motion for judicial determination of probable cause re guimba case.pdf

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THIRD JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch ___, Guimba, Nueva Ecija

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 2613-G - versus - For: Kidnapping with Murder

SATURNINO OCAMPO, ET AL., Accused. x---------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

(WITH PRAYER TO DISMISS THE CASE OUTRIGHT)

Accused SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIO, LIZA L. MAZA and RAFAEL V. MARIANO, by undersigned counsels, most respectfully

move that this Honorable Court conduct a determination of probable cause

pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and in support thereof

state the following:

PREFATORY

The obvious involvement of political considerations in the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice and respondent prosecutors brings to mind an observation we made in another equally politically charged case. We reiterate what we stated then, if only to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of criminal prosecutions in general and preliminary investigations in particular, thus:

[W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may be publics perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.1

1 Consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 172070-72 (Vicente Ladlad, et al. vs. Senior

State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco, et al.), G.R. Nos. 172074-76 (Liza Maza, et al.

Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

1. The Supreme Court, in a recent case also involving herein accused has

made the foregoing strong admonition against public prosecutors.

2. It is unfortunate that despite the admonition, the panel of prosecutors who

conducted the preliminary investigation of the instant cases chose to defy

such clear warning by no less than the Supreme Court, as will be

discussed below.

In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the members of the Investigating Panel committed grave prosecutorial misconduct which deprived accused of their right to due process. ------------------------------------------------------

3. The preliminary investigation proceeding, like court proceedings, is subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process. 2

4. As an indispensable requirement of due process, the investigating prosecutors must possess the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

5. In the instant cases, however, accused-movants were denied due process when the panel of public prosecutors committed the following grave misconduct which also clearly showed that they did not possess the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

5.1. Despite failure to comply with the requirement under Rule 112, Section 3 (a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that the affidavits of the complainants and his witnesses shall be

vs. Raul M. Gonzalez, et al.) and G.R. No. 175013 (Crispin Beltran vs. People, et al.) promulgated on 1 June 2007. 2 Cruz vs. People, 237 SCRA 439, citing Cojuangco vs. PCGG, 190 SCRA 266

and as cited in page 48 of Alejandro Ramon C. Alanos Handbook on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest & Remedies


3

subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor x x x, the investigating prosecutors gave due course to the criminal complaints of the alleged widows, instead of dismissing them outright.

5.2. The Investigating Panel refused to grant clarificatory hearing despite the existence of important issues and matters to be clarified before a fair resolution of the complaints may be made.

5.2.1. While it is true that the conduct of clarificatory hearing is not mandatory, Rule 112, Section 3(e) directs that it be conducted when there are facts and issues that must be clarified before the prosecutors can resolve the cases.

5.2.2. Accused-movants repeatedly requested and insisted on the panel of investigating prosecutors the need to require the complainants and their witnesses to appear for confrontation with the accused-movants and for clarificatory questioning.

5.2.3. Accused-movants identified the following important issues and crucial facts that needed clarification:

a) Re the confession of Julie Flores Sinohin, the specific dates of the alleged meetings attended by the accused-movants.

It is well to note that the accused-movants were linked by Julie Sinohin to the three killings as the alleged masterminds who had allegedly ordered the liquidation of former CPP/NPA/NDFP members who were supporting AKBAYAN party-list.

Accused-movants pointed out that Julie Sinohin failed to specify the dates in which the alleged meetings were held and in this connection manifested their intention to pose clarificatory questions.


4

b) Re the submission of the investigation report of the Philippine National Police of Nueva Ecija on the deaths of Felipe, Peralta and Bayudang.

Accused-movants also pointed out that witnesses Alvaro L. Juliano, Cleotilde A. Peralta and Julie F. Sinohin executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay only in November 2006. The first two executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay on November 21, 2006 while Sinohin executed his the following day.

After comparing the accounts of the above three witnesses with those who gave their statements shortly after the alleged killings, accused-movants noted glaring contradictions which support a reasonable conclusion that there existed a pattern of suppressing evidence that were executed or prepared shortly after the killings and that the suppressed evidence were replaced by recent statements taken only in November 2006.

Given the above and considering that accused-movants were charged with non-bailable crime of two counts of murder, the investigating panel should have subpoenaed the complete result of the original police investigations on the killings.

c) The need to establish the identity of the complaining witnesses

This Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the fact that when the herein complaining witnesses filed a petition to disqualify accused-movants party-lists for last years electoral contest, the same witnesses appeared before the COMELEC with their faces covered with scarves. They refused to remove these scarves on the shallow pretext of personal security, thereby rendering questionable their real identities.

The panel of investigating public prosecutors should have dispelled doubts over the complainants identities by requiring them to


5

appear and making themselves available for questioning in the presence of the accused-movants.

As stated in accused-movants letter dated 14 January 2008 addressed to the panel of investigating prosecutors, what actually happened during the supposed preliminary investigation was a hide and seek type of proceedings whereby the complainants surreptitiously appeared before the public prosecutors without notice to the accused-movants.

A big question remains: Was the panel able to confirm the identity of the complaining witnesses?

d) There were material gaps, ambiguous and sweeping statements and serious inconsistencies in the affidavits of the Julie Sinohin and the complaining witnesses.

Accused-movants enumerated in their counter-affidavits and their subsequent pleadings and letters submitted to the panel the material gaps and inconsistencies in the claims of the newly-surfaced witnesses with those of the first-hand accounts of witnesses whose testimonies or statements were secured shortly after the killings.

e) Lastly, considering that accused-movants have sufficiently shown that the instant cases are part of the existing pattern to neutralize them, the panel of investigators could have addressed this by making the complainants available for questioning by the accused-movants.

In the same letter dated 14 January 2008, accused-movants insisted that a clarificatory hearing with the appearance of the complainants and their witnesses in an open public hearing was necessary considering that the complainants and their witnesses are under the custody and control of their military handlers. Prosecution witnesses Alvaro L. Juliano, Cleotilde A. Peralta and Julie F. Sinohin claimed to be rebel returnees who have


6

surrendered to and are likely to be under the custody or protection of the military.

A clarificatory hearing could have given the public prosecutors and the defense the opportunity to test the voluntariness and credibility of the complainants and their witnesses.

The panel of investigating prosecutors did not only refuse to consider the foregoing reasons for accused-movants request for clarificatory questioning, the panel even went to the extent of accusing accused-movants of delaying the proceedings.

5.3. The need for clarificatory hearing is even admitted by panel member Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eddie Gutierrez who wrote by hand his comment in the Joint Resolution3 dated 11 April 2008 that I concur with the conclusion but I would have been more than satisfied if the witnesses for the prosecution were present.

5.4. The panel readily dismissed accused-movants manifestation and request to allow them to submit a Memorandum.

5.4.1. Although the submission of a Memorandum is not required, Section 33 of the DOJ Manual for Prosecutors allows the filing of the same in cases involving difficult or complicated questions of law or fact.

5.4.2. Accused-movants have raised several questions of law, in particular the application of the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet embodied in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court and the political offense doctrine.

3 See page 11 of the Joint Resolution dated 11 April 2008 a copy of which is

hereto attached as Annex 1.


7

5.4.3. As also stated above, the alleged involvement of herein accused-movants involved complicated factual questions for which a Memorandum may be filed.

