Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TENIENTE GIMO
Accused
XX---------------------------------------------------------XX
COMMENT/OBJECTIONS
(To the Prosecutions Formal Offer of Object and Documentary Evidence)
ACCUSED by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully comments and/or objects to the admission of the Prosecutions Formal Offer
of Object Evidence as follows:
ACCUSED objects to the formal offer of the Bolo as evidence of the Prosecution,
marked as Exhibit C. The Bolo is inadmissible as evidence due to the reason that it
was never identified and offered during the trial of the case. There is no basis for its
admissibility thus making its purpose moot and unwarranted.
The ACCUSED further objects to the purpose of the offer as follows:
EXHIBITS
A
DESCRIPTION
Affidavit of Ms. Maria Mae
Killing
COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS
The Accused objects to the purpose of the
offer specifically which is to attest to the
incident pertaining to the commission of the
crime of parricide by the accused.
It has been declared in open court and that the
records would attest that the primary witness
admitted that she was not present at the
precise moment of the commission of the
crime. Thus, the testimony of the witness with
regard to this matter would all be hearsay and
is inadmissible as evidence. At cross, she
categorically admitted that she did not see the
actual killing, thus, her assumption that it is the
Accused who killed the victim is mere
speculation inadmissible in evidence.
Page 1 of 5
crime.
The Investigator being a mere responder after
the crime has already been committed is
incompetent to testify or to establish the
presence of the accused at the scene of the
crime during its actual commission. The
investigator has no personal knowledge nor
has a well-grounded belief that the accused
was at the scene of the crime for the obvious
reason that he was not present at the time the
crime was committed.
The Accused also objects to the purpose of
the offer which is to establish the
circumstances surrounding the commission of
the crime. The witness himself admitted that
he did not see the killing and the fact that he
arrived only when the crime had already been
committed negated actual knowledge on the
circumstances surrounding the commission of
the crime, thus, there was no way for him to
exactly establish the facts on the actual
commission of the crime. Whatever he may
conclude from the things he had collected are
pure speculations inadmissible in evidence.
The Accused also objects to the purpose of
the offer which is to testify and correlate the
pieces of evidence acquired from the scene of
the crime with the commission of said crime.
Again, being not present during the actual
commission of the crime, the witness is
incompetent to correlate the pieces of
evidence acquired from the scene of the
crime, and not being offered as an expert
witness, his testimony regarding this matter is
mere speculation thus, inadmissible in
evidence.
The Accused also objects to the admissibility
of the report to prove the time of death of the
victim due to its being inconsistent with the
Information and because said witness also is
incompetent to testify as to the time of death
not being a medico-legal officer.
C-1
Page 2 of 5
F-1
F-2
G-1, G-2
& G-3
Page 3 of 5
(C-1)
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Accused most respectfully prays to this Honorable Court that the
foregoing object and documentary exhibits mentioned above be denied admission for
the reasons above stated. The Accused further prays for such other relief as may be
just and equitable under the premises.
Makati City.
August 14, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
Counsel for the Accused Teniente Gimo
PRADAC Law Office
37th Floor, LKG Tower
6801 Ayala Avenue, Makati City
ATTY. KEVIN AVERELL PANGAN
PTR 345756, 1/10/15, Makati City
IBP No. 01023 Lifetime Member
Roll No. 37435
MCLE Compliance III-000913, April 19, 2014
EXPLANATION
The filing of this Comment/Objection was done through LBC due to time,
distance and manpower constraints.
Page 5 of 5