gather the helmets from the victims and keep safe the
    same in Pavia Municipal Police Station, he failed to show any
    chain of custody form to show that the same articles were
    taken from the place of incident and were kept by the police
    investigators.

    On the other hand, witness Jethro Junco testified that the


    helmets were taken from their residence before the testimony
    of the PO2 Moleño and before the said helmets were offered
    as evidence in court.
    10.2. Comment: The helmets came from the residence of the
    witness Jethro Junco. It shows that the same were not
    recovered in the place of incident and were not part of the
    evidence gathered by the investigating officer of Pavia
    Municipal Police Station. Hence, the private complainants
    Jethro Junco and Ginalyn Salvador were not wearing helmets
    at the time of the incident.

    10.3. There was contributory negligence on the part of the victim


    Jethro Junco and Ginalyn Salvador for failure to wear helmets
    when travelling with a motorcycle and for violation of the
    requirement for the motorist.

    11. Re: EXHIBIT “N”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused
    objects to the offer that PO2 Jonlord Moleño took pictures of the
    place of incident, the skidmark of the road, motorcycle and KIA Soul
    car driven by accused.

    11.1. To stress: The pictures taken only show the position of the
    motorcycle of the private complainant Jethro Junco and not
    of the KIA Soul.

    11.2. Comment: The skidmarks were taken but without reference


    to the motor vehicles last or resting position. The

    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

    Iloilo City to Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, Philippines, December 7, 2018.

    GEROCHI LAW OFFICE


    Counsel for the Accused
    GEROCHI CORPORATE CENTER
    Corner Iloilo Circumferential
    Highway Balabago Road, Brgy.
    Balabago, Iloilo City
    By:

    MARIANIE C. TANATE
    PTR No. 3738164/ 1-14-2015/Iloilo
    IBP Lifetime Mem. No. 0986661/
    6-24-2015/ Iloilo Chapter
    Attorney’s Roll No. 63444
    MCLE Complaince No. V-0014908
    Valid Until April 14, 2019

    NOTICE OF HEARING

    The Clerk of Court


    Municipal Circuit Trial Court
    Branch 13
    Sta-Barbara-Pavia
    Sta. Barbara, Iloilo

    GREETINGS:

    Please take notice that the foregoing Comment/Objection shall be


    submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court upon
    receipt.

    MARIANIE C. TANATE

    Copy Furnished to:

    ATTY. TOMAS JUNCO Received by: ___________


    Private Prosecutor Date: _________________
    3/F Room 302, COloso Blg. Hoskyn’s Compound
    Guanco St., Iloilo City

    You might also like