5.4.4. Unfortunately, the panel readily dismissed and even treated accused-movants request as dilatory tactic.

5.5. The adverse Joint Resolution contained very scant and token presentation and discussion of accused-movants evidence and defenses.

5.5.1. Way before the resolution of the instant cases, accused-movants have insisted that the actions of the panel of investigating prosecutors clearly revealed their feigned ignorance and lack of impartiality and obvious bias against accused-movants. And this is confirmed by the panels adverse Joint Resolution dated 11 April 2008 where accused-movants evidence were given very scant and token consideration and discussion.

5.5.2. Of the average 20 pages each of accused-movants counter-affidavits and a number of communications/pleadings submitted thereafter, the 11-page Joint Resolution devoted only four (4) short paragraphs that can fit in a mere half page the defenses, allegations and counter-allegations and defenses of herein accused-movants.

5.5.3. Worse, of the numerous defenses presented by the accused-movants and the major inconsistencies they have pointed out in the affidavits of the complainants and their witnesses, the panel only presented minor inconsistencies and left behind the major and crucial ones.

5.5.4. The Joint Resolution, as written, does not only insult the intelligence and logic of any average thinking person. It clearly betrays the panels lack of impartiality and prior


8

intent to find probable cause against herein accused-movants at all cost.

5.5.5. The Joint Resolution clearly shows that the panel did not at all consider the evidence and defenses presented by herein accused-movants. As such, the Joint Resolution is a nullity.

5.6. Despite express manifestation, the panel did not give the accused-movants the opportunity to avail of their right to file a Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to and within the period provided under Section 56 of the Manual for Prosecutors.

5.6.1. Foreseeing what was to come given the panels numerous transgressions, as early as November 2007, after accused-movants Motion to Conduct Clarificatory Hearing was denied by the panel, accused-movants requested that they be furnished a copy of an adverse resolution and manifested their intention to avail of their right to file a motion for reconsideration.

5.6.2. On 18 April 2008, accused-movants undersigned counsels learned for the first time that an adverse Joint Resolution had been issued by the panel and that corresponding Informations for murder (two counts) and kidnapping with murder have been filed before the Regional Trial Courts of Palayan City and of Guimba.

5.6.3. To date, accused-movants and their counsels are yet to receive a copy of the panels Joint Resolution.

5.6.4. Clearly, the panel never intended to give the accused-movants the opportunity to avail of their right to file a timely motion for reconsideration.

5.6.5. Accused-movants likewise learned that on the same day of 18 April 2008, elements of the Criminal Investigation and


9

Detection Group of the Philippine National Police were closely monitoring and awaiting the issuance of warrants of arrest against the accused-movants.

5.6.6. All these clearly show the prior intent to see to it that cases be filed against accused-movants and warrants be issued for their arrest.

6. All the foregoing show that accused-movants were denied their right to due process and that the panel of public prosecutors that conducted the investigation were biased against them.

7. The reason for the evident lack of impartiality of the panel of investigating prosecutors is totally exposed when we learned from a very reliable source that Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Antonio Ll. Lapus, Jr., who led the panel, is reportedly an applicant for RTC judgeship in Nueva Ecija. Hence, the inescapable conclusion that he may have succumbed to political pressure.

The instant cases are part of a vicious pattern of political persecution against accused-movants progressive party-list representatives. ------------------------------------------------------

8. As in these cases, accused-movants and their party-list organizations are

constantly being maligned and falsely accused as communist fronts by

top civilian and military leadership of the present dispensation.4

9. In these cases, all four accused-movants are being maliciously tagged as

CPP/NPA/NDFP members and their party-lists as purportedly front

4 Attached as Annex 2 is a photocopy of the news item: GMA aide wants CPP

fronts out of polls Party-list hopefuls aiding NPA, Gonzales charges, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 5, 2004; AFP wants militant groups out of politics, The Daily Tribune, January 17, 2007.


10

organizations of the CPP/NPA even as their party-lists are all duly

accredited and registered with the COMELEC.

10. At the outset, all these labeling is in itself an act of political persecution,

given the propensity of our government officials to vilify their critics by

resorting to such childish and anti-democratic tactics such as labeling

those who do not agree with their anti-people policies as communists or

leftists.

11. This complaint on three counts of murder has been concocted by police

and military operatives, obviously acting under central directive and

command. As in prior legal offensives against the respondents the game

plan is to neutralize the respondents politically, by filing and securing

warrants of arrest at all costs for the non-bailable offense of murder.

Fortunately, and as clearly demonstrated in their counter-affidavits, the

fabrication of evidence has been so crudely done that even on their faces,

the perjured statements have been exposed by the very weight of their inconsistencies, inherent incredibility and barefaced lies.

11.1. All the four affiants themselves are undoubtedly working as military/

police assets under the custody, direction and control of the AFP

and /or PNP. All claim to be former members of the

CPP/NPA/NDF. Sinohin and C. Peralta surrendered in 2006 and

2005, respectively, as per their affidavits, and Juliano claims he

was arrested in April 2003 by the Alpha Coy, 71st IB, Philippine

Army. Bayudang claims she and her deceased husband decided to

finally cut any ties with the NPAs in 1992, but claims to have

decided to reunite with the government way back in 1987.


11

11.2. Their affidavits, aside from appearing contrived, also contain

statements that are baseless and patently bereft of any logic. It

also contained statements based on mere hearsay. On the whole,

the allegations appear contrived, biased and reeked of prejudice against the four respondents who were all perceived to be

members of the New Peoples Army. For instance, and assuming

only for the sake of argument that the affiants statements are true,

the lengthy text seen in the karton allegedly found in the crime

scene as testified by the witness DIONISIO ROXAS is even

incredibly stated in toto in the affidavit of MEDELYN FELIPE.

11.3. All of these accounts are highly suspect and defies logic it even is

contrary to human experience for it is highly incredible for

individuals living totally different lives to recall exactly the same

thing -- verbatim -- what they read in a text that they came across

years ago.

11.4. The fact that Isabelita Bayudang testified that she saw Mabuhay

ang NPA written into the text of the carton allegedly found in the

crime scene is also blatantly revealing: it shows her utmost bias

against this organization, a bias that is translated into her

overzealousness to make false allegations just to destroy the reputation of those individuals whom she imagines are members of

the NPA.

11.5. The testimony presented against the four accused-movants, being

manifestly biased and malicious, aside from being false, highly

indicate a mechanism ensured to persecute the four.


12

12. The filing of the instant cases, however, is not the only attempt by the

government to prosecute and persecute accused-movants. The following

events/cases reveal a pattern of persecution consciously carried out by

the state and its security forces against the progressive party-list

representatives accused herein.

12.1. Since 2002, after BAYAN MUNA won the most number of votes in

its first participation in the partylist election in 2001, National

Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales already begun his campaign of

vilification against BAYAN MUNA, intimating he would seek ways to

have the partylists BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA and ANAKPAWIS

disqualified from further participating in elections.

12.2. Since the creation of the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) through Executive Order 493,5 accused-movants party-list

representatives, including Rep. Crispin Beltran, of BAYAN MUNA,

Anakpawis and Gabriela Women's Party, have been harassed with

cases of rebellion6 which have been ordered dismissed7 by the

Supreme Court as earlier stated.

12.3. Then came the filing of these murder cases (including another kidnapping with murder case8 filed in Guimba, Nueva Ecija).

5 Attached as Annex 3 is a copy of E.O. 493 creating IALAG.

6 A copy of the Information in the rebellion case filed against accused-movants in

the Makati Regional Trial Court is hereto attached as Annex 4. 7 A copy of the Supreme Court decision in the rebellion case dated 1 June 2007 is

hereto attached as Annex 5. 8 A copy of the kidnapping with murder case filed against the same accused-

movants is hereto attached as Annex 6.


13

12.4. After the filing of these cases in Nueva Ecija, the same complainants in said cases filed petitions for disqualification against

BAYAN MUNA, Anakpawis and Gabriela and herein accused-

movants, including Rep. Crispin Beltran, with the Commission on

Elections.

12.5. The complaints at the COMELEC were initially docketed as SPA

No. 07-015 and SPA 07-016, later redocketed as SPP No. 07-015

and SPP 07-016.9 The filing of the disqualification complaints was

even dramatized through the presentation to the media of the two

complainants with their faces covered, allegedly to prevent

retaliatory action against them by the adverse parties -- implying

the respondents.

12.6. Incidentally, the COMELEC in its Resolution10 promulgated on 1

June 2007 made a significant ruling that demolishes the credibility

and weight of the affidavits of Isabelita Bayudang, Medelyn Felipe

and their witnesses, who are also the same witnesses in these

cases for murder. Said COMELEC Resolution, which by the way

set out in toto the verified complaint and/or petition filed therein by

Isabelita Bayudang (noticeably, said verified complaint and/or petition contains identical statements contained in Bayudangs

Sinumpaang Salaysay, so identical that the Sinumpaang Salaysay

and the verified complaint and/or petition seem culled from one and

the same document), ruled that after a careful scrutiny of the

9 Copies of the complaints for disqualification filed at the COMELEC are hereto

attached as Annexes 7 and 7-A. 10

A copy of the COMELEC Resolution dismissing the complaints for disqualification is hereto attached as Annex 7-B.


14

records of this case, x x (there is) no sufficient and convincing evidence to support the petitions and the allegations

contained therein. (page 12 of the Resolution) (Emphasis supplied.)

13. Indeed, if there is one thing that is clear in these charges, it is that the four

accused-movants are victims of malicious political persecution, perjury and incriminatory machination. There can be no doubt that these charges

are just one of the numerous trumped-up cases being hurled against them, all highly politically motivated, and all being repugnant to the

democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. This constitutes

political harassment in the guise of legal/judicial action.

14. It is well that we be reminded of the Supreme Court ruling in Allado vs.

Diokno (232 SCRA 192) which held: The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect

itself and its people from vicious acts which endanger the proper administration of justice; hence, the State has every right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is essential for its self-preservation, nay, its very existence. But this does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for government agents to defy and disregard the rights of its citizens under the Constitution. (Underscoring is ours)

The evidence submitted by the prosecution are insufficient to establish probable cause against accused-movants for the alleged killing of Danilo Felipe.. ------------------------------------------------------

15. An analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution against each

accused-movant for the charge of kidnapping with murder of Danilo Felipe

reveals the following:


15

Evidence Against Accused-Movant Liza Maza

16. Aside from her categorical denial and the impossibility of her having participated in the alleged killings, accused-movant Maza pointed out the following inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainants and their witnesses:

1) Julie Sinohin stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that they boarded Danilo Felipe on the kuliglig and brought him to Barangay Maeling,

Nampicuan where they killed him. This is in stark contrast to the

accounts of Reynaldo A. Centro and Danilo T. Centro, the victims

companions the night he was abducted, when they stated in their

Salaysay (Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay together with the Barangay Captain Rodrigo A. Toribio and the Karagdagang Sinumpaang

Salaysay of Danilo T. Centro) that the armed men, after abducting Danilo Felipe, allowed the rest of them to leave on board the hand tractor, which

suggest that the armed men did not take the hand tractor and that the

armed men who took Danilo Felipe could not have boarded him in the

hand tractor.

Julie Sinohin is belied and Danilo Felipes companions contradictory account is deemed corroborated by the following witnesses and/or strengthened by the following facts:

a) Danilo Felipes widow - when she stated the same thing (as imparted to her by Reynaldo Centro) in her own Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November 22, 2006;

b) Barangay Captain Rodrigo A. Toribio to whom Danilo Felipes companion first reported the incident and who also signed in the


16

Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay where the fact that the

companions were allowed to go home on board the hand tractor.

c) In the police and other reports, there was no mention whatsoever of any hand tractor that was recovered/found or sighted in Barangay

Maeling, Nampicuan where Julie Sinohin claimed the victim was

brought on board the said tractor.

2) Julie Sinohin stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that his companion, Ka Ra, placed ONE (1) placard on the body of Danilo Felipe which placard contained the names of the persons they will kill next. This is

belied by the sworn statement of other witnesses as well as official

reports of the abduction and the killing, as follows:

a) Salaysay of Dionisio R. Roxas, the first person who found the lifeless body of Danilo Felipe, given before SPO1 Onofre S. Ferrer

of Nampicuan Police where he stated that he found TWO (2) cartons;

b) Certification issued by Nampicuan Police Station dated November 13, 2006 stated that TWO (2) and not one cardboard was found.

c) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Medelyn Felipe where she stated that she learned that two (2) placards were found on her husbands dead body.


17

3) Of the group that Sinohin allegedly organized for the purpose of liquidating Danilo Felipe, he could only name two (2) Ka Ra and Ka Mylene. The rest, without naming how of many of them, he only

claimed to know but whose name he could not remember. This is

highly incredible especially so that the alleged mission was to kill a

person. Surely, Sinohin, being the organizer, did not just pick anybody from thin air; natural course of event was for him to have chosen those he

trusted or, at the very least, those he could have known for some time.

Note also that the other witnesses stated that they see more or less seven

(7) or eight (8) armed men who abducted Danilo Felipe.

17. Lastly, the complainant and her witnesses failed to attribute a credible

motive on all the accuseds alleged participation in the killings. And while it

is true that motive is not an element in the crime of murder, it becomes

material when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is

some doubt on whether the crime was committed or whether the accused

has committed it11. In the instant cases, there is certainly more than just some doubt on all the accuseds participation or guilt.

18. Accused-movant Maza maintains that BAYAN MUNA, ANAKPAWIS and

GWP have strong constituencies nationwide and whatever influence

Akbayan or the three alleged victims will have in a few barangays or towns

in Nueva Ecija will have no or very little effect on the electoral strength of their party-list organizations.

19. It is to be noted that all three victims were residents of the town of

Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. As per latest (January 25, 2007) COMELEC

11 People vs. Galano, 327 SCRA 462.


18

data, Bongabon has 28 barangays with total registered voters of only

Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three (32,193). Surely, this number of voters could not have any significant effect to the national or

overall election of BAYAN MUNA, ANAKPAWIS and GABRIELA

WOMENS PARTY.

20. While the widows of Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe admitted that

they are supporters and/or leaders of AKBAYAN, such fact does not seem

to be the highlight of their personalities. All three (3) intended victims are members of the dreaded Red Vigilante Grour (RVG), who figured in a deadly conflict with another group led by one DOMINGO DELA CRUZ on

account of the formers involvement in the forcible take-over of the 150-

hectare Vijandre land discussed above. It is therefore more credible to consider that Felipe and Bayudang were killed because of their connection

with the RVG, hence, one of the placards found on Felipes body read:

Tao ng RVG followed by enumeration of the people who were to be

killed next. Jimmy Peralta, on the other hand, appears to have been a real

victim of a hit-and-run.

21. In fact, Ricardo Peralta (who was the alleged intended target when his brother was allegedly killed) was the suspected leader of the RVG and who prior to his arrest in October 2004 was considered as RPs Public

Enemy No. 1 and commanded a bounty of P1.2M on his head. Upon his

arrest, he was even presented by the Philippine National Police to

President Macapagal-Arroyo. Newspaper reports also described the RVG

as engaged in gun-for-hire and high profile kidnap for ransom activities

operating in Nueva Ecija. Certainly, then, even AKBAYAN would not have been proud to have them as members.


19

Evidence Against Accused-Movant Teodoro Casio

(1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Medelyn Felipe

22. There is no mention of accused-movant Casio or Bayan Muna in her

Sinumpaang Salaysay. Neither is there any allegation that it was

accused-movant Casio or any Bayan Muna leader that ordered the killing

of her husband.

(2) Affidavit of Julie Sinohin 23. At the outset, Sinohin is a self-confessed triggerman and should be

accused as a principal in the murders of Peralta and Bayudang. His

testimony is self-serving and meant to lessen or absolve himself from his

criminal liability. As repeatedly stated by accused-movant Casio, he has

never been in any of the meetings alleged by the witnesses for the

complainant. More importantly, there is no reason for him or his party-list

to order the killing of Akbayan supporters in Central Luzon or in any part of

the country. In the 2001 elections, Akbayan was never a threat to Bayan

Muna which garnered 1.7 million votes, the highest number of votes in the

party-list elections. Then again, Bayan Muna topped the 2004 elections,

obtaining 1.2. million votes.

24. Again, there was no such meeting on August 2000, much less an order to

kill from accused-movant Casio or his fellow accused-movants. Even in

Sinohins account of the alleged two meetings, the alleged order to kill

Akbayan supporters did not mention any specific name. Thus, whatever

plan Sinohin and his co-conspirators had cooked up, including their


20

alleged hit list, is purely their initiative and cannot be attributed to accused-

movant Casio or his fellow accused-movants.

25. At no time had accused-movant Casio any motive to kill Peralta and

Bayudang. He does not know them, much less their activities.

26. Sinohin details his participation in the murders but his account is

inconsistent with the attached police reports and other evidence.His

allegation that he and his cohorts yanked Danilo Felipe on the kuliglig

and brought him to Brgy. Maeling, Nampicuan where they killed him is

inconsistent with the accounts of Reynaldo A. Centro and Danilo T.

Centro. The latter, who were with the victim on the night of his abduction,

said in their Pinagsamang Salaysay that the armed men, after snatching

Danilo Felipe, allowed them to leave on board the tractor.

27. In fact, Julie Sinohins story conflicts with that of the other witnesses,

namely, Medelyn Felipe (the victims widow), Brgy. Captain Rodrigo A. Toribio and with the police and other reports. Obviously, Julie Sinohins

affidavit is perjured.

28. Another hallmark of perjury in Sinohins affidavit is his allegation that his companion, Ka Ra, placed ONE (1) placard on the body of Danilo Felipe, on which placard was written a hit list. On the other hand, Dionisio R.

Roxas Salaysay as well as Medelyn Felipes and the Certification issued

by the Nampicuan Police Station dated 13 November 2006 all stated that

TWO (2) placards were found.


21

29. In addition, it is rather strange for Sinohin to have selective memory and

recall only two of those he had organized for the purpose of liquidating

Danilo Felipe. Common sense dictates that as an organizer, Sinohin

would have chosen those he knew or whom he trusted to carry out the

alleged order to kill. Hence, for him not to remember the names of the

alleged liquidation group is simply absurd.

30. Another inconsistency in Sinohins story is his statement that the white car

they allegedly used in killing Jimmy Peralta, who was mistaken as Ricardo

Peralta, was going in the same direction as the motorcycle being driven by

the victim (Jimmy Peralta). This is contrary to the spot report prepared by one AC Binuya on 24 December 2004. Said report states that Jimmy

Peralta hit a certain Marlon Banicod with his motorcycle which caused the

former to fall down and was accidentally run over by a speeding vehicle

coming from the opposite direction, not from the same direction as Julie

Sinohin claimed.

31. Worthy of note is the fact that while Sinohins Sinumpaang Salaysay lists

Ricardo Peralta, Danilo Felipe, Carlito Bayudang, Francisco Peralta, a

certain Ka Ben and one Ka Ricky who had been ordered killed by the

CPP/NPA pursuant to an order herein accused-movants allegedly handed

down during the alleged meeting, the placard on the other hand, which

was recovered on the cadaver of Felipe listed the following names: Danilo

Felipe with an X mark; Lito Bayudang, killed on 6 May 2004, Ric Peralta;

Fred Sadoy; Eduardo Balay; Hernan Ocampo; and Arjee Esquero.

(3) Affidavit of Cleotilde Peralta


22

32. Accused-movant Casio does not know anyone named Cleotilde Peralta

@ Joy. She claimed that she was the @ Joy whose house in Barangay

Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija was used by and others in the above-mentioned meetings; that in 1986 she personally knew accused-movant

Casio through her task of coordinating with CPPs legal front

organizations; that after 1987, she met accused-movant Casio, Father

Balweg and other CPP/NPA leaders on various meetings; that she saw

accused-movant Casio in the alleged meeting held at her house in

August 2000 and that she served food during the meeting; that there was

another big meeting at her house in the last quarter of 2003, which

meeting was again attended by CPP/NPA/NDFP high-ranking leaders and

leaders of BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA and ANAKPAWIS, including

accused-movant Casio and his co-accused-movants; that in 2004 she

lied low in the Kilusan and went abroad but later came back and thats

when she heard that the alleged order to liquidate Carlito Bayudang was

carried out.

33. This is an outright lie. Accused-movant Casio has never been to the

house of Cleotilde Peralta or to any house in Brgy. Tugatog, Bongabon,

Nueva Ecija. Neither could he be attending meetings therein, much less give orders to kill people whose deaths would not have any interest to him.

Affiants conclusion that the killings were done at the instance of accused-

movants is absolutely hearsay. She never stated she actually heard

accused-movants giving orders to allegedly liquidate Peralta or Bayudang.

Having admitted to surrendering to the AFP in 2005, her testimony is

expectedly full of bias and therefore self-serving and cannot be taken

seriously.


23

(4) Affidavit of Alvaro Juliano 35. He said that he was designated as one of the security leaders in a

meeting held at @ Joys house in August 2000 in Barangay Tugatog,

Bongabon, Nueva Ecija where he allegedly recognized accused-movant as one of the attendees and where he and his co-accused-movants had

ordered the liquidation of the former kasamas who have shifted their

support to AKBAYAN.

36. His statement is an outright fabrication. To reiterate, accused-movant

Casio has never been to the house of Cleotilde Peralta or to any house

in Brgy. Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Neither could he be attending meetings therein, much less give orders to kill people whose deaths would

not have any interest to him. Having admitted to be a rebel returnee in

April 2003, affiant is most likely under the custody of the military. Thus,

his testimony is self-serving and lacks credibility.

Evidence Against Accused-Movant Saturnino Ocampo

37. A reading of the affidavits that directly implicate Saturnino Ocampo as

well as Representatives Liza L. Maza, Teodoro A. Casio and Rafael V.

