Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final Motion To Quash and Dismiss Saladero
Final Motion To Quash and Dismiss Saladero
PREFATORY
1
Dissenting Opinion, Justice Renato Puno. Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 254
SCRA 307, March 5, 1996.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 2
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
recognized labor and human rights lawyer. He is currently the chief legal
(PLACE), a law firm which principally renders legal services to the poor
on workers’ rights and welfare, and engages in advocacy and lobby work
for the promotion of workers’ rights. As a labor lawyer, Atty. Saladero has
3. Atty. Saladero, Jr. was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1985, garnering a
after his admission to the Bar, he worked as Assistant Attorney at the Del
Rosario and Del Rosario Law Offices in Makati City until 1986. From
2
A copy of the Certification to this effect from the Office of the Bar Confidant dated
March 2, 1995 is hereto attached as Annex “1.”.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 3
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
4. The Office of the Bar Confidant has certified that he is a lawyer in good
standing, without a pending case against him before the said office as of
October 27, 2008.3 He has also complied with the required Mandatory
5. He also holds his own law office at 119 Circumferential Road, San Isidro,
Antipolo City, Rizal5. Said Law Office is duly registered with the
Philippines (Diliman).
7. Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. was awarded on November 19, 2005 by the
labor which extends to the shaping of public opinion on the labor sector.
publication.
9. At around 2:30 P.M. on October 23, 2008, while Atty. Remigio D. Saldero,
Jr. was alone and drafting some pleadings at his office/residence at 119
11. At the gate, Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. noticed a frail-looking man in
civilian clothes, about 20 to 30 years old. When the man told him he was
12. Once inside, the man told Atty. Saladero about his alleged brother who is
him that if the offense is bailable, his brother may post bail; otherwise, he
could file a petition for bail. All the while, Atty. Saladero had noticed that
13. Then the man told Atty. Saladero that the documents on the case was in
his motor bike which was allegedly parked outside, and asked permission
to get them.
14. Minutes later, the man came back with two other men in civilian clothes.
One of them suddenly approached Atty. Saladero and asked him “Kayo si
kami, may warrant kayo, multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder sa
RTC Calapan.”
15. Atty. Saladero tried to read the document but the man immediately
withdrew it. At a glance, however, Atty. Saladero could read that it was a
16. When Atty. Saladero insisted that the arresting officers made a mistake in
arresting him, the man barked at him, “Sumama kayo nang maayos para
17. Thereupon, Atty. Saladero took out his cellular phone to call his wife but
the man confiscated it. Another drew his gun and told him to keep quiet.
And the other, who pretended to have a brother charged with a drug-
18. Despite Atty. Saladero’s pleas to allow him to call his wife, the men
refused, pulled him out of his house and forced him into a tinted van.
19. Two other men in civilian clothes, who had been positioned at the gate of
the compound, also went inside his house and took with them Atty.
Saladero’s laptop.
20. It was only later that Atty. Saladero learned he was arrested by the
combined forces of the RIID 4A, PIB, Rizal PPO 418 th PPMG, and that the
of Activities for the year 2008 containing his scheduled hearings and other
21. Inside the van, Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. was made to sit on the
backseat sandwiched between two of his captors who were armed with
long firearms. The man seated beside the driver was also armed.
22. When the van passed by the Antipolo Police Station, Atty. Saladero
requested that they drop by, hoping that some policemen in the station
23. Atty. Saladero’s captors began interrogating him inside the van, asking
him several outlandish questions such as how many times he had gone up
the mountains and his code name. He explained to them that they
probably got the wrong man. He also asked them if he could call his
lawyers and if he could get back his cellular phone. But his captors told
him that he would be allowed to make his calls later. The men then
24. The van then stopped at the Rizal Police Provincial Office in Hilltop,
Taytay, Rizal. The armed men disembarked for a while and took pictures
of Atty. Saladero.
