Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch ___________
Pasig City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff,

- versus

Criminal Case No. ________


For: Qualified Theft
CAROLYN LIM,
Accused.
x ----------------------------------------x

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

ACCUSED, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully moves for the dismissal of
the charge against her of Qualified Theft on the following grounds:

1. The highly improbable theory of the prosecution was not substantiated.

2. The prosecution relied primarily on hearsay, self-serving and inadmissible evidence to prove its
case.

3. None of the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses, as well as the documents offered as evidence,
directly, or even logically, point to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime charged.

4. The testimonies of the prosecutions key witnesses are inconsistent and contradictory on material
points so as to make their testimonies worthless as evidence.

5. In sum, the bottom line is that there is gross insufficiency of evidence to sustain the indictment or to
support a verdict of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

I. PREFATORY STATEMEMENT
1. This is a case of Qualified Theft filed against the herein accused, Carolyn Lim former
Customer Relations Assistant (CRA) of the Greenhills Branch of ABBanking
Corporation, filed by Carmela Collantes , then Senior Manager of the Audit
Examination Department of said bank, in behalf of the bank as private complainant.
2. Curiously and worthy of note is the fact that the charge was filed shortly
following charges of incriminatory machination and intriguing against honor filed by
the accused herself against the officers of the bank branch of private complainant
where the accused used to work.1

3. Criminal prosecution is a process whereby the accused is proceeded


against for analleged commission of an offense as indicted in the information. In
this wise, anaccused is a lone person defending himself/herself against the full
machinery of the State and the People of the Philippines. Consequently, all the
necessarydefenses and principles allowed under the law which may exculpate him/her from
criminal liability should be applied in his/her favor. The time-honored doctrine is that an
accused should be convicted, not on the basis of the weakness of his defense, but on
the strength of the prosecutions evidence itself.
4. Accordingly, an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption prevails unless overturned by competent
and credible proof which the State is required to establish on all the essential elements
of the crime with which the defendant is charged in the indictment, and to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of said crime. It is necessary that
unless the preponderance of evidence points beyond the shadow of a doubt to his
guilt, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. 2 For the evidence to be considered
sufficient, it must prove (a) the commission of the crime, and (b) The precise degree of
participation by the accused. 3

5. It must be noted at the very outset that the charge of qualified theft of which the accused is
charged hinges entirely and exclusively on the fantastic tale the private complainant persists to
parlay that the accused succeeded in completely deceiving her superiors at the Greenhills branch
of the complainant bank into believing that the cash collection covered by each of the banks
official receipts covering the transactions that are the subject of this case was pocketed by the
accused, and that she (the accused) did this on 644 separate occasions during her stint as
Customer Relations Assistant at said bank for a period of about one year and a halfa gothic
story that defies human reason and insults onesintelligence.
6. Worse, the prosecution attempted to prove its impossible theory, not by adducing
evidence establishing the precise degree of participation by the accused as required by the
Supreme Court in each and every act of the crime of which she stands charged but by wild
presumptions and illogical inferences
7.
8. to show an alleged criminal pattern based on circumstantial or indirect evidence that does not
even pass the test of admissibility.
9. II. THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSEDThe Amended Information filed with
this Honorable Court on April 27, 2000, charging
10. Carolyn Lim
11. with the crime of
12. Qualified Theft
13. , reads as follows:On or about or sometime between January 1995 to May 1996, in
San Juan,Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the saidaccused, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of
theowner, being then an employee of AB Banking Corporations GreenhillsBranch,
who was assigned to handle the collection and remittance of SafetyDeposit box
(SDB) rental accounts of the Banks customer and with graveabuse of confidence
reposed on her by her employer, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away cash moneyamounting to P314,760.00,
belonging to AB Corporation, represented byCarmela Collantes to the damage
and prejudice of the latter in the saidamount of P314,760.00.Contrary to law.III.
DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS1.On March 2, 2004, the prosecution
rested its case, at least preliminarily (the complete resting of the prosecutions
case being upon the courts resolution of theFormal Offer and Objections thereto
14. 4
15. ) through a Formal Offer of Exhibits. In theComments/Objections to Prosecutions
Formal Offer filed by the accused onApril 6, 2004, it emphasized the non-inclusion
of several alleged exhibits in theProsecutions Formal Offer, which deprives her of
the right to object thereto, asfollows: a.The prosecution alleges in page 116
of the Formal Offer that the first setof documents offered for a common
purpose starts from Exhibit A up toExhibit P25-3, while the first set actually
attached in the formal offer of Exhibits is only from Exhibit A to Exhibit P17-
3. b.Contrary to the prosecutions allegations, there are no
portions of Exhibits A to D22-3 which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to D22-
1. c.There are also no portions therein marked as Exhibits A-2 to
D22-2contrary to the prosecutions allegations. d.There are no initials of
Carolyn Lim (the accused) in any portion of eachof the documents
comprising Exhibits A to P25-3 contrary to the prosecutions
allegations. 2.Arguing further on the matter, the accused went on
by discussing that theseexhibits are misleading as they are not what the
prosecution alleges them to beand that the above-identified documents, alleged but
not found in the formal offer
to show an alleged criminal pattern based on circumstantial or indirect evidence that does not even pass the

test of admissibility.

II. THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSEDThe Amended Information filed with this

Honorable Court on April 27, 2000, charging

Carolyn Lim

with the crime of

Qualified Theft

, reads as follows:On or about or sometime between January 1995 to May 1996, in

San Juan,Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the saidaccused,

with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of theowner, being then an

employee of AB Banking Corporations GreenhillsBranch, who was assigned to handle the

collection and remittance of SafetyDeposit box (SDB) rental accounts of the Banks customer

and with graveabuse of confidence reposed on her by her employer, did then and therewillfully,

unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away cash moneyamounting to P314,760.00,

belonging to AB Corporation, represented byCarmela Collantes to the damage and prejudice of

the latter in the saidamount of P314,760.00.Contrary to law.III. DISCUSSION AND

ARGUMENTS1.On March 2, 2004, the prosecution rested its case, at least

preliminarily (thecomplete resting of the prosecutions case being upon the courts resolution

of theFormal Offer and Objections thereto

) through a Formal Offer of Exhibits. In theComments/Objections to Prosecutions Formal Offer

filed by the accused onApril 6, 2004, it emphasized the non-inclusion of several alleged exhibits

in theProsecutions Formal Offer, which deprives her of the right to object thereto,
asfollows: a.The prosecution alleges in page 116 of the Formal Offer that the

first setof documents offered for a common purpose starts from Exhibit A up toExhibit P25-

3, while the first set actually attached in the formal offer of Exhibits is only from Exhibit A to

Exhibit P17-3. b.Contrary to the prosecutions allegations, there are no

portions of Exhibits A to D22-3 which are marked as Exhibits A-1 to D22-1. c.There

are also no portions therein marked as Exhibits A-2 to D22-2contrary to the

prosecutions allegations. d.There are no initials of Carolyn Lim (the accused) in any

portion of eachof the documents comprising Exhibits A to P25-3 contrary to

the prosecutions allegations. 2.Arguing further on the matter, the accused went on

by discussing that theseexhibits are misleading as they are not what the prosecution alleges

them to beand that the above-identified documents, alleged but not found in the formal offer

of the prosecution, may not be considered as having been formally offered. Under the Rules,
the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formallyoffered
(Rule 132, sec. 35). A formal offer is necessary, since judges are requiredto base their findings of
fact and their judgment solely and strictly upon theevidence offered by the parties at the trial.
Opposing parties would be deprived of their chance to examine the document and to object to its
admissibility if this procedure were not followed.3.In an order dated April 20, 2004, the
Honorable Court, confirming the abovecited objections, returned to the prosecution its
Formal Offer of Evidence due to thefinding that some exhibits listed in the Covering Pleading of
said Formal Offer were missing as attachments. 4.Hence, in a hearing of this case dated
April 27, 2004, the prosecution withdrew its Formal Offer for the same reasons stated
above. Thus, the accused wasconstrained to also withdraw its Comments and Objections in order
to adjust itsallegations according to the additional exhibits that were supposed to be attachedin
the Formal Offer. The Court, therefore, issued an order giving the prosecution a period of thirty
(30) days within which to file its Formal Offer, and the accusedwith the same period from receipt
of a copy of the Formal Offer to file itsObjections and Comments thereto, after which the matter
shall be deemedsubmitted for resolution. 5.Subsequently, the prosecution asked, and the
court granted, in an order dated July16, 2004, another fifteen (15) day period from receipt
of said order to file itsFormal Offer, giving the prosecution more than ample time to complete its
offer. 6.Counsel for the accused received a copy of the prosecutions NEW Formal
Offer of Evidence on
August 3, 2004.
Amazingly,
this new Formal Offer, consisting of 123 pages, comprises the Cover Pleading only. It failed not only to
completethe attachments as required by this Court, but altogether omitted every and all exhibits described
therein.
7.Despite the fact that the previous Formal Offer (filed by the prosecution on
March3, 2004) has been withdrawn and, thus, considered stricken off the records of thecase, the
NEW Formal Offer did not contain any attachment of any documentaryevidence, which
effectively deprives the accused of any opportunity to object toany of the alleged exhibits
submitted by the prosecution. 8.Additionally, after a circumspect and painstaking
scrutiny, it was found out thatthe changes in the cover pleading (as discussed in the
accusedsObjections/Comments to Prosecutions Formal Offer) constitute only insertions
of some exhibits with similar purposes as the first Formal Offer.
The fact that nodocumentary evidence, originally attached in the previous formal Formal Offer or otherwise,
has been attached in this new Formal Offer renders the foregoing changes immaterial and inconsequential. It
has not cured, even in the slightest