Republic of the Philippines

7th Judicial Region

4th MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
TALIBON-GETAFE
Talibon, Bohol

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Complainant.

Criminal Case No.10879

-versus-

Violation of Domicile (Art. 128, RPC)

Alex A. Dela Cerna, SG 23,
SPO3 Rogelio L. Cleopas, SG 18,
PO1 Margarito N. Cagoco, SG 10,
All of Talibon Police Station,
Talibon, Bohol
Accused.

OMNIBUS MOTION
(AD CAUTELAM)

• MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE;

• MOTION TO DISMISS
• MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS AND DEFER ARRAIGNMENT,
&;
• MOTION TO WITHELD ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST.

COMES NOW the accused ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA, in the above-entitled case,
and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers, That:

On May 14, 2015 only when the undersigned formally received from his uncle Mr. Samuel P.
Antasuda the registered mail from Talibon-Getafe MTCC the ORDER dated February 16, 2015
resolving the ombudsman harassment case coming from illegal gambling suspects, among
others, the filing of information against the undersigned in the proper court. The undersigned has
not yet received until at present any resolution coming from the ombudsman with regards to the
harassment case filed by Margarito Revilles, hence, the timeliness of this Omnibus Motion on
both questions of Facts and Law;

PREFATORY AVERMENTS
a.) “There is nothing more damaging in the world than this evil phenomenon of prejudice…
whereas the place for prejudice is a public meeting, a court of law is the abode of truth.” -- Marcus
Cicero;
b.) The reliance of this Omnibus Motion is on the oft-reiterated ideal that every litigant is entitled
to nothing less than the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” Due process cannot be satisfied in
the absence of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge or fiscal sufficient to reassure
parties of his being fair and just. “Impartiality and fundamental fairness are inherent rights of all
persons brought before our criminal justice system. The social justice provisions of the
Constitution mandate that the State must take special measures to protect these rights when the
accused are the outcasts and the poor or belong to a group which is ignored, disliked, or hated
by those currently in power;

c.) The fundamental question that arises, therefore, is whether or not under the circumstances of
this case – where the graft investigator, had already declared, thus, prejudged, that accordingly,
based on facts and statements under oath of the notorious illegal gambler suspect turned
complainant Margarito Revilles, it points to violation of domicile committed by the undersigned. It
would be fair and just for the Honorable Judge to take a second look on the case and be factual in
the careful scrutiny of circumstances, point for point, without suppression of facts in order to
come up with honest to goodness resolution and realize self-fulfilling responsibility as impartial
judge with conscience not animated with personal desire but ministerial obligation in resolving the
cases at hand;

d.) In the first place, the undersigned accused should be exculpated in the instant criminal case
because based on the entire records of this case, the acts done by the undersigned and other
police officers were justified under the law and existing jurisprudence. Under the “PLAIN VIEW”
doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. People
Vs. Macalaba, 395 SCRA 461. In the instant case, PO1 Margarito Cagoco was tasked to conduct
probing surveillance on the concerned citizen’s report regarding the presence of “armed men” at
Purok 1, San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol, while the rest of the elements of Talibon Police Station
were strategically positioned in different locations and during the course of the surveillance of
PO1 Cagoco on some houses, he chanced upon inadvertently, an incriminating objects in a
particular area which is at the window of the house of Margarito Revilles. PO1 Cagoco has a right
to be in the position to have that view because his purpose thereat was not for personal interest,
but for public safety and public interest and therefore he is MORALLY OBLIGED to perform his
duty by making it sure that said overt acts and incriminating objects were indeed an evidence of a
crime being committed in his presence;

e.) It is a well-settled principle wherein the instances where warrant less searches and seizures
may be made without a warrant is that probable cause must only be based on reasonable ground
of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or being committed, People Vs. Sarap,
399 SCRA 503. PO1 Cagoco was not there looking for SWERTRES EVIDENCE but he was just
merely there looking for the reported armed men by virtue of the “POLICE POWER OF THE
STATE” to protect the citizens from possible harm brought about by the reported presence of
armed men. The “PLAIN VIEW” doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: a.)
the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; b.) the discovery of
the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; c.) it is immediately apparent to the officer that
the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to
seizure. People Vs. Go, 411 SCRA 81;
f.) Furthermore, since the conduct of preliminary investigation of the above-entitled case by the
ombudsman has reached an inexcusable and unreasonable period of delay from the time the
complaint was instituted on December 6, 2006 and the filing of INFORMATION before the 4th
MCTC Talibon-Getafe commenced only on February 10, 2015 and that the resolution coming
from the ombudsman has not reached the respondents until at present, the above-entitled case
clearly shows signs of CASE FIXING and MYSTERIOUS AND ARBITRARY INVESTIGATION
that resulted to the CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
UNDERSIGNED ACCUSED, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION
ON THE SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE;