Mariano reveal that they are executed and sworn to by four affiants who

claim to be former members of the CPP/NPA/NDF, namely, Julie Flores

Sinohin, Cleotilde Aguilar Peralta, Alvaro Juliano y Laureano and Isabelita

Bayudang. All the four affiants executed their extra-judicial confessions before their military/ police handlers and all are now undoubtedly working

as military/ police assets under the custody, direction and control of the

AFP and /or PNP. To mention again, Sinohin and C. Peralta surrendered

in 2006 and 2005, respectively, as per their affidavits, and Juliano claims


24

he was arrested in April 2003 by the Alpha Coy, 71st IB, Philippine Army.

Bayudang claims she and her deceased husband decided to finally cut

any ties with the NPAs in 1992, but claims to have decided to reunite with

the government way back in 1987.

38. These affidavits, aside from appearing contrived, biased and concocted,

even contain numerous inconsistencies and statements that are baseless,

or based on mere hearsay, and bereft of any logic. Indeed, these are

obviously false and manufactured statements that do not deserve to be

accorded any credibility. For instance, Sinohin stated:

21. Noong ika-23 ng buwan ng Disyembre taong 2001, ay namatyagan naming si RICARDO PERALTA sa Bongabon, Nueva Ecija na sakay sa kanyang motorsiklo. Gamit ang puting kotse na minaneho ni Ka MIG ay sinundan naming ang motorsiklo ni RICARDO PERALTA. Kasama naming sa loob ng nasabing puting kotse ang isa pang kasama na hindi ko na natandaan ang pangalan subalit makikilala ko siya kung makikita ko muli.

39. Assuming only for the sake of argument that Sinohin is not lying, it defies

logic and reason that Sinohin in his statement was able to recall as many

as twenty-two names (22) from different occasions dating as far back as 1999 -- most of these occasions allegedly attended by numerous people

where ones ability of recollection could be expected to be hampered-- but

he could not even remember his one companion in the car they rode on

the night of the fateful incident, considering that there were only three of

them inside the car.

40. Sinohin likewise stated:


25

21. x x x Noong gabi ng araw na iyon ay naabutan naming ang motor ni RICARDO PERALTA sa National Highway sa Barangay Sinipit, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Habang tumatakbo ang nasabing motorsiklo ay binangga naming ito sa likuran. Nakita ko na tumilapon ang sakay nito sa kalsada at ng bumagsak siya ay sinagasaan naman ng kotse sa sinasakyan namin.

41. The statement reeks of so many inconsistencies that it is just incredible. For one, while Sinohin stated that their white car was going in the same

direction as the motorcycle being driven by the victim, the polices Spot

Report prepared by one AC Binuya on December 24, 2004 based on first

hand accounts of witnesses show that Jimmy Peralta hit a certain Marlon

Banicod with his motorcycle which caused Jimmy Peralta to lose control

and fall down, and while Jimmy lay fallen, a speeding vehicle coming from

the opposite direction accidentally ran him over.

42. Sinohin also stated that:

26. x x x Minaneho ni KA NASA ang motorsiklo at kami naman ni KA APPLE ay naglakad at sumunod sa motor ni AKA (sic) NASA patungo sa bahay ni CARLITO BAYUDANG. Nang makarating kami ay dali-dali kami ni KA APPLE na pumasok sa bahay ni CARLITO BAYUDANG at inabutan naming siya na nakaupo at may ka-kuwentuhan na dalawang tao sa salas ng kanilang bahay. Agad kong binaril ng tatlong beses si CARLITO BAYUDANG ng dala kong .45 na pistola. Narinig ko na pumutok din ng dalawang beses si KA APPLE na noon ay nasa tabi ko. Nang matiyak naming patay na si CARLITO BAYUDANG ay agad na sumigaw ako na mga NPA kami at saka mabilis kaming sumakay sa motor na dala ni KA NASA at lumayo kami sa nasabing lugar.

43. This is inconsistent with the affidavit of one witness, Angel Ayson, who, in

his sworn statement revealed that he saw only two men board the black

motorcycle and sped away from Carlitos house after the gunshots were

heard. Angel Ayson likewise specifically mentioned that he heard a man


26

standing by the motorcycle outside Carlitos house shout: tayo na KA

RON may dumarating, That was all. A review of Sinohins statement

reveals that he used the code: Ka RB, Ka Sam, Ka Ramil, at Ka

Berting. In this narrative, assuming it were true, nowhere did he mention

the name Ka Ron. The credibility of Sinohins statement is put into

question, for if Sinohin maliciously and deliberately stated one falsity in

one or two details, this is a tell-tale sign that the rest of his affidavit is

unreliable and unworthy of credit.

44. Sinohins statement (No. 19) in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that they boarded the victim Danilo Felipe on the hand tractor and brought him to

Barangay Maeling, Nampicuan where they allegedly killed him is likewise

inconsistent with the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay together with

Barangay Captain Rodrigo A. Toribio and the Karagdagang Sinumpaang

Salaysay of Danilo T. Centro wherein it was stated that the armed men,

after allegedly abducting Danilo Felipe, allowed the rest of them to leave

unharmed and he, Centro and his companions, did leave on board the

hand tractor.

45. Even Isabelita Bayudangs affidavit on the alleged murder of Danilo Felipe

gives away a crucial yet telling inconsistency, a detail that shows the

motive why she filed this charges against people she imagines to be

connected with the NPA. In her statement, Isabelita states:

16. Noong Pebrero 17, 2001 ay dinukot ng mga pinaghihinlang (sic) miyembro ng NPA si DANILO FELIPE at noong Pebrero 20, 2001 ay natagpuan ang kanyang bangay (sic) sa Narvacan 1, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Nakasabit sa bangay (sic) ni Danilo ang isang papel na may nakasulat na Mabuhay ang NPA at nakasulat din ang listahan ng mga taong susunod na itutumba ng NPA at isa doon ay ang pangalan ng asawa ko .


27

46. The inconsistency lies in the account of witnesses DIONISIO ROXAS, in

the affidavit of MEDELYN FELIPE and the report of P/Senior Inspector

Palomo. Assuming they were true, all of these accounts, except Isabelita

Bayudangs, alleged that two cartons were found beside the body of

Danilo Felipe.

47. Likewise, assuming for the sake of argument that they are true, in all of

these accounts, nobody alleged that they saw Mabuhay ang NPA in the

text written on the cartons. The account of witnesses DIONISIO ROXAS

alleges a different text, a text that is even incredibly stated in toto in the

affidavit of MEDELYN FELIPE and the report of PSenior Inspector

Palomo.

48. The fact that Isabelita Bayudang alone testified that she saw Mabuhay

ang NPA written into the text of the carton allegedly found in the crime

scene is also blatantly revealing: it shows her utmost bias against this

organization, a bias that is translated into her overzealousness to make

false allegations just to destroy the reputation of those individuals whom she imagines are members of the NPA. Her testimony, being manifestly

biased and malicious, aside from being false, does not deserve to be

accorded any credibility.

49. All the allegations reeked of ill-motives against persons whom the four

perceive to be NPAs, and do not deserve to be given any credence at all.

50. Noteworthy that the statements of the complainants Isabelita Bayudang,

Medelyn Felipe, and Mayumi Peralta did not mention Saturnino Ocampos


28

name or that his co-respondents as perpetrators of the offense being

charged; nor did they mention any act committed by the four accused for

them to be charged with murder. On the other hand, a close scrutiny of

the allegations in the sworn statements of complainants witnesses will

readily show signs that they were synchronized, coached, directed and

sourced, albeit crudely, from the same minds.

