Scribd
Upload
1K views

Motion For Reconsideration (Prosectuor)

1) The Motion argues that the National Bureau of Investigation's (NBI) own Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time based on Department of Justice guidelines. 2) It claims there is no probable cause to indict Respondent as the evidence relies solely on an alleged extrajudicial confession to one witness and lacks specifics about missing valuables or their value. 3) Respondent maintains his innocence and argues the witnesses' statements are inconsistent and unbelievable.

Uploaded by

Jay Ribs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

Motion For Reconsideration (Prosectuor)

1) The Motion argues that the National Bureau of Investigation's (NBI) own Motion for Reconsideration was filed out of time based on Department of Justice guidelines. 2) It claims there is no probable cause to indict Respondent as the evidence relies solely on an alleged extrajudicial confession to one witness and lacks specifics about missing valuables or their value. 3) Respondent maintains his innocence and argues the witnesses' statements are inconsistent and unbelievable.

Uploaded by

Jay Ribs
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City

Complainant,
For: Robbery with Homicide
-versus-

,
Respondent.
x--------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


(For Respondent)

Respondent, to this Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor,


respectfully avers that:

Timeliness of the Motion

On 21 September 2020, Respondent received a copy of the Resolution dated


25 May 2020 of the Honorable City Prosecutor reversing and setting aside
Resolution dated 18 October 2019 of the Honorable Assistant City
Prosecutor.

The DOJ National Prosecution Service Manual clearly states that:

“SEC. 56. Motion for reconsideration. - A motion for reconsideration


may be filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution. The motion
shall be verified, addressed to the Provincial/City Prosecutor or the Chief
State Prosecutor, and accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on
the opposing party and must state clearly and distinctly the grounds relied
upon in support of the motion. xxx”

Thus, Respondent has until 01 October 2020 to file his Motion for
Reconsideration.

1
The Unverified Motion for
Reconsideration of the National
Bureau of Investigation was filed
out of time.

The NBI received a copy of the Resolution dated 18 October 2019 on 09


December 2019. Their Motion for Reconsideration was dated 20 December
2019.

Clearly, the NBI could not have filed their Motion for Reconsideration
within the prescribed period under the Rules. Thus to reiterate the
pertinent provision of the DOJ National Prosecution Service Manual:

“SEC. 56. Motion for reconsideration. - A motion for


reconsideration may be filed within ten (10) days from receipt
of the resolution. The motion shall be verified, addressed to the
Provincial/City Prosecutor or the Chief State Prosecutor, and
accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the
opposing party and must state clearly and distinctly the
grounds relied upon in support of the motion. xxx”

An examination of the Motion even reveals that the same failed to show
that the same was verified by the Complainant himself, or any of his
principal witnesses. The Motion for Reconsideration was not even filed by
the Complainant himself but was filed by the NBI – which would clearly
show that the same was filed without the consent of the Private
Complainant, that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct based
on his own personal knowledge or based on authentic documents.

There is no probable cause to indict


Respondent.

Respondent was charged by the NBI through before the Office of the City
Prosecutor for Robbery with Homicide.

2
In their Letter Recommendation dated 10 July 2019, the NBI provided their
pieces of evidence for consideration of the Preliminary Investigation of the
alleged incident. Interestingly, the investigation simply relied on the
alleged extra-judicial confession of Respondent to Witness Aiezle M.
Bautista.

Other than the bare and unsubstantiated allegations of alleged missing


items, nowhere in the Sworn Statement of Private Complainant does it
appear that Respondent allegedly take any personal property or her
spouse, Chancelor Sy. Despite the lapse of almost twelve (12) years, Private
Complainant never even bothered to specify the particulars of these alleged
missing valuables.

In addition, the Complaint Sheet of the NBI attached as Annex “A” to the
Letter Recommendation would even show that Private Complainant was
simply alleging that was killed. Again, there is an absence of any allegation
pertaining to theft or robbery. Neither does it contain list/inventory of the
articles and items subject of the alleged robbery.

More importantly, nowhere in the records of this case can their be found
where the NBI or Private Complainant provide a statement of the
respective values of the alleged missing items.

To reiterate, Respondent never admitted or confessed that he stole


anything or even killedThe Sworn Statement of the witnesses of Private
Complainant are simply false, inconsistent and unbelievable. Respondent
humbly prays that the Honorable City Prosecutor to reconsider the case
considering that other than there is no concrete and direct evidence
implicating him to the alleged robbery and killing of. It may be well noted
that Respondent had already signified his willingness to be subjected to
polygraph examination and fingerprint test as early as June 2007.

Respondent maintains that he is simply indicted in this case due to his visit
to residence. Clearly, the NBI or Private Complainant failed to show the
Respondent’s actual and direct participation in the offense charged. There
is also no evidence to support the claim that the Respondent was present at
residence at the time of the incident.

3
In the instant case, not a single witness from his or her own personal
knowledge stated to prove any of the elements of the crime of robbery with
homicide. Verily, the determination of probable cause in a Preliminary
Investigation is satisfied where more likely than not a crime has been
committed and that it was committed by the accused. Thus the Supreme
Court held that:

“Probable cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances


which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any
offense included therein, has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested. In determining probable cause, the
average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting
to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has no
technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. A finding of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that
more likely than not a crime has been committed and that it
was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more
than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would
justify conviction.”1

In this case, the truthfulness and even the believability of the statements of
the witnesses were belied by Respondent’s clear and definitive sworn
statement supported by the sworn statement of his mother,.
Even assuming that indeed, Witness feared reprisal and abandonment, the
same would have been already absent when she left him, allegedly,
sometime on 2009.

In addition, NBI nor Private Complainant never even bothered to explain


why the other witnesses remained silent had they known any material
information or allegation relevant to the case. It may be noted that the
witnesses, through their own statements, knew the gravity of the alleged
crime prior to the alleged confession of Respondent to Witness.
Indeed, the only viable conclusion from the foregoing is that the evidence
of the NBI or Private Complainant is insufficient as to amount to probable
cause to indict Respondent.
1
ROBERTO B. KALALO vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ and
MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, G.R. No. 158189, April 23, 2010

4
PRAYER

WHEREFORE.

Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.

Quezon City; 28 September 2020.

VERIFICATION

I, , after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose


and state:

1. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the above Motion for


Reconsideration, the allegations in the pleading are true and correct based
on my own personal knowledge or based on authentic documents;

3. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay or


needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

4. The factual allegations herein have evidentiary support or, if


specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity of discovery;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28


September 2020 at Quezon City, Metro Manila.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 28 September 2020 at


Quezon City, Metro Manila.

5
Copy furnished:

You might also like