Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Province of Iloilo
th
13 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Sta. Barbara-Pavia
Sta. Barbara, Iloilo

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. 4542-P


- versus -
For: RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING
IN SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES AND DAMAGE
TO PROPERTY.
CATHERINE GILO,
Accused.
x------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OBJECTION
TO FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS BY THE PROSECUTION

THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. Re: EXHIBIT “A”, with submarkings of the Offer.

1.1. Comment: The Certification of the Police Blotter Report is self-


serving and incomplete. The witness Jonlord M. Moleño affirm
and confirmed during his testimony that the contents of the
report was incomplete. There was no inclusion whether the
motorcycle driven by witness Jethro Junco was registered or
not.

2. Re: EXHIBIT “B” with submarkings of the Offer, the accused objects
to the offer that the KIA vehicle driven by the accused was
traversing the left lane of the road going to the direction of Aganan,
Pavia at the time of the point of impact and the the same documents
shows that the accused was negligent and reckless by traversing
the left lane of the road which was also traversed by the motorcycle
driven by the complainant Jethro Junco in the right lane going to
the direction inside of DECA Home Subdivision.

2.1. To stress: The position of the motorcycle reflected on the


sketch does not coincide with the pictures marked as EXHIBIT
“N”.

The sketch submitted was not corroborated by the pictures


taken by the investigator upon arrival in the area.

2.2. Comment: The resting place of the KIA Soul reflects that it is
traversing the correct way (RIGHT LANE) going to Aganan,
Pavia from the gate of Deca Homes Subdivision.

That it is impossible for the KIA SOUL to bumped the


motorcycle and after the impact from the LEFT LANE the KIA
Soul would proceed to the resting place (RIGHT LANE).

3. Re: EXHIBIT “C”, with submarkings, of the Offer.

3.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

4. Re: EXHIBIT “D”, with submarkings, of the Offer.

4.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

4.2. Objection: The person who signed the subject document was
presented in court to identify the document.

4.3. Comment: The witness Dr. Nilo Soriaso admitted and


confirmed that while his name appeared on the said
document, he has no knowledge of the contents.

5. Re: EXHIBIT “E”, of the Offer.


5.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no
proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

5.2. Comment: The nature of the injury of the victim Ginalyn


Salvador is not serious.

6. Re: EXHIBIT “F”, of the Offer.

6.1. Objection: The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only.


There is no proof that the original was offered to the Court
for the Record, contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence
Rule.

6.2. Comment: The person who took the picture was not
presented in Court.

7. Re: EXHIBIT “G”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused


objects to the offer that the family incurred hospital and doctor
expenses in the treatment of the injuries.

7.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record
contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

7.2. To stress: No official receipts for payment was presented by


the prosecution to prove actual and other expenses.

7.3. Comment: During the testimony of the witness Jethro Junco


and Dr. Nilo Soriaso, both witnesses affirmed that after the
victim was released from the hospital, there was no follow-up
check-up.

8. Re: EXHIBIT “J”, of the Offer.

8.1. Objection: The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only.


There is no proof that the original was offered to the Court
for the Record nor the photocopy is compare with the original
document.
9. Re: EXHIBIT “K”, of the offer, the accused objects to the offer that
the registration was duly paid.

9.1. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no


proof that the original was offered to the Court for the Record,
contrary to the principle of the Best Evidence Rule.

9.2. To stress: The date of the Official Receipt is September 19,


2017 and the registration at the time of the incident was not
renewed. The incident happened on September 11, 2017 and
the Official Receipt was paid on September 19, 2017. In short,
the registration was expired before the payment for renewal
and the same registration was expired during the incident.

9.3. Comment: The witness Jethro Junco testified that he was


aware that the motorcycle he was driving at the time of the
incident has an expired registration and was not renewed. The
private complainant Jethro Junco has no right on the road for
driving a motorcycle with an expired registration.

There was a contributory negligence on the part of private


complainant Jethro Junco.

10. Re: EXHIBIT “L”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused
objects to the offer that Jethro Junco and Ginalyn Salvador were
wearing their respective helmets at the time of the incident as
requirement for motorists.

10.1. To stress: The testimony of PO2 Jonlord Moleño and Jethro


Junco were conflicting. While PO2 Moleño testify that he was
able to gather the helmets from the victims and keep safe the
same in Pavia Municipal Police Station, he failed to show any
chain of custody form to show that the same articles were
taken from the place of incident and were kept by the police
investigators.

On the other hand, witness Jethro Junco testified that the


helmets were taken from their residence before the testimony
of the PO2 Moleño and before the said helmets were offered
as evidence in court.
10.2. Comment: The helmets came from the residence of the
witness Jethro Junco. It shows that the same were not
recovered in the place of incident and were not part of the
evidence gathered by the investigating officer of Pavia
Municipal Police Station. Hence, the private complainants
Jethro Junco and Ginalyn Salvador were not wearing helmets
at the time of the incident.

10.3. There was contributory negligence on the part of the victim


Jethro Junco and Ginalyn Salvador for failure to wear helmets
when travelling with a motorcycle and for violation of the
requirement for the motorist.

11. Re: EXHIBIT “N”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused
objects to the offer that PO2 Jonlord Moleño took pictures of the
place of incident, the skidmark of the road, motorcycle and KIA Soul
car driven by accused.

11.1. To stress: The pictures taken only show the position of the
motorcycle of the private complainant Jethro Junco and not
of the KIA Soul.

11.2. Comment: The skidmarks were taken but without reference


to the motor vehicles last or resting position. The

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Iloilo City to Sta. Barbara, Iloilo, Philippines, December 7, 2018.

GEROCHI LAW OFFICE


Counsel for the Accused
GEROCHI CORPORATE CENTER
Corner Iloilo Circumferential
Highway Balabago Road, Brgy.
Balabago, Iloilo City
By:

MARIANIE C. TANATE
PTR No. 3738164/ 1-14-2015/Iloilo
IBP Lifetime Mem. No. 0986661/
6-24-2015/ Iloilo Chapter
Attorney’s Roll No. 63444
MCLE Complaince No. V-0014908
Valid Until April 14, 2019

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court


Municipal Circuit Trial Court
Branch 13
Sta-Barbara-Pavia
Sta. Barbara, Iloilo

GREETINGS:

Please take notice that the foregoing Comment/Objection shall be


submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court upon
receipt.

MARIANIE C. TANATE

Copy Furnished to:

ATTY. TOMAS JUNCO Received by: ___________


Private Prosecutor Date: _________________
3/F Room 302, COloso Blg. Hoskyn’s Compound
Guanco St., Iloilo City