Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Submitted by: James William G.

Mariano
Submitted to: Atty. Mac Paul Soriano

People of the Philippines vs. Robert P. Guzman


Case number: 30468
October 18 2017

NARRATIVE REPORT
The case is direct assault filed by a city councilor against a certain individual for allegedly hitting
the former during an awarding ceremony in relation to a city tax ordinance.
The private complainant was presented as a witness himself, on the cross examination by the
defense counsel, questions on the official function of the victim were asked. It was specifically
asked if the resolution which was the subject of the awarding was a national tax law or a local tax
law, the witness responded by saying that it was an excise tax for the benefit of local tobacco
farmers. The counsel again asked the same question, the opposition objected saying that the
question was already answered, it was sustained by the judge. The accused counsel asked again
if the resolution was a legislative act which the victim answered in the affirmative, a follow-up
question was asked if the awarding ceremony was in relation to the implementation of the
resolution which likewise answered by the witness in affirmative. The defense counsel then asked
if the witness agrees that it is the mayor being the executive officer who executes the resolution
and not the city council which again answered by the witness in affirmative. The defense further
asked if the presence of the witness in the awarding ceremony is merely by reason of an invitation
by the office of the city mayor and is not part of his official function, the complainant reasoned
out that their presence in the ceremony is necessary as it is done customarily as part of their
official functions, the defense counsel further ask if what the complainant was saying is that
counselors can now implement the ordinance that they make, the prosecution however objected
saying that the question was misleading.
The next question by the defense counsel was all about the presence of other councilors, the
witness answered enumerating some of the personalities present during the ceremony, after
which, the prosecution objected again saying the question was irrelevant and that there was no
connection between the questions asked and the issue of the case. The defense counsel however
reasoned out that he is trying to prove that the members of the city council was not part of the
program as they were merely invited, the objection however was sustained by the Judge. The
defense counsel further asked if the witness can identify the copy of the invitation and list of
programs being conducted during the awarding ceremony which the witness answered in the
affirmative. The defense counsel said that in the Judicial Affidavit of the witness, he mentioned
that he was requested to give his short speech, he then asked if that giving of short speech is part

Page 1 of 2
Submitted by: James William G. Mariano
Submitted to: Atty. Mac Paul Soriano
of the programs enumerated in the copy of activities of the ceremony. The witness answered
reasoning out that not all their functions are specifically mentioned but are customarily done in
practice and also, he is the chairman of agriculture department in the city council which makes
his presence necessary during the said ceremony. The defense counsel further asked that by
saying so, the witness then admit that he was merely invited by the city mayor to join the
awarding ceremony, the prosecution timely objected saying that the question is misleading. As a
matter of fact, said the defense counsel, the copy of the program that was attached to the
complainants complaint does not show his participation. Again, the witness reasoned out that
his participation was customarily necessary being the representative of the people and being the
chairman of the agriculture in the city council.
The defense counsel further asked if he can identify the accused as known businessman in town
which the witness answered in the affirmative. He then asked if the witness agrees that the
accused was not in the program as a beneficiary but as a guest. The prosecution however
objected to the said question reasoning that it does not matter if the accused is a guest or a
beneficiary. The defense counsel was quick to point out that if the accused was a guest it follows
that he(accused) has no motive in assaulting the complainant, said objection however was
sustained by the Judge.

Page 2 of 2