memo for defense

8/3/2019 Memo for Defense

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesMetropolitan Trial Court

Branch 4City of Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO.379318

FOR: ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE

RICARTE SORIA aka RIC-RICROLANDO REYES aka PANGOYCHECHE SORIA,

Accused.x..x

THE DEFENSE, by and through its undersigned attorney, hereby respectfully files its

trial memorandum, and states that:

I.STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case refers to a criminal complaint for attempted homicide initiated by the private

complainants, Mario P Querido against the accused Ricarte Soria ,ET. AL., for having allegedly

hitting the complainant with a Red Horse Bottle and sustaining cut from a pen knife on

November 18, 2001 which reads:

I N F O R M A T I O N

The undersigned accusesRICARTE SORIA aka RIC-RIC, ROLANDO akaPANGOY and CHECHE SORIA of the crime of Attempted Homicide, committed asfollows:

That on or about November 18,2002,in the City of Manila, Philippines ,the saidaccused, conspiring, and confederating together and helping one another, with intent tokill, did then and there ,willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commence the commission ofthe crime of homicide directly by overt acts, to wit; by there an then hitting one MARIO PQUERIDO with a bottle of Red Horse on his head and stabbing him with pen knife, butthe said accused did not ,however perform all the acts of execution which should haveproduced the crime of homicide as a consequence by reason of some cause or accidentother than his spontaneous desistance, that is the injuries sustained by said MARIO PQUERIDO were only slight and not fatal.

CONTRARY TO LAW

Manila,May 19,2002

Original Signed

JESSE A TIBURAN

Assistant City Prosecutor

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEFENSE


2/5

That, said Information for that reason was filed against the accused with the Municipal

Trial Court of Metro Manila, giving rise to the case Attempted Homicide entitled People of the

Philippines vs Ricarte Soria, Et.Al.raffled and assigned to Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4,

City of Manila. That, the court, for the crime charged commended a bail for Twelve Thousand

Pesos (12,000) for the temporary release of the accused.

During arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, so this case. Trial

was set for hearing on the 6th

day of February, 15 July 2003, 18 October 2006, 6 September

2007, 19 August 2008, 23 June, August 18, October 27, 2009 and August 3, 2010.That, during

the hearing, defense presented its witnesses according to their order of appearance: Rolando

Reyes, Ricarte Soria, Karen Soria , Anthony Grande who gave their testimonies as against the

statements of the prosecutions witnesses.

On the 06 February 2003, prosecution presented its first witness, the plaintiff, Mario P

Querido with his medical certificate dated November 20, 2002 marked as Exhibit A and a copy

of blotter from the barangay marked as Exhibit B for the prosecution. For the defense presenting

its first evidence and witness on October 18, 2006.

Hence, this Memorandum for the Defense.

II.Statement of Facts

Based on records, the facts in the above-cited case may be narrated as follows:

That on 18 November 2001, plaintiff Mario P Querido was in the house of Nino Marfori

drinking with some people on the house of the former for the reason that of the birthday

celebration, located across the house of accused Ricarte Soria at 1443 P Guevara St, Sta Cruz,

Manila, at about 25 meters away from the house of the latter.

That on that same date, the plaintiff already intoxicated with alcohol, appeared at the

residence of the accused Ricarte Soria, forced open the door, entered and joined the people in

the second floor having some drinks and chat though prevented by Rolando Reyes who was one

of the accused. At about 20-30 minutes later, accused Ricarte Soria arrived and went upstairs to

his room located at the 3rd

floor of the house.

That,Mario P Querido went up the house of the accused with a bottle of beer in his hand

and was a little drunk because he was swaying and try to grabbed a certain Anabel and forcing

her to sit on his lap.


3/5

Based from the statement given by the plaintiffs brother -in-law, Ricardo Trapane,

while he was in the house of Nino Marfori, about 25 meters away from the resident of the

accused, when his attention was called because his brother-in-law was being ganged-up in the

house of Ricarte Soria.That,then and there he saw Mario Querido being slapped by the accused

Soria

After ten (10) minutes, Rolando Reyes went upstairs to approach those who were

drinking and came Mario P Querido , suddenly boxed kicked the former while uttering the

words Mayabang ito,hindi ako kilalathat caused the commotion.

At that instance, after hearing the commotion in the second floor, accused Ricarte Soriad

decided to rushed down to the 2nd floor, to find that plaintiff, Mario P Querido was restrained by

Anthony Grande, Dondon Balion and Oscar Chin because he was drunk and starting a fight

with Rolando Reyes . Accused Ricarte Soria was then held by his wife Karen Soria when he

said bad words to the plaintiffIlabas yan,putang ina yan,bastos yan .

That, on that same date, while Mario was restrained and brought down, he sustained

injuries when he was allegedly hit by a red horse beer bottle in the head and wound in his right

shoulder as supported by a medical certificate dated November 20, 2002 signed by a certain Dr

Antonio D Rebosa and rebutted by the statement of Karen Soria that said cut may be brought by

the nails of those who restrained Mario P Querido while being conveyed downstairs and not by

the pen knife held by Cheche Soria.

III.ISSUES

Whether or not the Accused Ricarte Soria, ET. Al. is guilty of the crime

ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE and liable to pay the damages sustained for unemployment

during said period.

IV.ARGUMENTS

That, based on the foregoing evidence, it is unquestionable that the plaintiff entered the

house of the accused on the 18th

of November 2001, while being intoxicated with alcohol and

cause trouble.


4/5

That,the statement given by Ricardo Trapane is not credible and cannot be accepted as

evidence since it is impossible for him to witness the incident when he was 25 meters away

from the plaintiff Querido and also intoxicated with alcohol on that same date .

That, the Ricarte Soria, Cheche Soria and Karen Soria , accused has no intention to kill

the plaintiff. That said allegation to kill Mario Querido , was not establish by the prosecution

and that what happened was that the plaintiff and the accused party had a fight over the matter

of entering the house of the former and causing trouble..

That, the injuries inflicted on the plaintiff was not necessarily fatal and which would

heal few days and would not obstruct for his employment as a seaman since he was only then

waiting for a call from his employer.

That, the medical certificate presented by Mario P Querido is not credible to prove his

injuries sustained since it was dated and issued 1 year after the incident thus dated November

20, 2002.And the blotter presented as evidence was undated.

That, the intent to kill being an essential element of the offense of frustrated or

attempted homicide, said element must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. That

element must be proved with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of

the crime.

The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to

prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Villanueva, 51 Phil. 488).

That, the element of intent to kill not having been duly established, and considering that

the injuries suffered by the offended party were not necessarily fatal and could be healed few

days, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused in the

crime charged.

V.PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed, that with the aforesaid, and the evidence,

the Defense be considered to have duly established the innocence from the case filed against

with competent and material evidence that the accused guilt was not proven beyond reasonable

doubt. That the plaintiff is not entitled for the damages prayed for. That, the accused be

discharged and declared innocent of the crime charged.


5/5

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Bulakan,Bulacan, 5th day of October 2011

Reynaldo Gerodias Ramirez III

IBP NO. XXXXXX

PTR Roll No. XXXX

MCLE NO. XXXXX

memo for defense

Documents