g.) A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16, Article
III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The right to speedy disposition of cases is not merely
hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the administration of justice but also to
prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for an
indefinite time. Therefore, the dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused is warranted for
gross violation of their right to a speedy disposition of the case. The office of the ombudsman had
taken an unusually long period of time just to investigate the harassment criminal complaint and
to determine whether to criminally charge the “selected respondents”. Such long delay was
inordinate and oppressive, and constituted under the peculiar circumstances of the case an
outright violation of the respondent’s right under the constitution to the speedy disposition of their
cases. There was really no sufficient justification tendered by the ombudsman for the very long
delay of more than five (5) years in bringing the whimsical charges against the respondents
before the proper court;

h.) It is basic that the matter of constitutionality shall, as a rule, be considered if it is the lis mota of
the case and raised and argued at the earliest opportunity. When an act of a branch of the
government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right
but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. There is no power nor is there any right to
violate the Constitution on the part of any official of the government. It is basic that if a law or an
administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that process is null and void and has no
effect;

MOTION TO DISMISS
1.) The Honorable Graft Investigator of the Ombudsman erred in its findings of probable cause as
she based her findings on her personal belief which is beyond the letter, spirit, and rule of law.
Her findings grounded entirely on conjectures and polluted principle which is far beyond the logic,
dictates of reason, and ministerial duty. Because of clear and flagrant culpable constitutional
violation, this case must be dismissed for the interest of justice and fair play. Granting, without
admitting, for the sake of argument the undersigned and the selected police officers subject of
malicious prosecution committed mistake in good faith, they should be exculpated. Otherwise, the
court is putting a premium on criminals and will terrorize peace officers themselves violating the
law;
2.) It is opportune to wipe out the lingering misimpression that the call of duty conferred by the
voice of people is louder than the litany of lawful restraints articulated in the constitution and
echoed by jurisprudence. The mandate of the people yields to the constitution which the people
themselves ordained to govern all under the rule of law. We as public servants and the same with
the officers of the court, must at all times in the exercise of rights and in the performance of duty,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. We are country of
laws, not of men;
3.) The undersigned is not waiving his constitutional rights and right to due process as he will
assert all his rights guaranteed by the constitution and the statute to stop this case being
maliciously pursued against the undersigned and definitely I will be filing disbarment cases before
the Supreme Court Bar Confidant against the lawyers who were involved in CULPABLE
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION committed against the undersigned;

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF

PROBABLE CAUSE
1.) Although there is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause
since the same must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its
existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the
examination, such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reasons (See La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Ferndandez, 129 SCRA 391). The
judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible
evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right that
the courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to its mission by
vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. Therefore, it has been before. It should
continue to be so. (Mercado v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93).

2.) The undersigned accused hereby moves for Judicial Determination of probable Cause of this
case. There is a need to thresh out this matter in a full-blown preliminary investigation affording
the undersigned accused the opportunity to present his side and adduce truthful evidence that
was deprive to the undersigned. “A component part of due process in criminal justice,
preliminary investigation is a statutory and substantive right accorded to the accused
before trial, and to deny measure their claim to a preliminary investigation would be to
deprive them of the full measure of their right to due process”, (Villaflor VS Vivar, 349
SCRA 194);

3.) “New matters or evidence are not prerequisite for reinvestigation which is simply
a chance for the prosecutor to review and re-evaluate its findings and the evidence already
submitted” , (Roxas VS Vasquez, 358 SCRA 636);

4.) If we are going to carefully and thoroughly scrutinize the records of this case and its
attachments, treating the available fabricated evidences and whimsical allegations, this case is
nothing but DESPERATE ALLEGATIONS. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence
and is not equivalent to proof. (Navarro vs. Cerezon, A.M. No. P-05-1962 (Formerly OCS IPI NO.
04-1853-P), 2005 February 17, 2nd Division);

6.) The Supreme Court has set out the purposes of Preliminary Investigation as follows: “The
object of a preliminary investigation, or a previous inquiry of some kind, before an accused person
is placed upon trial, is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecutions, and to protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble,
expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless and expensive
prosecutions”.
 • MOTION TO DEFER ARRAIGNMENT
1.) The unreasonable, arbitrary, and unjustified more or less nine (9) years delay by the
ombudsman in resolving the harassment case against the undersigned refer to material or major
matters (CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION);;

2.) The undersigned accused hereby moves to Defer the Arraignment of the above-mentioned
case in lieu of the Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and to properly serve the ends of
justice, constitutional, and statutory rights of the undersigned accused against malicious
prosecution;

• MOTION TO WITHELD ISSUANCE OF WARRANT

OF ARREST
1.) It is upon the strong legal evaluation and assessment of the undersigned that the fabricated
case filed by the complainant being forced and coerced by his gambling financiers and counsels
have no probable cause because the undersigned’s culpability of violation of domicile was
justified under existing law;

2.) In the case of people VS. Natividad, 411 SCRA 578, UNDER THE EQUIPOISE RULE,
“WERE THE EVIDENCE OR AN ISSUE OF FACT IS IN EQUIPOISE OR THERE IS DOUBT ON
WHICH SIDE THE EVIDENCE PREPONDERATES, THE PARTY HAVING THE BURDEN OF
PROOF LOSES”, in the case at bar it is the notorious illegal gambling operator Margarito
Revilles.

