0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
587 tayangan3 halaman
(1) The accused objects to several exhibits offered by the prosecution in this criminal case for violation of the Anti-Child Abuse Law.
(2) The accused objects to Exhibits A, B, and E on the basis that they contain hearsay statements and are not directly relevant to whether forced sexual intercourse occurred.
(3) The accused also objects to Exhibits D, E, and G on the basis that they do not directly prove that forced sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the victim.
(1) The accused objects to several exhibits offered by the prosecution in this criminal case for violation of the Anti-Child Abuse Law.
(2) The accused objects to Exhibits A, B, and E on the basis that they contain hearsay statements and are not directly relevant to whether forced sexual intercourse occurred.
(3) The accused also objects to Exhibits D, E, and G on the basis that they do not directly prove that forced sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the victim.
(1) The accused objects to several exhibits offered by the prosecution in this criminal case for violation of the Anti-Child Abuse Law.
(2) The accused objects to Exhibits A, B, and E on the basis that they contain hearsay statements and are not directly relevant to whether forced sexual intercourse occurred.
(3) The accused also objects to Exhibits D, E, and G on the basis that they do not directly prove that forced sexual intercourse occurred between the accused and the victim.
Complainant, For: Violation of Art. III Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610 -versus- NOELITO TONTORO Accused. x----------------------------------------x
COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS (To the Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Evidence)
ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully comments and/or objects to the Formal Offer
of Evidence of the Prosecution as follows:
EXHIBIT DOCUMENT COMMENT/OBJECTION
Objects to the purpose of the offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations are hearsay. The testimony solicited from the witness is merely a narration of what the victim communicated to her. Judicial Affidavit of Zarian “A” Gasador Allegations in the judicial affidavit are not evidence per se. the witness does not have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances regarding the sexual intercourse which would qualify her testimony. Objects to the purpose of the offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations are without relevance to the issue. Stating that the victim is no longer a Judicial Affidavit of Krianne virgin is without relevance to the main issues “B” Solis and without correspondence to the elements of the crime.
Allegations in the judicial affidavit are not
evidence per se. Admits the existence and authenticity of said Judicial affidavit of Pearl judicial affidavit. “C” Gasador
Admits the existence and authenticity of said
exhibit, but objects to the purpose for which it was offered for being irrelevant and misleading. “D” Medico Legal certificate of Dr. Krianne Y. Solis The said Medical Certificate did not directly prove that the lacerations were caused by the forced sexual intercourse with the accused. It merely proved that the victim engaged in sexual intercourse.
Admits the existence and authenticity of said
exhibit, but objects to the purpose for which it was offered for being irrelevant and Photographs of the misleading. “E” messages between the accused and the victim Mere persuasion is not enough to prove that the victim was forced to engage in sexual intercourse/
Admits the existence and authenticity of said
exhibits, but objects to the purpose for which Certificate of Live Birth of “F” it was offered for being irrelevant. Pearl Gasador
Admits the existence and authenticity of said
exhibit.
The Police Blotter does not prove the alleged
“G” Police Blotter Report sexual intercourse; it is just a record at the police station based on the statements of herein complainant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the ACCUSED respectfully prays to this
Honorable Court to deny the admission of the foregoing exhibits objected to for the reasons stated above.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for under the premises.
Iloilo City, Philippines, this 15th day of March 2019.
ATTY. DAPHNE JADE E. PANES Counsel for the Accused Jaro, Iloilo City PTR No. 123; Jan. 31, 2019, Iloilo City IBP No. 123; Jan. 31, 2019, Iloilo City Roll NO. 123; May 2, 2017 Tel No. (033) 329-9999 MCLE No. 12345; May 10, 2017
G.R. No. L-43082 June 18, 1937 PABLO LORENZO, As Trustee of The Estate of Thomas Hanley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, JUAN POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant