Sample "Comment" to "Offer of

Evidence"
This a sample "Comment" to the "Offer of Evidence" in a criminal case prepared by our law office.
We are sharing it for legal research purposes of our readers/followers.

COMMENT
(To: PROSECUTION’S “FORMAL OFFER
OF DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS”)

THE ACCUSED x x x by counsel, respectfully states:

1. Re: Exhibit “A”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to Purposes of
the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving,
that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record.

1.1. To stress: Allegations in a Complaint are not evidence per se. There is no proof of
harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of
the private complainant.

2. Re: Exhibit “B”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by
the evidence on record.

2.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se. There is no proof of
harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than the bare allegation of
the private complainant, showing that the accused xxx made threatening calls to and poked
a gun at the private complainant.

2.2. Neither is such an allegation (conclusion of law) a proof of the presence of conspiracy
between the two accused xxx2.

3. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that the original
was offered to the Court for the record.

3. Re: Exhibit “C”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by
the evidence on record.

3.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

3.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the private complainant, showing that the accused xxx poked a gun
at the private complainant or that the two accused xxx had conspired.

3.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), it should
be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, of xxx City, under Hon. Judge xxx
ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal possession of firearms filed by the NBI against
the accused xxx, per its AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due
time shall be presented in evidence by the accused xxx

4. Re: Exhibit “D”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purpose of the
Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving,
that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record.

4.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

4.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing that the accused xxx banged loudly on
the gate of the home of the private complainant, that the accused xxx poked a gun at the
private complainant and that the two accused xxx had conspired.

4.3. The affiant xxx did not personally testify before the Court to affirm her subject
Affidavit, dated June 28, 2010, and she was not subjected to cross examination by the
two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence
and violates the constitutional right of confrontation/cross examination of the accused
xxx

5. Re: Exhibit “E”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes of
the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-serving,
that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record.

5.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

5.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing that the accused xxx threatened the life
of the private complainant and his family, that the private complainant did not freely
mortgaged his car to the accused xxx and that the accused xxx issued the threatening words
quoted in the said Salaysay.

5.3. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that the original
was offered to the Court for the record.

6. Re: Exhibit “F”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
 serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by
the evidence on record.

6.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

6.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing that the accused xxx made threatening
phone calls to the private complainant, that the accused xxx poked a gun at the private
complainant, and that the two accused xxx had conspired.

6.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), it should
be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, of xxx City, under Hon. Judge xxx
ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal possession of firearms filed by the NBI against
the accused xxx, per its AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due
time shall be presented in evidence by the accused xxx

6.4. The affiant xxx did not personally testify before the Court to affirm his subject Affidavit,
dated July 8, 2010, and he was not subjected to cross examination by the two defense
counsel, thus, the said exhibit is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates
the constitutional right of confrontation/cross examination of the two accused.

6.5. The exhibit was marked as PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that the original
was offered to the Court for the record.

7. Re: Exhibit “G”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by
the evidence on record.

7.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

7.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the affiant thereof, showing that the accused xxx made threatening
phone calls to the private complainant, that the accused xxx poked a gun at the private
complainant, and that the two accused xxx had conspired.

7.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), it should
be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, of xxx City, under Hon. xxx
ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal possession of firearms filed by the NBI against
the accused xxx, per its AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due
time shall be presented in evidence by the accused xxx

7.4. The three affiants, who are NBI agents, namely, xxx, xxx, xxx, did not personally
testify before the Court to affirm their subject Joint Affidavit, dated July 8, 2010, and they
were not subjected to cross examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said
exhibit is HEARSAY under the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional right
of confrontation/cross examination of the two accused.
 8. Re: Exhibit “H”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by
the evidence on record.

8.1. To stress: Allegations in a Salaysay are not evidence per se.

8.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the affiants thereof or that the accused xxx poked a gun on the private
complainant.

8.3. As to the entrapment conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), it should
be noted that the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, of xxxCity, under Hon. Judge xxx
ACQUITTED the accused xxx of illegal possession of firearms filed by the NBI against
the accused xxx, per its AMENDED DECISION, dated January 21, 2016 which in due
time shall be presented in evidence by the accused xxx.

8.4. The affiant, who an NBI agent, namely, xxx , did not personally testify before the Court
to affirm their subject Joint Affidavit, dated July 8, 2010, and he was not subjected to
cross examination by the two defense counsel, thus, the said exhibit is HEARSAY under
the Rules of Evidence and violates the constitutional right of confrontation/cross
examination of the two accused.

9. Re: Exhibit “I”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, and that the same are not supported by
the evidence on record.