3.) The highest court of the land laid a golden principle that says “HE WHO COMES TO COURT
MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS”.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to the Honorable Court that:

a. To grant Motion for Judicial determination of Probable Cause;

b. Thereafter, the instant information as well as the resolution dated February 10, 2015, be
annulled and set aside;

c. After a full-blown judicial determination of probable cause, to DISMISS the case

maliciously filed against the undersigned;

d. Very clear constitutional violation was committed against the undersigned and that this
case must be dismissed automatically.

May 27, 2015, Quezon City, Philippines.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA

Appellant

VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines}
Quezon City }S.S.
I, ALEX DELA CERNA Y ANTASUDA, of legal age, single,
Filipino, policeman by profession, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law do hereby depose and states, That:
• I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
• I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
• The contents of the foregoing Petition is of my personal
knowledge and honest belief;
• I am submitting the foregoing Petition not for the purpose of
delay but for the purpose of upholding my constitutional and statutory
rights as the injured party in the above-entitled case.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signatures this 29th day of
December 2015, City of Manila, Philippines.
ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA
Appellant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____day of
______________ in City of Manila, Philippines. This is to CERTIFY that I
have personally examined the Petitioner and I am convinced that he
voluntarily executed and understood the contents of the foregoing Petition.
 _________________________
Notary Public

Copy Furnished:

1. Margarito Revilles- Brgy. San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol

2. Bohol Provincial Prosecutors Office, Tagbilaran City, Bohol

THE CLERK OF COURT

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT of TALIBON-
GETAFE
7th
Judicial Region
Talibon, Bohol

Please submit the foregoing Omnibus Motion to the

Honorable Judge for its kind consideration and approval.

ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA

Appellant
 Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
United Nation cor. Ma. Orosa, Ermita
Manila

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA, SG-25,

Petitioner,

-versus-

OMBUDSMAN MOLEO GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND

PROSECUTION OFFICERS ATTY. JAMILA R. CRUZ-
SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA, ATTY. WENDY H.
DELA CRUZ, AND ACTING JUDGE AZUCENA C.
MACALOLOT-CREDO OF MCTC TALIBON-GETAFE,
TALIBON, BOHOL.
Respondents,
X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

WITH PRAYER FOR IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE
OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COMES NOW, Petitioner POLICE SUPERINTENDENT ALEX ANTASUDA

DELA CERNA, SG-25, with the assistance of the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully manifests and avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The reliance in this petition for certiorari and prohibition proceedings is on the
oft-reiterated ideal that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the “cold neutrality
of an impartial judge.” Due process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree of
objectivity on the part of a judge or fiscal sufficient to reassure parties of his being fair
and just. “Impartiality and fundamental fairness are inherent rights of all persons
brought before our criminal justice system. The social justice provisions of the
Constitution mandate that the State must take special measures to protect these rights
when the accused are the outcasts and the poor or belong to a group which is ignored,
disliked, or hated by those currently in power.”
 The fundamental question that arises, therefore, is whether or not under the
circumstances of this case – where respondents Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sarga, Atty. Dyna
I. Camba, Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz, and Acting Judge of MCTC Talibon-Getafe,
Talibon, Bohol, Hon. AZUCENA C. MACALOLOT-CREDO are correct in insisting
trial on the instant case which is counter-charges in nature and that the herein Petitioner
and other police officers just did their duties and responsibilities in good faith with
utmost regularity without encroaching to the constitutional rights of the publicly known
and notorious gambling operator MARGARITO REVILLES despite overwhelming
evidence submitted before the office of the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Bohol to
which until now no update on said illegal gambling case and afterwards the counter-
charges against the seizing officers of illegal numbers game pushed through despite the
unreasonable period of delay from the time the counter-charge was filed last December
6, 2006 and the filing of INFORMATION before the 4th MCTC Talibon-Getafe commenced only on
February 10, 2015?

The answer, regrettably, is in the negative.

THE PARTIES
1. Petitioner, a government employee who just did his duties, responsibilities, and
function, Police Superintendent Alex Antasuda Dela Cerna is a member of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) presently assigned at the PNP Personnel Holding and
Accountability Unit (PHAU), DPRM, Camp Crame, Quezon City while undergoing
Public Safety Officers Senior Executive Course at National Police College, Philippine
Public Safety College. He may be served with notices and court processes through his
address at No. 26, Lirio St., De Castro Subd., Sta. Lucia, Pasig City.

2. Respondent Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sarga, Graft Investigation and Prosecution

Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman's Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other
Law Enforcement Offices. She may be served with notices and court processes at Office
of the Ombudsman, 3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City
(1104), Philippines.

3. Respondent Hon. AZUCENA C. MACALOLOT-CREDO, Acting Judge, 4th

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, TALIBON-GETAFE, Talibon, Bohol, 7th
Judicial Region to which she may be served with notices and court processes.

4. Respondent ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA, Graft Investigation and Prosecution

Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman's Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other
Law Enforcement Offices. She may be served with notices and court processes at
Office of the Ombudsman, 3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman,
Quezon City (1104), Philippines.
5. Respondent ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ, Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman's Deputy Ombudsman for Military
and Other Law Enforcement Offices. She may be served with notices and court
processes at Office of the Ombudsman, 3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road,
Diliman, Quezon City (1104), Philippines.

NATURE OF THE PETITION

6. The petitioner invokes Section 16, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987
Constitution, which states that:

“Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy

disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.

7. This is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, (1) to prohibit the respondents from conducting prosecution and trial
in Criminal Case No. 10879 (Violation of Domicile entitled “The People of the
Philippines Versus PSINSP ALEX A. DELA CERNA, SG-23, SPO3 ROGELIO L.
CLEOPAS, SG-18, and PO1 MARGARITO N. CAGOCO, SG-10.” filed against the
petitioner and 2 others for lack or excess of jurisdiction over said case in view of the
violation of the petitioner’s Constitutionally enshrined rights to SPEEDY
DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL, OR
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES(SECTION 16, ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION); (2) to annul and set aside the DECISION & RESOLUTION of
Ombudsman MOLEO Graft Investigator Atty. JAMILA R. CRUZ-SARGA
mysteriously antedated January 30, 2008 (BECAUSE OF AN INCIDENT WHEREIN
ONE CARNAPPED PASSENGER BUS BOUND FOR SAMAR WAS
INTERCEPTED BY THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH CIDG QUEZON
IN LUCENA CITY WHERE ONE PASSENGER INTRODUCED AS
OMBUDSMAN OFFICER THREATENED THE PETITIONER OF REPRISAL
BECAUSE OF INCONVENIENCE HE SUFFERED IN THE SAID POLICE
OPERATION IN APRIL 3(Friday), 2009 TO WHICH SAID BUS WAS
IMPOUNDED AND BROUGHT TO QUEZON POLICE HEADQUARTERS).
And instantly, on April 6(Monday), 2009, an instant DECISION AND RESOLUTION
was received by NHQ Camp Crame in Quezon City while the Petitioner received said
documents last April 11, 2009. Obviously, SATURDAY & SUNDAY APRIL 4 & 5,
2009 THE MYSTERIOUS DECISION AND RESOLUTION WAS INTENTIONALLY
AND IMMEDIATELY CRAFTED TO HARASS THE HEREIN PETITIONER
penalising him for two months suspension for Simple Misconduct and finding probable
cause on the case of Violation of Domicile (OMB P-C-07-0319-D hereto attached). The
Petitioner after careful study, review, and scrutiny, filed Motion for Reconsideration
that was received by the Ombudsman MOLEO last April 15, 2009 unmindful of the
Ombudsman rules being executory unless TRO was issued. No resolution to the Motion
for Reconsideration was received by the Petitioner and/or issued by the Ombudsman
MOLEO that's why on May 22, 2012, the herein Petitioner filed MOTION TO
DISMISS considering the lapsed of unjustifiable period of six (6) years, more or less,
thereby VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER TO
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL,
OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES as defined in SECTION 16, ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.

8. A great or irreparable injury would result to the herein Petitioner and applicant of
Injunctive Relief before the matter can be heard on Notice, an ex parte temporary
restraining order is likewise prayed for to enjoin the respondents and any or all persons
acting on their orders or in their behalf, from continuing with the prosecution of the
Criminal Case No. 10879 for Violation of Domicile and after giving due course to the
petition, to issue a writ of preliminary injunction permanently enjoining the respondents
from taking further action in Criminal Case No. 10879 for Violation of Domicile. It is
hereby respectfully requested for immediate issuance to prevent serious constitutional
violation against the herein Petitioner should the above-mentioned respondents will
insist on the prosecution and trial of the counter-charge / harassment case against
working police officers.

9. The petitioner has no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. He is compelled to resort to the extraordinary relief of certiorari and
prohibition to seek redress from the assailed proceedings and issuances by the
respondents which are being conducted and were issued, respectively, with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and culpable violation of the
constitution. Thus, the petitioner comes to this Honorable Court for speedy and
adequate relief.

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

10. On December 15, 2015 only, when the herein Petitioner formally received from
his uncle the Order dated November 10, 2015 signed by Hon. Acting Judge AZUCENA
C. MACALOLOT-CREDO denying, among others, the Omnibus Motion filed by the
herein Petitioner last May 28, 2015. The Petitioner is presently undergoing a mandatory
schooling in Cavite for Pubic Safety Senior Executive Course that's why he received the
said Order from his uncle in Pasig just recently.

11. Thus, this Petition for Review on Certiorari and Prohibition is timely filed.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. In the instant case, PO1 Margarito Cagoco was tasked to conduct probing surveillance on
the concerned citizen’s report regarding the presence of “armed men” at Purok 1, San Francisco,
Talibon, Bohol,(NOT WITHIN THE COMPLAINANT'S COMPOUND AS ATTY. JAMILA R.
CRUZ-SARGA STATED IN HER RESOLUTION PARAGRAPH 4 DATED JANUARY 30, 2008
BECAUSE THE ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF EXACT LOCATION OF THE ILLEGAL
GAMBLING TOOK PLACE WAS AFTER THE FACT (SURVEILLANCE) AND NOT UPON
RECEIPT OF THE CONCERNED CITIZEN'S PHONE CALL REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF
ARMED MEN) while the rest of the elements of Talibon Police Station were strategically
positioned in different locations and during the course of the surveillance of PO1 Cagoco on some
houses, he chanced upon inadvertently, an incriminating objects in a particular area which is at
the open window of the house of one Margarito Revilles. PO1 Cagoco has a right to be in the
position to have that view because his purpose thereat was not for personal interest or gambling,
but for the reported armed men in the name of public safety and public interest and therefore he
is MORALLY OBLIGED to perform his duty by making it sure that said overt acts and
incriminating objects were indeed an evidence of a crime being committed in his presence. As
gleaned from the entire records of the case, it was only PO1 Cagoco who justifiably entered
the publicly opened gambling den of Margarito Revilles while the herein Petitioner has no
showing of any entry to said gambling den until the barangay officials arrived to conduct
inventory of the seized gambling paraphernalia in good faith;

13.) It is a well-settled principle wherein the instances where warrant less searches and
seizures may be made without a warrant is that probable cause must only be based on
reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or being committed,
People Vs. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503. PO1 Cagoco was not there looking for SWERTRES
EVIDENCE but he was just merely there looking for the reported armed men by virtue of the
“POLICE POWER OF THE STATE” to protect the citizens from possible harm brought about by
the reported presence of armed men. The “PLAIN VIEW” doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur: a.) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior
justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; b.)
the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; c.) it is immediately apparent to
the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
subject to seizure. People Vs. Go, 411 SCRA 81;

14.) Furthermore, since the conduct of preliminary investigation and proper disposition of the
above-entitled case by the ombudsman has reached an inexcusable and unreasonable period
of delay from the time the complaint was instituted on December 6, 2006 and the filing of
INFORMATION before the 4th MCTC Talibon-Getafe commenced only on February 10, 2015 ,
the above-entitled case clearly shows signs of SERIOUS IRREGULARITY AND ARBITRARY
INVESTIGATION that resulted to the CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE UNDERSIGNED PETITIONER, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, AND
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION ON THE SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE;
15.) A person’s right to the speedy disposition of his case is guaranteed under Section 16,
Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The right to speedy disposition of cases is not
merely hinged towards the objective of spurring dispatch in the administration of justice but also
to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding a criminal prosecution suspended over him for
an indefinite time. Therefore, the dismissal of the criminal cases against the accused is warranted
for gross violation of their right to a speedy disposition of the case. The office of the ombudsman
had taken an unusually long period of time just to investigate the harassment criminal complaint
and to determine whether to criminally charge the “selected respondents”. Such long delay was
inordinate and oppressive, and constituted under the peculiar circumstances of the case an
outright violation of the respondent’s right under the constitution to the speedy disposition of their
cases. There was really no sufficient justification tendered by the ombudsman for the very long
delay of more or less nine (9) years in bringing the whimsical charges against the respondents
before the proper court;

16.) It is basic that the matter of constitutionality shall, as a rule, be considered if it is the lis
mota of the case and raised and argued at the earliest opportunity. When an act of a branch of
the government is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. There is no power nor is there any
right to violate the Constitution on the part of any official of the government. It is basic that if a law
or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that process is null and void and
has no effect;

17.) It must be noted that the resolution was allegedly signed by Graft Investigation
and Prosecution Officer Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sraga last January 30, 2008 and
allegedly approved last November 28, 2008 by Acting Ombudsman Atty. Orlando
Casimiro and mysteriously stayed in the Ombudsman MOLEO Records Center until
this SLEEPING AND EXPLOITED CASE was signed by Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz allegedly on October 31, 2014 and
approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement
Offices Atty. Cyril E. Ramos last December 10, 2014 and reached the 4th Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Talibon-Getafe, Talibon, Bohol on February 10, 2015 only to
which an unexplained and unjustified delays from the time of it's approval on
November 28, 2008 up to the time it was filed to the court on February 10, 2015 or
SIX YEARS, TWO MONTHS and TWELVE DAYS ABANDONED CASE. The reasons
behind such unjustified delay particularly in the Order allegedly executed by Graft
Investigation and Prosecution Officer Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz page 4 paragraph
11 clearly touches only the issue of prescription disregarding it's constitutional effect
and implications is highly irregular for supposed to be officers of the court mandated to
guard and religiously observe the fundamental law of the land.

18.) In the same manner, the Acting Judge of 4th MCTC Talibon-Getafe Hon. Judge
Azucena C. Macalolot-Credo in her Order dated November 10, 2015, her
contemplations are focused on the prosecution and trial of the herein Petitioner without
giving emphasis on the most important issue which is culpable violation of the
constitutiona being committed against the Petitioner. She did not consider the honest to
goodness arguments raised by the Petitioner in his Omnibus Motion and instead twisted
some facts particularly in paragraph 18 of her order to quote- "The accused's motion
to dismiss questioned the order issued on October 21, 2014 by the Graft
Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman for the
filing of Information against the herein accused." definitely has strong indication that
she is misleading everyone because the petitioner did not mention in his Motion to
Dismiss (Omnibus Motion) questioning the Order issued on October 31, 2014 as it is
understood that the herein petitioner questions the RESOLUTION finding probable
cause issued last January 30, 2008 signed by the Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sarga. The herein Petitioner question in his
Motion to Dismiss (Omnibus Motion) the Order of Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz dated October 21, 2014 when it
impliedly stated on said order the culpable violation of the constitution committed
against the herein Petitioner but never given emphasis by Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz.

19.) The Order of Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Atty. Wendy H.
Dela Cruz dated October 21, 2014 particularly in page 4 paragraph 11 might be
correct if we will talk about prescription, however, if culpable violation of the
constitution is clearly seen upon careful scrutiny of the records of the case, she is duty
bound to forthwith recommend the dismissal of such harassment case against working
policemen who just did their duties and function with utmost regularity and good faith
considering that the notorious gambling operator failed to raise the issue that the herein
Petitioner and other policemen acted in bad faith with ill-motive in seizing all the
gambling paraphernalia inadvertently discovered in plain view by PO1 Margarito
Cagoco who justifiably entered the publicly opened gambling den of MARGARITO
REVILLES. And the fact that the Provincial Prosecution Office of Bohol failed to
prosecute the original accused turned fabricated complainant Margarito Revilles, a
notorious gambling operator protected by gambling lords and politicians, the inclination
of the officers of the court must be that of the exoneration of the herein Petitioner and
other policemen because of their being public officers merely performed their duties and
responsibilities in good faith with utmost regularity not animated by any ill-motive the
fact that the discovery of the actual gambling operation was inadvertent and
immediately apparent to the naked eye of PO1 Margarito Cagoco and that we just
performed our job being expected from us by the public and in fact we summoned the
assistance of the barangay officials to assist us in the confiscation and inventory of the
seized illegal gambling paraphernalia.

20.) Also, the Order of Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Atty. Dyna I.
Camba clearly consists of twisted facts just to maliciously incriminate the innocent
Petitioner and other policemen. Particularly paragraph 2 of the said Order which
states that "For their defence, respondent averred that at around 9:00 PM of
November 27, 2006 they received an information about the presence of armed men
within complainant's compound in Brgy. San Francisco, Talibon, Bohol.
Respondents proceeded to the area and respondent Cagoco was given the tasked of
conducting surveillance in the area while the rest of the group positioned
themselves in a strategic location. Thereafter, Cagoco discovered that the armed
person being referred to the information was PO1 Dante Vincent A. Auxtero.
Cagoco, likewise, chanced upon a swertress tally being undertaken by complainant
revilles and his companions. Unfortunately, the suspects were able to elude arrest and
managed to lock the room where the swertres game took place." (sic). Atty. Dyna I.
Camba clearly twisted facts and used the term WITHIN THE COMPLAINANT'S
COMPOUND for the purpose of incriminating the herein Petitioner and two other
police officers to make it appear that said police officers were unmindful of the
constitutional rights of accused turned complainant Margarito Revilles. The truth of the
matter and can be found in the entire records of the case that the police officers has been
consistently saying that "PO1 Margarito Cagoco was tasked to conduct probing surveillance on
the concerned citizen’s report regarding the presence of “armed men” at Purok 1, San Francisco,
Talibon, Bohol,(NOT WITHIN THE COMPLAINANT'S COMPOUND AS ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA
STATED IN HER ORDER PARAGRAPH 2 DATED MARCH 30, 2011 BECAUSE THE
ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY OF EXACT LOCATION OF THE ILLEGAL GAMBLING TOOK
PLACE WAS AFTER THE FACT (SURVEILLANCE) AND NOT UPON RECEIPT OF THE
CONCERNED CITIZENS PHONE CALL REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ARMED MEN)
while the rest of the elements of Talibon Police Station were strategically positioned in different
locations and during the course of the surveillance of PO1 Cagoco on some houses, he chanced
upon inadvertently, an incriminating objects in a particular area which is at the open window of the
house of one Margarito Revilles. PO1 Cagoco has a right to be in the position to have that view
because his purpose thereat was not for personal interest or gambling, but for the reported armed
men in the name of public safety and public interest and therefore he is MORALLY OBLIGED to
perform his duty by making it sure that said overt acts and incriminating objects were indeed an
evidence of a crime being committed in his presence. "(highlighting and underscoring
supplied for emphasis).

