166131913 Sample Memorandum in Criminal Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

SAMPLE ONLYTRIAL MEMORANDUM IN CRIMINAL CASECAPTION & TITLE OMITTEDx ------------------------------------------------ xM E M O R A N D U MACCUSED BC, by counsel, respectfully submits this Memorandum to show that he is not guilty of perjury as alleged in the Information.STATEMENT OF THE CASEThis ...

Description

SAMPLE ONLY TRIAL MEMORANDUM IN CRIMINAL CASE

CAPTION & TITLE OMITTED x ------------------------------------------------ x

MEMORANDUM

ACCUSED

BC,

by

counsel,

respectfully

submits

this

Memorandum to show that he is not guilty of perjury as alleged in the Information.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for perjury against BC.

The basis for this

charge is the affidavit-complaint he executed on May 7, 2011, charging Police Officer XY with grave misconduct for the incident that happened at the La Trinidad Police Station on May 4, 2011. BC stated in his affidavit-complaint that on that day XY threatened him with bodily harm. The prosecution, however, was able to show that XY was in the United States on May 4, 2011.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

At about 6:30 o’clock in the evening of May 4, 2011, BC was

2

mauled at Km. 4, La Trinidad, Benguet, by three men whose names he came to know later as KL, MN, and OP.1 Accompanied by his wife and a barangay tanod, BC went to the police station at Km. 5, La Trinidad, to report the incident, but the police officer on duty advised him to go to the nearby Benguet General Hospital first for treatment of his injuries.2 He was treated at the hospital by Dr. FG who issued him a Medico-Legal Certificate3.

After he was treated, BC prepared to go to the police station. But while he was at the door of the hospital, he was again mauled by KL, MN, and OP.4 So back to the hospital he went. He was treated - again - by Dr. FG who issued another Medico-Legal Certificate5.

From the hospital, he proceeded to the police station to lodge a complaint against those who had mauled him.

While he and

several persons were at the police station, a man, who introduced himself as Police Officer XY and cousin of KL, arrived and threatened BC with bodily harm if he would not withdraw his complaint.

1

Tsn, Feb. 18, 2009, at pp. 3-5. Ibid., at p. 6. 3 Exh. “1”. 4 Tsn, Feb. 18, 2009, at pp. 7-8. 5 Exh. “2”. 2

3

BC’s testimony about the incident that happened at the police station was substantially corroborated by two eye-witnesses, RC and JC, who separately executed their respective affidavits6. On May 7, 2011, BC executed an affidavit-complaint charging XY with grave misconduct. The prosecution, however, was able to prove that on May 4, 2011, XY was in the United States, and therefore he could not have been at the La Trinidad Police Station on that day.

As it turned out, the one who threatened BC at the

police station was not XY.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are:

a)

Whether or not BC made a deliberate statement of

falsehood;

b)

Whether or not the false statement was made before an

officer authorized to administer oaths.

ARGUMENTS

6

Exhs. “4” and “5”.

4

a) Accused BC did not make a deliberate statement of falsehood.

Perjury is defined and penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. In Padua v. Paz, A.M. No. P-00-1445, April 30, 2003, the Supreme Court restated the four elements of perjury, namely: (1) that the accused made a statement under oath upon a material matter; (2) that the statement was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (3) that the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement; and (4) that the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law or made for legal purpose.7

Perjury is a felony by dolo because it is required that the statement made by the accused is a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.

The Supreme Court, in Monfort III, et al. v.

Salvatierra, et al., G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007, has explained the law on perjury in this wise:

“Perjury being a felony by dolo, there must be malice on the part of the accused. Willfully means intentionally, with evil intent and legal malice, with consciousness that the alleged perjurious statement is false with the intent that it should be received as a statement of what was true in fact. It is equivalent to `knowingly.’ ‘Deliberately’ implies ‘meditated’ as distinguished from `inadvertent acts.’ It must appear that the 7

See also: Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, c. 1998, at p. 272....