REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Complainant.

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1234

For: “VIOLATION OF RA 8048”
PEDRO SANTOS
Accused,
X---------------------------------------------------------X

COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS
TO PROSECUTION’S FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS

ACCUSED, through the undersigned Public Attorney, unto this Honorable

Court most respectfully submits the following comments and objections to the
Prosecution’s formal offer of exhibits, to with;

Exhibit “A” - Sworn Statement of Maria Makiling

Exhibit “A-1” - Signature
Exhibit “__” -

COMMENT/OBJECTION:

Accused objects to the admission of the same for being self-serving to her
cause as private complainant in this case, and for being hearsay and tainted with
personal interest.

Exhibit “B” - Sworn Statement of Pedro Penduko

Exhibit “B-1” - Signature
Exhibit “_” -

COMMENT/OBJECTION:
Accused objects to the admission of the same for being hearsay, and for
being tainted with bias and personal interest.

Exhibit “C” - Sworn Statement of Juan Tamad

Exhibit “C-1” - Siganture
Exhibit “__” -

COMMENT/OBJECTION:

Accused objects to the admission of the same for being hearsay. It is

hearsay because witness did not come in this court to testify with respect to this
case. Be it noted that the Supreme Court has already pronounced in People vs.
Santos, 139 SCRA 583, that “sworn statement of a person who never took the
witness stand at the trial is absolutely inadmissible in evidence. Admission of
such hearsay evidence would violate the constitutional right of the person
accused to meet the witnesses face to face and to cross examine them.”
 Exhibit “D” to “D-12” - Twelve (12) pictures depicting the cut
coconut trees

COMMENT/OBJECTION:

Accused objects to the admission of the same for being hearsay. It is hearsay
because the prosecution did not present the person who took the said pictures in order
for the latter to testify and be cross examined regarding the image depicted by the
aforesaid photograph.

Exhibit “E” - Certification from the Philippine Coconut Authority

Issued by ___, OIC-PCDM,
Laguna
Exhibit “E-1” - Signature
Exhibit “__” -

COMMENT/OBJECTIONS:

Accused objects to the admission of the same for being hearsay. It is hearsay
because the prosecution failed to present __ or any competent person who will testify
with respect to the veracity and due execution of the said Certification. (instead,
presented ____ . Under the rules on evidence, documentary evidence must be
authenticated by a competent witness. The due execution and authenticity of the
document must be proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or
written, or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to this

honorable Court that all exhibits which are objected to by the accused, and all other
exhibits which are formally offered to, be DENIED for admission.

Respectfully submitted.
Siniloan, Laguna,

ATTY. MARIA CONSIGNA