51. The most notable element in the separate statements of Sinohin, C.

Peralta and Juliano is their uniform allegation that accused Ocampo,

Maza, Casio and Mariano attended an alleged meeting of the top

leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDF in Central Luzon and leaders of BAYAN

MUNA and BAYAN on an unspecified date in August 2006 in the house

of Peralta (@Joy) in Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.

52. Sinohin and Juliano claim they were assigned as security officers at the

alleged meeting (pagpupulong), while C.Peralta claims to have served food to the participants, under which circumstances the trio explain how

they came to know of the contents of the long discussions. Thus, they

uniformly state almost verbatimly in their separate sworn statements the

following:

Isa sa mga natalakay ay ang pagsali ng BAYAN MUNA sa halalan noon taong 2001 at ang epekto sa pagsuporta ng mga dating kasamahan sa kalaban na party-list organization ng AKBAYAN. Pinag-usapan nila ang magiging epekto ng pagbaligtad at pagsuporta ng mga dating kasama sa kalaban na party-list organization na AKBAYAN at matapos ang mahabang talakayan ay ini-utos nina Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Teddy Casio at Rafael Mariano sa mga lider ng CPP/NPA ng Central Luzon na agad likidahin ang sinumang dating kasamahan na susuporta sa AKBAYAN at magiging sagabal sa ikapapanalo ng BAYAN MUNA. Narinig ko na minungkahi ni Liza Maza ang paggamit sa mga miyembro ng Gabriela sa paniniktik sa mga dating kasama na sumusuporta sa AKBAYAN.


29

53. The above-quoted statement is found in the affidavits of C.Peralta (No.19) and Juliano (No. 17). The only variance in the affidavit of Sinohin (No. 13), from the other two are the word sinuri (ang magiging epekto) in lieu of the phrase pinag-usapan nila common to the C.Peralta and Juliano

affidavits, and matapos ang palitan ng kuro-kuro in lieu of matapos ng

mahabang talakayan in the Peralta and Juliano affidavits.

54. The falsity of this uniform statement is obvious:

54.1. It is inherently incredible that all three affiants were present in the

room where the alleged meeting took place ALL throughout the

discussions, as to listen in and intellectually ingest the long

discussions while Sinohin and Juliano stood as security and

C.Peralta served food to the participants. It is also incredible to

assign security people in the room where the alleged meeting took

place instead of outside the house to better secure the venue of the

meeting against strangers and intruders.

54.2. Furthermore, granting there was such a meeting, it was

inconceivable for the leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDF in Central

Luzon and the leaders of BAYAN MUNA and BAYAN to have

assigned security details inside the meeting room if the topic of

discussion was as sensitive as the affiants allege. Likewise, it was

inconceivable for C. Peralta - even if she owned the house-to have

been allowed to stay in the meeting room when her acknowledged

task was simply to serve food to the participants.

54.3. It likewise strains credibility to take as factually correct that all the

four accused -- Ocampo, Maza, Casio, Mariano - could have

ordered the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to


30

immediately liquidate any former comrade who supported

AKBAYAN and hindered the victory of BAYAN MUNA in the 2001

partylist election. This allegation raises the following questions:

55. By what authority could Ocampo, Maza, Casio and Mariano have

ordered the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to undertake the

alleged liquidation?

56. How did the four issue the alleged order-all together, or one after the other

speaking at the alleged meeting?

57. Who presided over the alleged meeting? Is there any proof that the four

representatives or anyone of them was a member or leader of the CPP/

NPA/ NDF? All three affiants are silent on these questions.

58. Given the fact that the party-list election was held nationwide, why should

BAYAN MUNA be concerned that the activities of a few supposed former

comrades supporting AKBAYAN in a few towns or barangays in Nueva

Ecija can hinder (magiging sagabal) the party's victory in the 2001 partylist election?

59. As earlier stated, the COMELEC records of the 2001 partylist election

show that BAYAN MUNA garnered One Million Seven Hundred Thousand

(1.7M) votes, as against AKBAYAN'S 357,274.

60. Surely, AKBAYAN was no threat to BAYAN MUNA's victory. Clearly, the

motive attributed to the four respondents for allegedly ordering the

liquidation of the supporters of AKBAYAN in Nueva Ecija is baseless. It is a malicious imputation of ruthlessness which is sought to be backed-up by


31

alluding to an imagined meeting in August 2000, using the perjured testimonies of persons who are police/ military assets under effective

military custody and control.

61. It bears repeating that all the four affiants claim to be former members of

the CPP/NPA/NDF and all are now police/ military assets under the

custody and control of the AFP and/or PNP. Sinohin and C. Peralta

surrendered in 2006 and 2005, respectively as per their affidavits, and

Juliano claims he was arrested in April 2003 by the Alpha Coy, 71st IB,

Philippine Army. Bayudang claims she and her deceased husband

decided to finally cut any ties with the NPAs in 1992, but claims to have

decided to reunite with the government way back in 1987. Hence, their

testimonies and/or extrajudicial admissions all lack credibility for being biased and patently fabricated. Having themselves admitted that they left

the movement with resentments and ill-feelings boiling in their hearts, it is

but inevitable and almost natural to expect that their statements would be

full of biased and false allegations that reek of motives to demonize, vilify,

and demolish the reputation of the movement that they deserted, including

the reputation and the lives of the people whom they imagine to be

members or sympathizers of the CPP/ NPA/ NDF.

Evidence Against Accused-Movant Rafael Mariano

62. Prosecution witness Julie Sinohin Flores volunteered accused-movant

Rafael Marianos alleged participation on the supposed murders of the

above-named persons. Julie Sinohin confesses that he was the one who

directly committed and executed the dastardly acts. He executed his

affidavit before Police Superintendent Ferdinand Vero, the administering


32

officer thereof on 22 November 2002. Alvaro Juliano y Laureano and

Cleotilde Aguilar Peralta, who both executed their affidavits on 21

November 2006 also before Police Superintendent Vero, supposedly

corroborate the sworn statement of Sinohin.

The Affidavit of Julie Flores Sinohin:

63. According to Sinohins web of lies, in August 2000, accused Rafael

Mariano, together with his co-accused-movants Reps. Satur Ocampo, Liza

Maza and Teodoro Casio attended a meeting of the leaders of the CPP-

NPA-NDF in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Allegedly, during the said meeting, the said accused ordered the liquidation or

summary execution of former members of CPP/NPA who supported

Akbayan and who would derail the victory of Bayan Muna. Further,

Sinohin said that in December 2000 a certain @ Sendong summoned him

and he received an order to liquidate Ricardo Peralta, Carlito Bayudang,

and Danilo Felipe which the herein accused allegedly issued. Thus,

according to Sinohin, a Special Operations Group (SOG) composed of the Intel Group and Liquidation Group were formed on the same date to

implement the order that the herein accused have supposedly issued.

Sinohin was allegedly tasked as the head of the Liquidation Group.