21.) Hence, this Petition for Review on certiorari.

REASONS/ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON

I.

WHETHER OR NOT there are culpable violation of the Constitution

committed or being committed by the respondents OMBUDSMAN
MOLEO GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
OFFICERS ATTY. JAMILA R. CRUZ-SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I.
CAMBA, ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ, AND ACTING JUDGE
AZUCENA C. MACALOLOT-CREDO OF MCTC TALIBON-
 GETAFE, TALIBON, BOHOL against the herein Petitioner and two
other police officers.

II.

WHETHER OR NOT the unjustified and unreasonable delays from

the time the counter-charge was filed last December 6, 2006 and the filing
of INFORMATION before the 4th MCTC Talibon-Getafe commenced only on
February 10, 2015 is proper and does not violate the constitutional rights
of the herein Petitioner.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officers

of the Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices
(ATTY. JAMILA R. CRUZ-SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA, &
ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ) erred in their respective findings
resulted to grave abuse of discretion and twisting of facts.

DISCUSSION

22. 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.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary and
discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation
of our natural rights. Certainly, in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes
precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against each
other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former. Thus, relief may be availed of to stop
the purported enforcement of criminal law where it is necessary to provide for an
orderly administration of justice, to prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an
oppressive and vindictive manner, and to afford adequate protection to constitutional
rights.

23. This Honorable Court can do no less. The same standard must be made to apply
to the petitioner. The guarantees of fairness and justice, that is, strict adherence to the
constitutional rights of the Petitioner, due process and equal protection of the laws,
belong to all in equal measure, even to the petitioner.
24. Worth reiterating is the definitive last word of the Honorable Supreme Court in
Ladlad v. Velasco, to wit:

“A Final Word"

The obvious involvement of monetary and influential considerations in the

actuations of the respondents brings to mind an observation we made in
another equally haphazard 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 even handedly, 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 public’s
perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.
(Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-72335-39, March 21,
1988.)

CONCLUSION

25. Under the foregoing premises, the petitioner submits that enough indicators have
been shown to prove that respondents OMBUDSMAN MOLEO GRAFT
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICERS ATTY. JAMILA R.
CRUZ-SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA, ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ,
AND ACTING JUDGE AZUCENA C. MACALOLOT-CREDO OF MCTC
TALIBON-GETAFE, TALIBON, BOHOL committed culpable violation of the
constitutional rights of the herein Petitioner to Section 16, Article III (Bill of Rights)
of the 1987 Constitution, which states that:“Section 16. All persons shall have the right
to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; thus,
tainting the assailed Order dated November 10, 2015, the Orders and Resolutions dated
January 30, 2008, March 30, 2011, and October 31, 2014, finding probable cause to the
Petitioner's harassment counter-charges and denying the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration thereto, all clearly associated with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction enough to warrant the issuance of the special writs of
certiorari and prohibition.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

26. Petitioner has suffered grave and irreparable injury due to the continuing violation
of his Constitutional rights committed by the respondents OMBUDSMAN MOLEO
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICERS ATTY. JAMILA
R. CRUZ-SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA, ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ,
AND ACTING JUDGE AZUCENA C. MACALOLOT-CREDO OF MCTC
TALIBON-GETAFE, TALIBON, BOHOL Unless a TRO is issued forthwith, the on
going proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10879 will continue and terminate, and in view
of the dishonest inclination of the respondents disregarding serious constitutional
violations, the respondents will continue to maliciously prosecute petitioner, among
others, for the unfounded commission of the crime of violation of Domicile before the
MCTC Talibon-Getafe, Talibon, Bohol whereby the Petitioner had already been
assigned in Luzon since the year 2007 and be required to attend the proceedings in
Bohol wherein complainant Margarito Revilles is no longer attending the proceedings
because he is being attacked by his conscience in charging police officers of fabricated
case as he (Margarito Revilles) was very apologetic to the police and humbly requested
to the police officers not to refile the illegal gambling case anymore.

27. Particularly, in support of his application for the issuance of a temporary

restraining order, the petitioner asserts, that the respondents OMBUDSMAN MOLEO
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICERS ATTY. JAMILA
R. CRUZ-SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA, ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ,
AND ACTING JUDGE AZUCENA C. MACALOLOT-CREDO OF MCTC
TALIBON-GETAFE, TALIBON, BOHOL should be enjoined and/or restrained
from conducting further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10879 pending the resolution
of the instant petition in order to:

• Prevent irreparable injury, damage and/or prejudice that may be

suffered by the petitioner; and

• Prevent any judgment by the Honorable Court in the instant petition

from being rendered moot and academic by the eventual dismissal of the Criminal
Case No. 10879 because of the non-appearance of the complainant Margarito
Revilles and dismissal because of serious culpable violation of the Constitution;