9.1. To stress: Allegations in the Memorandum of Agreement, dated February 16, 2010, are
not evidence per se of threat and coercion. It is merely an evidence of a business
transaction.

9.2. There is no proof of harassment, threat and coercion extant in the said exhibit other than
the bare allegation of the affiant-private complainant. There is no proof that the private
complainant was forced to sign the MOA and to mortgage his car or that he was forced,
threatened and coerced by the accused xxx to pay the debt subject matter thereof. The MOA
with a Deed of Chattel Mortgage was a regular business loan transaction duly executed by
the parties, including the private complainant.

10. Re: Exhibits “J”, “K”, and “L”, with submarkings, of the Offer, which are Cash Vouchers
and Bank Deposit Slips, the accused xxx opez objects to the purposes for which they are
being offered, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the
 evidence on record, and that the purposes stated are irrelevant and immaterial to the
allegation of threat and coercion allegedly committed by the accused xxx

10.1. A voucher and a bank deposit slip are not proofs of threat, coercion, harassment,
and compulsion. They are merely proofs of payment by the debtor and proofs of
receipt of such payment by the creditor.

11. Re: Exhibits “M”, “O”, and “P”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of
purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not
supported by the evidence on record, and that the alleged threat and coercion are not shown
in and by said documents.

11.1. The author of Exh. “P” (NBI transmittal letter to the Chief Prosecutor of xxx City), i.e.,
NBI Dep. Dir. xxx was not presented in court to authenticate the said document and he
was not cross examined. He had no personal knowledge of the crimes charged in the
instant cases. He merely relied on the hearsay statement of NBI agent xxx as part of
his transmittal letter to the Chief Prosecutor of xxx City.

12. Re: Exhibit “Q”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purposes
of th Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes are self-
serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not supported by the
evidence on record, that the stated purposes are irrelevant and immaterial to the
nature and contents of the Certificate of Incorporation of the subject Corporation
issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and that the attached
document thereto, entitled “Extraction/Hustlings/Stockpiling/Hauling and Loading
Contract” is not part of the said exhibit and was not issued by the SEC and was not
marked as a submarkings of the said exhibit. It was merely inserted in the Offer for
unfair reasons.

13. Re: Exhibit “R” (Letter of Understanding), with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused
xxx objects to Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations
of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, that the same are
not supported by the evidence on record, and, most of all, that the said exhibit does not
prove the crimes of threat and coercion, and that the said exhibit is simply a proof of a
regular business transaction.

13.1. The said exhibit is PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that the original thereof
had been submitted to the court for the record. It is not the best evidence for the
purposes for which it is now being offered.

14. Re: Exhibit “S”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects to the Purpose of
said Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of purposes do not prove
the crimes of threats and coercion. It merely proves probable cause (a duty of the Office
of the Prosecutor to establish after a preliminary investigation).
14.1. Further, the said exhibit is PROVISIONAL only. There is no proof that the original
thereof had been submitted to the court for the record. It is not the best evidence for
the purposes for which it is now being offered.

15. Re: Exhibit “U”, ”V”, and “W”, with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx objects
to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations of
purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, that the same are not
supported by the evidence on record, and that the subject matters of the said documents
and contracts is extraneous, irrelevant and immaterial to the crimes of threat and
coercion charged in the instant cases.

16. Re: Exhibit “X” (judicial affidavit of xxx with submarkings, of the Offer, the accused xxx
objects to the Purposes of the Offer, for the reason that the said statements or allegations
of purposes are self-serving, that the same are mere conclusions of law, that the same are
not supported by the evidence on record, that the same does not prove beyond reasonable
doubt the crimes of threat and coercion charged in the instant cases, and that it does not
corroborate the testimony of the private complainant as allege din the Purpose Column.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed that the

foregoing comments/objections be considered by the Court in resolving the
prosecution’s “Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits”.

Las Pinas City, November 3, 2016.

Exhibit “2” should not be admitted for being irrelevant

Hotel and merely circumstantial. The mere fact of being
Security recorded as the only person entering the Suite Does Not
bit 2
Camera Sufficiently prove that Plaintiff was the one who took the
Footage jewelry as the exact time and circumstances of the loss
have not been conclusively established.
Plaintiff admits the same but with reservation as to its
Official genuineness and due execution and comments that the
Incident same is Merely Circumstantial And Insufficient to
Exhibit
Report From establish That Defendant did not publicly impute a crime
3
Hotel to Plaintiff and utter defamatory words against the latter
Security in front of the Bride’s wedding party in Suite 1051 on 10
October 2009.