25. When the armed men got back inside the van, they told Atty. Saladero
26. At around 5:00 P.M., Atty. Saladero was brought to Camp Vicente Lim in
interrogation. His answers were all taken down by the interrogator. At this
point, Atty. Saladero again requested that he be allowed to call his wife or
27. Atty. Saladero was made to answer prying questions ranging from the
names of his parents, his wife’s and those of his relatives. He was even
asked about his membership in organizations, his positions therein and his
tasks. He told his interrogator that his tasks did not include leading or
joining the armed struggle against the government, and that all his actions
28. When asked about his involvement with KMU, Atty. Saladero told his
29. Atty. Saladero was likewise asked about his companions in his office, and
30. He was also asked about the seminars he has participated in, including its
venues, the topics and the participants. He was also asked about the
31. The interrogation was cut short only by an order sending Atty. Saladero to
the police clinic for examination after which the interrogation resumed. He
32. Atty. Saladero was allowed to make a call only at 9:00 P.M. after several
hours of interrogation, and after almost eight (8) hours since he was held
33. Upon learning where Atty. Saladero was taken to, his wife and his
colleague in his Quezon City office, Atty. Noel Neri, rushed to Camp
Vicente Lim. They were allowed to see and talk only briefly with Atty.
Saladero who was again left in solitary confinement after the visit.
34. At 6:30 in the morning of the following day, October 24, 2008, Atty.
vehicle bearing no license plate, over and above his wife’s insistence and
35. Atty. Saladero was brought to Camp Naramo, Calapan City where he was
before Judge Tomas Leynes. It was only during that time that he was
able to read the information and saw that the accused was one
36. Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. introduced himself in open court that he is
of his case. However, he was denied access to the records and was told
accused and the possibility of flight by the other accused named in the
information.
37. Also on that day, Executive Judge Manuel O. Luna, Jr. issued a
Commitment Order which surprised Atty. Saladero as he heard for the first
Commitment Order dated October 24, 2008 now bears his name
the said Commitment Order, Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. was transfrred
to the Oriental Mindoro Provincial Jail at about 3:30 P.M. of the same date,
38. On July 24, 2006 Assisting Provincial Prosecutor Dorina H. Joya, with the
and “John Does” of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. The
barangay San Isidro, Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro in the early morning
of March 3, 2006 resulting in the death of three and the wounding of two
others.
39. The information listed six witnesses and ten exhibits for the prosecution.
Neither the name of Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. nor any of the seventy-
the John Does in the original information who were allegedly members of
submitted by the complainant.” The resolution said that only “more than 15
and destroys the credibility of prosecution witness Vincent Silva, the only
witness against Atty. Saladero and the 70 others who were included in the
the New People’s Army staged the ambush – the seventy-two who were
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 11
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
Saladero alias Ka Patrick, some of them women, many if not most of them
organizations.
40. In an order dated May 7, 2007 the Presiding judge motu propio ordered
41. On September 29, 2008, more than one year and four months after the
the name “Remegio Saladero aka “Ka Patrick” and seventy others with
corresponding aliases.
42. During the scheduled arraignment on October 27, 2008 prosecutor Dolor
confirmed by his own admission in open court the decisive facts contained
investigation;
counter-affidavits;
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 12
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
42.5 Prosecutor Humilito Dolor certified under oath that the “amended”
has been committed and that the respondents are probably guilty
42.7 Erroneously invoking Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
43.1 In his order, the Honorable Presiding judge said “the Court hereby
the investigating officers that probable cause exists, that the crime
had been committed and that the accused, who are originally
(sic) guilty thereof, hence the Court finds reasonable grounds for
In short, the Honorable Presiding Judge gave his imprimatur to the non-
public prosecutor that the John Does in the original information are the
one offense. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked in this
following:
and PO1 Joseph Panes on March 4, 2006 – the following day after
the incident – no mention was made of the number, much less the
they overheard during the incident the alias “Ka Bobby” from one of
original information.
Remegio Saladero alias “Ka Patrick” the only evidence for the
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 15
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
Vincent Silva ever appeared before prosecutor Dolor or any other public
merely states:
The sworn statement of Vincent Silva is a confession. The law requires that
the assistance of a lawyer freely chosen by Silva. On the face of the sworn
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 16
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
confession.
44.5 In the affidavit of Vincent Silva, he did not say that Remegio
Fernandez and himself Silva did not say that the sixty-seven others
in his statement that these sixty seven (67) accused only had
44.6 Silva confessed that he was one of the perpetrators and explicitly
witnesses Wilson Gani and Joseph Panes that “more than fifteen
the ambush.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 17
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with
the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural
due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and
8
Sec. of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 18
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
(a) xxx….