64. The testimony of this perjured witness Julie Sinohin is totally different from the official reports of the Philippine National Police as to the death of

Ricardo Peralta. While prosecution witness Julie Sinohin is claiming that

he intentionally bumped the motorcycle of Ricardo Peralta, to quote:

21. x x x Noong gabi ng araw na iyon ay naabutan namin ang motor ni RICARDO PERALTA sa National Highway sa


33

Barangay Sinipit, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Habang Tumatakbo ang nasabing motorsiklo ay binangga namin ito sa likuran. Nakita ko na tumilapon ang sakay nito sa kalsada at ng bumagsak siya ay sinagasaan naman ng kotse na sinasakyan namin. Subalit sa hindi inaasahang pangyayari, ang napatay pala namin ay ang kapatid ni RICARDO na si JIMMY PERALTA.

65. The official reports proved otherwise. The official report dated September

18, 2004 of the Chief of Police of Bangabon, Nueva Ecija, to the PNP Provincial Director of Nueva Ecija, which was attached to the complaint, says otherwise, to quote:

2. Initial investigation reveals that the herein victim was then on board on his motorcycle when a pedestrian accidentally bumped from behind causing to lost (sic) control and subsequently hit by a rushing vehicle from opposite direction upon falling down, thereby said victim was fatally hit on the spot.

66. Moreover, the Police Report dated December 24, 2004 signed by PC/Insp.

Aquino, which was likewise attached to the complaint as an annex,

declared that while the victim, Jimmy Peralta was driving his motorcycle, it

hit a certain Marilou Basnicod. The report states that the death of Jimmy

Peralta was also due to an accident, to quote:

x x x hit a certain Marilou Basnicod of Brgy. Palomaria causing to fall down the said motorcycle as well as Jimmy Peralta thereby accidentally run over by a speeding vehicle coming from the opposite direction. (emphasis supplied)

67. On the other hand, Isabelita Bayudang ADMITTED during the

investigation that the reason for the killing of her husband was connected

with the land dispute in their locality. In fact, during the investigation, she

readily pinpointed to Domingo de la Cruz as the Mastermind. She testified

also that the group of Carlito Bayudang (her husband) received death threats from another group of farmers identified with the owner of the land,


34

the Vijandro family. Both Isabelita Bayudang and her deceased husband were members of the dreaded Red Vigilante Group (RVG). Those who were allegedly killed for being Akbayan supporters were actually members

of the Red Vigilante Group (RVG). Please refer to the PNP Provincial NEPPO report dated May 19, 2005, that P/CInsp. Whelmer Carillo signed,

which was attached to the record of the case.

68. In sum, the testimony of Sinohin is perjured and not worthy of trust. In addition, the supposed participation of the party-list representatives,

accused-movant Mariano among them, to the supposed murders is based

on purely on hearsay as discussed below.

The Affidavits of Alvaro Juliano y Laureano and Cleotilde Aguilar Peralta.

69. The affidavits of the above-named persons provide nothing on accused-

movant Marianos supposed participation on the alleged murder of Jimmy

Peralta, Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe. They merely state his

alleged membership with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New Peoples Army (NPA). However, mere membership in the said organization is not considered a crime after the repeal of the Anti-

Subversion Law. He does not admit, however, that he was ever a member

of the CPP-NPA.

Accused-movant Marianos Supposed Participation To The Murder Of The Victims Is Based On Hearsay Evidence.

70. According to Julie Sinohin, several months after the supposed meeting, he

received an order from @ Sendong to kill Ricardo Peralta, Carlito

Bayudang and Danilo Felipe. He alleges that the accused party-list


35

representatives were the ones who allegedly gave the said order to @

Sendong. This only shows that Julie Sinohin based his conclusion that

the accused party-list representatives ordered the killing of the said

persons based on the information that @ Sendong relayed to him.

Clearly, it is hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.

71. This likewise shows that the witness has not personally and directly

received any order from accused-movant Mariano to supposedly kill the

said persons. If at all, the State should prosecute @ Sendong and Julie

Sinohin not the accused herein. @ Sendong is the principal by

inducement while Sinohin is the principal by direct participation.

72. Upon scrutiny, it is respectfully submitted, that the pieces of evidence that

the prosecution submitted conflict and contradict each other, and have not

met the mandated standard. The pieces of evidence presented falls on

their own weight as they have not shown that the herein accused were

ever aware of and consented to any criminal act or violation of the law.

73. The prosecutions reliance on the perjured testimony of Julie Sinohin must come to naught. His testimony is nothing but an admission of his having a

criminal mind and character, as shown in his Sinumpaang Salaysay

confessing to the heinous crimes he committed against the husbands of

the private complainants.

74. It is so perplexing that despite his admissions and confessions to the said

killings, the authorities just kept their eyes blind and never indicted Julie Sinohin as the principal accused for multiple murders, as he is the most

guilty of the crimes committed. The military and/or police handlers


36

designed Julie Sinohins testimony, who have openly campaigned against

the progressive party-lists of herein accused. This fact is very much clear

in his Sinumpaang Salaysay which was administered before P/Supt.

Ferdinand M. Vero, and that men from the military/PNP witnessed.

The documents attached on record are nothing but hearsay, irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. They would not establish the complicity of the accused party-list representatives to the death of the supposed victims.

75. Most, if not all, of the voluminous documents that the prosecution

submitted are printed materials which are irrelevant and immaterial,

hearsay, spurious, unauthenticated and inadmissible in evidence that

either belong to the anti-insurgency section of the military archive or long

consigned to the PNP/AFP shredding machine.

The findings of probable cause by the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija against the respondents are based on inadmissible evidence in violation of the res inter alios acta rule. ------------------------------------------------------

76. Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which enshrines in the

Philippine jurisdiction the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri nocere debet ordains that an act, declaration or omission of another person cannot

prejudice the rights of any party, and that, therefore, an extrajudicial confession or admission is binding only upon the confessant and not

against others. In the case of People v. Tena,12 the Honorable Supreme

Court said:

Not unexpectedly, therefore, it is this extrajudicial confession on which Solita Sena centers his attack in the present appellate proceedings, assigning as errors on the part of the lower court the

12 215 SCRA 43 [1992].


37

admission in evidence of the extrajudicial confession of Adelberto Camota and his conviction on the sole basis thereof.

But as is made clear by the Solicitor General in his Manifestation in Lieu of Appellees Brief, the matter of that confessions competency need not be delved into as the issue of accused-appellants guilt or innocence may be resolved by application of the doctrine res inter alios acta alteri nocere debet. Actually, the issue is not so much the admissibility in evidence of the extrajudicial confession, but rather, even conceding its admissibility, its use against persons other than the confessant, e.g., herein accused-appellant.

Use of Camotas extrajudicial confession is precluded by Section 25 (now Section 28) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, viz:

Section 28. Admission by third party. The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided.

The reason for the rule is that:

On a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a mans own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.

77. While the res inter alios acta rule admits of certain exceptions, one of

which is found in Section 30, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on admission

regarding co-conspirators, such exception does not apply in the present

case. As held in People v. Tena 13 and reiterated in People v.

Surigawan,14 the prosecution must meet the following criteria before the

exception under Section 30 can apply: (1) proof of the conspiracy through evidence other than the admission itself; (2) the admission relates to the common object; and (3) the admission was made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

78. In People v. Surigawan (supra), the Court said:

13 Supra.

14 228 SCRA 458, 464-465 [1993].


38

The error of the trial court is compounded by the use of similar uncounselled confessions made by the other accused to convict accused-appellant Surigawan. Cited by the trial court to bolster its ruling is Section 30 of Rule 130 which provides:

The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration.

