Republic of the PhilippinesREGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL7th Judicial RegionBranch _____Family Court DesignateDumaguete City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,CRIMINAL CASE No. _____ Plaintiff,

- versus -FOR: Violation of Section 5(a)Of R.A. No. 9262RAMIL SACASAN y CATUBIG, Accused.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / C O M M E N T S / O B J E C T I O N S(To the Prosecutions Formal Offer of Evidence)

ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully comments and/or objects to the Formal Offer of Evidence of the Prosecution as follows:

ExhibitDocumentComment/Objection

A to A-1Photocopy of Medical certificate issued by Dr. Bevito Gonazaga, MHO, Vallehermoso, Negros Oriental, dated June 8, 2015Admits the existence and authenticity of said exhibit, but objects to the purpose for which it was offered for being irrelevant and misleading.

The said Medical Certificate was not issued by an authorized government examining physician as required by law. Also, the testimony of the witness is bereft of any indication where she had positively identified said document during her direct testimony.

B to B-1Photocopy of the Ultrasound Result/Finding issued by Dr. Samuel S. Martinez, M.D. dated June 8, 2015Admits the existence and authenticity of said exhibit, but objects to the purpose for which it was being offered for being misleading.

The testimony of the witness is bereft of any indication where she had positively identified said document during her direct testimony.

C to C-1Police Report representing Extract Copy of the Police Blotter Entry NO. 012, Page Nr. 8, dated June 8, 2015, issued and signed by PO2 Christy P. Aquino, PNP, WCPD, PNCOAdmits the existence and authenticity of said exhibits, but objects to the purpose for which it was offered for being irrelevant.

The Police Blotter does not prove that the alleged mauling incident as claimed by the complainant did exist; it is just a record at the police station based on the statements of herein complainant.

DCopy of pictures showing the injuries sustained by the victim with PO2 Christy P. AquinoDenies the existence of said exhibit, and objects to the purpose for which it was offered for being misleading.

The photographer who took the pictures was not presented and was unable to identify the same. In Sison v. People 250 SCRA 58, the Supreme Court said: The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced. x x x Photographs, however, can be identified also by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.

No photographer or any other competent witness, even the complainant herself, testified to its exactness and accuracy.

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.Dumaguete City, Philippines, this 11th day of January 2016.

Atty. CAMAD C. ALI, JR.Counsel for the AccusedRoom 6, Novotel Building, Perdices St., Dumaguete CityPTR No. 123; Mar. 31, 2016, Dumaguete CityIBP No. 123; Mar. 31, 2016, Dumaguete CityRoll NO. 123; May 2, 2012Tel No. (035) 226-1234MCLE No. 12345; May 10, 2013

Copy furnished through personal service to:RUEL YGONA AGUILARAsst. Provincial ProsecutorPPO, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental

Received by: _________Date:_________