Republic of the Philippines IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF __________________ ___th Judicial Region PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

X, Accused. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/ versus Grave Oral Defamation CRIM. CASE NO.1234 For:

MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW the accused unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Memorandum and avers that :

STATEMENT OF CASE
Y filed this instant case on the basis of her affidavit stating, among others, that on March 24, 2004 she was defamed by X when the latter uttered defamatory statements MANTIANAK KA NAGBUNTIYOL MO SA KONG BANA KABALO NA ANG TIBOOK MUNICIPYO NGA LATA NANG IMONG BILAT AND BURIKAT KA NALATA NA ANG IMONG BILAT in front of the public, causing her shame and suffering from damages; X filed counter-affidavit in her defense denying the accusation that she uttered defamatory statements alleged in the affidavitcomplaint of Y. Although she admitted having seen Y on that particular day, she never talked with Y regarding any matter. All she did, when Y, passed by, was to tell her husband yong statements NAANA ANG MANTIYANAK, PAGBUNTIYOL NA MO but never mentioned any name nor pointed to anybody;

ISSUES
Whether or not the Prosecution, having the burden of proof, has proven the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt?

ARGUMENTS
The Prosecution, having the burden of proof, has not sufficiently established its case with merit and credibility. The accused, in all criminal prosecutions, shall be entitled to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt such presumption of innocence cannot be taken lightly unless the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the contrary.

In the case at bar, we found incredible and improbable stories contrary to human experience intertwined together to establish a false case against accused. Digging from the court records we discovered not minor but catastrophic inconsistencies in the prosecutions account not to be taken lightly, to wit: Ps TESTIMONY 1. He testified that he saw a commotion and allowed the commotion to pass before he went out of the billiard hall (TSN page 9, paragraph 11, May 23, 2005) but admitted later on that he never went out after the occurrence of the commotion (TSN Page 13, paragraph 6, May 23, 2003); 2. That the shouting of X on Y took place in just few seconds (page 14, paragraph 12, May 23, 2003) but made unbelievable statements that the incident continued to take place even if Y was no longer around (page 15, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, May 23, 2003); 3. That he did not know whether X and Y were outside the billiard hall because he did not see them and what he noticed was only shouting. (page 10, paragraphs 3 and 4, May 23, 2005); 4. That he affirmed his affidavit during direct testimony that he saw X and Y walking and crossed their path (nagkatagbo) when X uttered defamatory statements on Y but on cross examination he said there was no chance that they crossed their paths as X uttered the statements only when Y passed by (TSN page 10 paragraphs 11 and 12, May 23, 2005); 5. That when confronted by the defense in cross-examination with is affidavit stating that X and Y met on the road contrary to, what he stated during cross-examination that they did not meet each other but following each other (TSN page 10, paragraph 11, May 23, 2003), he made no answer (TSN pages 11 and 12, paragraphs 10 and 1, May 23, 2003); Testimony of Y 1. She (Y) told the court that accused uttered to her the defamatory statements five hundred (500) times for more than three (3) hours. (TSN page 26, paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9, July 5, 2005); 2. And even after the lapse of three (3) hours She (X) continued shouting and she stopped shouting only when she was

summoned at the barangay. (TSN page 26 paragraphs 11 and 12, July 5, 2005); 3. And when Y was made to affirm that INCREDIBLE story, she (Y) readily said I am sure (TSN page 26, paragraph 15, July 5, 2005). Testimony of C 1. He (C) contrary to the prosecutions evidence informed the court that there was an incident INSIDE the billiard hall of uttering the words against Y (TSN page 38, paragraph 5, August 9, 2005); 2. He (C) for the second time around informed again the court that the uttering of defamatory words INSIDE the billiard hall took place about 30 minutes. (TSN page 39 paragraph 3, August 9, 2005); 3. That Y also uttered that X is also a swindler (TSN page 39 last paragraph, August 9, 2005) and repeated the word SWINDLER more than ONE HUNDRED TIMES (TSN page 40, paragraph 2, August 9, 2005); 4. That he (C) affirmed his affidavit narrating what all happened to (TSN page 40 paragraph 11) but contradicted himself as there was no single mention of word SWINDLER in the same.

While as a rule minor inconsistencies in the testimony are sometimes ordinary to occur during trial, and in fact found excusable in several times by trial courts. The same cannot apply in cases where there is willful intent to pervert the truth. In People vs Galo (349 SCRA 161), the Supreme Court ruled that the credibility of a witness is not affected by inconsistencies or improbabilities in her testimony if it does not appear that she has willfully perverted the truth as may be gleaned from the tenor of her testimony and found by the trial judge from her demeanor and behavior on the witness stand. In the case-at-bar, there is strong and apparent evidence that the private complainant, based on her unbelievable story, concocted a false testimony just to file a case against herein accused. On the other hand the other prosecution witnesses cannot escape from being identified as rehearsed witness whose intent was to support a bright and shining lie of the complainant. Where the inconsistencies, improbabilities, and uncertainties in a witness testimony are many, and they relate to material points, the suspicion cannot be helped that he or she is a rehearsed witness. People vs. Madali, 349 SCRA 104. In the case at bar, we are at lost who among the prosecution witnesses are telling the naked truth. Each testimony of prosecution witnesses is self-destructible which weakens and contradicts the other.

On the other hand, X is entitled to constitutional presumption which requires of courts more than casual consideration of every circumstance tending to show the guilt of an accused-courts have the imperative duty to put the prosecutions evidence under severe testing ( Madarang vs. Sandiganbayan, 355 SCRA 525). She informed this Honorable Court that she never defamed nor did she mention the name of Y when she conversed with her husband on March 25, 2004 at 6:30 oclock in the morning in the house of her daughter. The words in conversation was normal to couple who communicated in a partial language and words only known to the conversing couple NAANA ANG MANTIYANAK YUNG, PAGBUNTIYOL NAMO simple put, the words were addressed to UYONG (nickname of Xs husband) who participated in the conversation. Under the circumstances, such conversation cannot in anyway be presumed defamatory. Further, it is element of oral defamation that the words uttered are libelous and the same will cast dishonor on the identified person. The prosecution has not substantiated the elements of libel in the above-mentioned conversation of the couple. Such failure is very crucial to prosecutions case. WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the case against herein accused, who is innocent and did not commit a crime of grave oral defamation in accordance with law and evidence, be dismissed. Respectfully submitted. _____________,Philippines. February 16, 2006 at _________,

By:

Atty. B
Counsel for the accused Roll No.____ MCLE Compliance No. ______ Copy Furnished: Atty. A _____________ City ___________Prosecutor ______________City