Again, the inapplicability of this provision is plain to the eye. For this provision to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied:

a. that the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself.;

b. that the admission relates to the common object; and, c. that it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

In the case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the accused was not priorly established by separate and independent evidence. Nor was it shown that the extrajudicial confessions of the other accused (Exhibits B, F and J) were made while they were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. In truth, the confessions were made after the conspiracy has ended and after the consummation of the crime. These confessions cannot be used against the accused-appellant without doing violence against his constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them.

Without the uncounselled confession of the accused-appellant and the extrajudicial confessions of the other accused, no shred of evidence remains to establish the guilt of accused-appellant Surigawan beyond reasonable doubt.

79. In view of the foregoing, it is perfectly clear that the extrajudicial confessions of witnesses Julie Flores Sinohin and Alvaro Juliano-

Laureano and Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita Bayudang y Nanip

are inadmissible in evidence under the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri

nocere debet embodied in Rule 130, Section 28 of the Rules of Court.

80. The public prosecutors categorically stated in their Resolution dated 11

April 2008 that the testimony of Julie Flores Sinohin is an absolute


39

necessity xxxx if we are to successfully prosecute these cases. 15

However, the prosecution has not proven the supposed conspiracy

through any other evidence other than Julie Flores Sinohins sole extra-

judicial confession dated 22 November 2006. Nor were his declarations made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy.

81. The provincial prosecutors wrongly construe that Section 30, Rule 130

does not circumscribe the testimonies of Alvaro Juliano-Laureano, and

Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita Bayudang since they are allegedly

not co-conspirators. In any case, whether they are conspirators or not, the

general prohibition itself provided in Section 28, Rule 130 applies squarely

to them since their so-called admissions do not qualify as the exception

thus rendering their confessions inadmissible in evidence.

82. Undoubtedly, the case for the prosecution rests solely on the testimonies

of Julie Flores Sinohin and Alvaro Juliano-Laureano and Cleotilde Aguilar-

Peralta and Isabelita Bayudang. Without their testimonies, the case for

the prosecution will have no leg to stand on.

83. Contrary to the requirement that the prosecution must first prove the

conspiracy through evidence other than the admission itself, there is

absolutely no evidence to establish the alleged conspiracy between

accused-movants and Julie Flores Sinohin who claims that he is the actual

perpetrator of the killings.

15 Please see the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva

Ecija dated 11 April 2008 attached as Annex 1 herein at page 10.


40

84. Excluding the inadmissible confessions and admissions of Julie Flores

Sinohin and Alvaro Juliano-Laureano, and Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and

Isabelita Bayudang, the other affidavits and the entire records are utterly

bereft of any shred of evidence that would separately and independently

prove conspiracy between the herein accused and these witnesses.

85. The Honorable Supreme Court has consistently held that:

The same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is likewise required to support a finding of conspiracy. In other words, conspiracy must be shown to exist as convincingly as the commission of the offense itself in order to uphold the fundamental principle that no one shall be found guilty of a crime except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt.16

Conspiracy must be real and not presumptive,17 and must be proved as the crime itself independent from the confession.18

86. In People v. Ortiz,19 the Supreme Court emphasized that:

(P)roofs, not mere conjectures or assumptions should be proffered by the prosecution which would show that the accused had taken part in the planning, preparation and participation in the alleged conspiracy to kill the victim. Otherwise a careless use of the conspiracy theory (can) sweep into jail even innocent persons who may only have been made unwitting tools by the criminal minds really responsible for the crime.

87. In similar cases, the High Court reversed the conviction of an accused

alleged as principal by inducement or mastermind that the lower court

wrongfully convicted based on an extra-judicial confession. In People vs. Plaza,20 the Supreme Court held that:

Independent evidence of conspiracy must first be given before the admission of a conspirator may be received against his co-

16 Pecho v. People, 262 SCRA 518, 27 September 1996.

17 U.S. v. Figueras, 2 Phil 491.

18 People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, 23 SCRA 127, 144.

19 G.R. No. 111723, 27 January 1997.

20 140 SCRA 277 [1985].


41

conspirator. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish conspiracy among Plaza and the Napal brothers in the killing of Jose Luna, Sr. other than the latters statements. It is submitted, therefore, that while the confessions/admissions of the Napal brothers may be received against them, they are not, however, admissible against their co-defendant Plaza as to whom said statements are hearsay evidence for he (Plaza) had no opportunity to cross-examine them (the Napal brothers).

In short, the extra-judicial confessions/statements of the Napal brothers are inadmissible against Plaza first, because as earlier stated they lack the indispensable requisite of corroboration by other evidence and, second, because during the trial the Napal brothers not only denied that their co-accused Plaza participated in the killing of Luna but went on to repudiate their statements as having been extracted from them through the use of force, violation [N.B. should be violence] and intimidation. (Brief, pp. 43-47.)

88. In the subsequent case of People vs. Pamon,21 the High Court

emphatically reiterated the ruling in People vs. Plaza 22 thus,

We cannot sustain the trial courts reasoning that if the confession is not admissible against the accused, it will not also be admissible against those who had been implicated therein. But, if it is admissible against the former, then it will also be admissible against the latter. This simply ignores the doctrine: RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERI NON DEBET.

89. It is also a matter of note that the four witnesses executed their

confessions and admissions only in 2006, or more than two to five years

after the crimes were committed and when they were no longer engaged

in the alleged conspiracy. No one of these four witnesses gave any

explanation why they decided to make these confessions and admissions

only now.

90. It is therefore only reasonable to conclude that the alleged sworn

statements of Julie Flores Sinohin and Alvaro Juliano-Laureano, and

Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita Bayudang on which the prosecution

21 217 SCRA 501 [1993].

22 Supra.


42

relies on for the establishment of its case are inadmissible in evidence

pursuant to the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet as

set forth in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court on the Rules on the

Admissibility of Evidence.

Following the political offense doctrine of absorption of crimes, the instant criminal cases against accused Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casio, Liza Maza and Rafael Mariano are already absorbed in the rebellion case docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 previously filed against them in the Regional Trial Court of the Makati which has been ordered dismissed by the Supreme Court. ------------------------------------------------------

91. The Supreme Court in People vs. Hernandez,23 had occasion to define

the concept of a political crime, to wit:

In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance "to the Government the territory of the Philippines Islands or any part thereof," then said offense becomes stripped of its "common" complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the latter.

XXXX

Thus, national, as well as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as "common" offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently,

23 99 Phil. 515, 18 July 1956.


43

cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.

92. Likewise, in the landmark case of People vs. Hernandez,24 as reiterated

in People v. Geronimo,25 the Supreme Court enunciated the political

offense doctrine of absorption stating that:

One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by "engaging in war against the forces of the government" and "committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said "war." These expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely; resort to arms, requisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake except that, very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence," said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but only one crime that of rebellion plain and simple.

XXXX

It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof as specified in Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised: Penal Code as constituting only one crime, punishable with one single penalty namely, that prescribed in said Article 135.

93. In short, it is possible to state the political offense doctrine of absorption in

this manner: (1) one may not complex the crime of Rebellion with common crimes, and (2) one may not treat and prosecute as common crimes those crimes committed as a necessary means to commit

Rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof and so

24 Supra.

25 100 Phil. 90.


44

as to facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose of rebellion. All

the sai

motion for judicial determination of probable cause re guimba case.pdf

Documents