28. The petitioner replead and incorporates, by way of reference, all the averments in
the foregoing paragraphs insofar as they are pertinent, relevant, and material hereto.
And he is ready to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by this Honorable Court to
indemnify for any damage that may result by reason of the injunction should petitioner
be found later on not to be entitled thereto.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner Police Superintendent Alex Antasuda

Dela Cerna respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:

1. Immediately upon the filing of this Petition, issue a TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER or a WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
enjoining the continuation of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10879 (Violation of
Domicile, Art.128 of RPC) before the respondent Acting Judge Azucena C. Macalolot-
Credo of MCTC Talibon-Getafe, Talibon, Bohol, until further orders from this
Honorable Court; and

2. After giving due course to the petition, render judgment granting the same and
issuing the writs of certiorari and prohibition:

(a) ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the ORDER dated November 10,
2015 signed by Acting Judge Azucena C. Macalolot-Credo of MCTC Talibon-
Getafe, Talibon, Bohol for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

(b) ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the RESOLUTION dated January

30, 2008 signed by Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sarga for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

(c) ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the ORDER dated March 30, 2011
signed by Atty. Dyna I. Camba for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

(d) ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the ORDER dated October 31,
2014 signed by Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz for having been issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;

PROHIBITING the respondents from proceeding with the prosecution and trial
of Criminal Case No. 10879 (Violation of Domicile, Art. 128of RPC) for lack of
impartiality in violation of the petitioner’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights
under Section 16, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution, which
states that: “Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies and equal
protection of the laws;

(e) Making permanent the TRO and/or preliminary injunction;

(f) Issue dismissal order on criminal case no. 10879 pending before the MCTC
Talibon-Getafe, Talibon, Bohol for culpable violation of the Constitution
committed by the respondents against the here Petitioner;
Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
Pasig City for the City of Manila, Decenber 29, 2015.

Respectfully submitted by:

PSUPT. Alex Antasuda Dela Cerna

Petitioner
Copy furnished:

1.) Acting Judge Hon. Azucena C. Macalolot-Credo

MCTC Talibon-Getafe, Talibon, Bohol

2.) Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sarga

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer,
Ombudsman for Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, 3rd, Floor, Ombudsman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, (1104), Philippines

3.) Atty. Dyna I. Camba

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer,
Ombudsman for Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, 3rd, Floor, Ombudsman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, (1104), Philippines

4.) Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer,
Ombudsman for Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, 3rd, Floor, Ombudsman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, (1104), Philippines

5.) OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City
 VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Republic of the Philippines}
Quezon City }S.S.

I, ALEX DELA CERNA Y ANTASUDA, of legal age, single,

Filipino, policeman by profession, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law do hereby depose and states, That:
• I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
• I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition;
* No similar Petition has been filed to any court or tribunal;
• The contents of the foregoing Petition is of my personal
knowledge and honest belief;
• I am submitting the foregoing Petition not for the purpose of
delay but for the purpose of upholding my constitutional and statutory
rights as the injured party in the above-entitled case.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signatures this 29th day of
December 2015, City of Manila, Philippines.

ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA

Appellant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____day of

______________ in City of Manila, Philippines. This is to CERTIFY that I
have personally examined the Petitioner and I am convinced that he
voluntarily executed and understood the contents of the foregoing Petition.

_________________________
Notary Public
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
QUEZON CITY ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ______________________, Filipino, of legal age, with address at

___________________________________, after having been sworn in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state that I served copies of the following pleading:

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

in G.R. No. ______________ entitled “PSUPT. ALEX ANTASUDA DELA CERNA vs.
OMBUDSMAN MOLEO GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
OFFICERS ATTY. JAMILA R. CRUZ-SARGA, ATTY. DYNA I. CAMBA,
ATTY. WENDY H. DELA CRUZ, AND ACTING JUDGE AZUCENA C.
MACALOLOT-CREDO OF MCTC TALIBON-GETAFE, TALIBON, BOHOL.”
in the following manner:

By Registered Mail to:

1.) Acting Judge Hon. Azucena C. Macalolot-Credo
MCTC Talibon-Getafe, Talibon, Bohol

2.) Atty. Jamila R. Cruz-Sarga

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer,
Ombudsman for Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, 3rd, Floor, Ombudsman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, (1104), Philippines

3.) Atty. Dyna I. Camba

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer,
Ombudsman for Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, 3rd, Floor, Ombudsman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, (1104), Philippines

4.) Atty. Wendy H. Dela Cruz

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer,
Ombudsman for Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, 3rd, Floor, Ombudsman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, (1104), Philippines

5.) OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City

by depositing a copy on the 29th day of December 2015 at the Manila Central Post Office
as evidenced by Registry Receipt Nos.
_________________________________________________________ hereto attached and
indicated after the names and addresses as above written; with instructions to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

___________________________
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 29th day of December 2015 in Manila,
affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License bearing his photograph, signature and License
No. ____________ issued at _______________.

______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2015.