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss the same if he
found no ground to continue with the inquiry, or issue
subpoena to the respondent, attaching thereto a
copy of the complaint, affidavits and other
supporting documents. Within ten (10) from receipt
thereof, the respondent shall submit counter-affidavits
and other supporting documents. He shall have the right
to examine all other evidence submitted by the
complaint.”
against him.
the Supreme Court in a long line of cases. “This procedure (in Section
sieve in the criminal justice system which spells for an individual the
jail term, on the one hand, and peace of mind and liberty, on the other
9
Cruz, Jr. vs. People, 233 SCRA 439.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 19
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
49.1 Not only that, the Supreme Court in these cases emphasized that
Xxx
10
Ladlad vs. Senior State Prosecutor Velasco, et al., G.R. Nos. 172070-72; G.R.
Nos. 172074-76; and G.R. No. 175013, 01 June 2007; Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 101837, 11 February 1992, 206 SCRA 138.
11
322 SCRA 160,
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 20
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
51 During the last hearing of this case on 27 October 2008, the prosecutor
tried to come up with a lame excuse why the accused was not notified
ended up with a blatant admission that “no subpoena was sent to the
naming the other accused” (page 17, TSN, 27 October 2008) and they
fatal.
51.1 The identity of the accused should always find basis in the
51.2 The prosecution cannot simply assume that Atty. Saladero is one of
violating his basic right not only to due process, but also of his right
51.4 In light of the clear admissions of the public prosecutor himself that
starting from the filing of the “amended” information which led to the
(underscoring is ours)
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 22
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
information has for its aim to give the defendant the necessary
State should not heap upon the defendant two or more charges which
might confuse him in his defense. (People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-
other accused, with three murders and three frustrated murders of six
Rules.
only one information against the herein accused despite the above-
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 23
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
cited rule being too elementary was clearly designed to confuse and
harass him.
information in the present case which charges the herein accused with
probable cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall certify under
(b) that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
(c) that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the
evidence.
states:
examined the complainant and his witnesses; (b) neither were the
credibility as a witness.
provides, to wit:
the accused enters his plea and even without leave of court. However,
prosecutor, with notice to the offended party and with leave of court
amendment must be with leave of court, meaning that the motion must
be set for hearing, and the offended party must be notified thereof.
with more reason should such notice be given to the person sought to
existing laws. And such notice will only be effective if the motion to
67 In the instant case, Atty. Saladero was not notified at all of the said
amendment, as the motion of the prosecutor was not set for hearing.
process.
12
66 SCRA 38
13
41 SCRA 235
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 28
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
properly file a motion to amend the information. But even without such
preliminary investigation, if the motion was set for hearing, the hearing
will serve and fulfill the essential purpose and requirements of a full-
72 On September 29, 2008, more than one year and four months after the
Rustom Simbulan the name “Remegio Saladero aka “Ka Patrick” and
the aforesaid archived case was filed in court. However, despite the
fact that there was no motion filed to revive the case, the Presiding
74 Moreover, perusing from the order of the Presiding Judge dated May 7,
inasmuch as all the other accused have not yet been sufficiently
in the sad motion praying for the revival of the archived case. More
importantly, there is yet no reason to revive the case due to the fact
that the accused named therein, i.e. Rustom Simbulan, has not yet
been arrested.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 30
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
motion which, under the rules, must be set for hearing so that the
77 The Presiding Judge therefore erred blatantly in reviving the case and
process.
KA PATRICK Los Baños, Laguna.” Having made the sole basis of the
Luna, Jr. on October 24, 2008 states that the accused arrested is
cause exists, that the crime had been committed and that the accused,
warrant of arrest.
84 By such order, the Presiding judge gave his imprimatur to the no-
the public prosecutor that the John Does in the original information are
the seventy one accused whose names were just added by Prosecutor
which later became the basis for the issuance of a warrant of arrest
85 With this important fact, it is evident that the Presiding judge did not
warrant of arrest. For how could the Presiding Judge adopt a finding
not derived from any proceeding? The Presiding judge could have
the records of the case. It only goes to show he did not study
vs. HON. JAPAL M. GUIANI, G.R. No. 118821, 18 February 2000, the
87 Had the Honorable Presiding judge gone over the records of the case
absurdities in the affidavits of the witnesses and the utter lack of basis
not state whether the complainants and his witnesses appeared before
revive at that, was the affidavit of a certain Silva who even did not
may not be faulted if he entertains in his mind that the mind that issued
the warrant of arrest against him may not be ‘unbiased’ after all.
II
to have an accused held for trial and for a trial judge to issue a warrant
14
232 SCRA 193 (1994)
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 35
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
Mendoza are both lawyers and partners of the Law Firm of Salonga,
ordered arrested without bail by the respondent judge in the said case.
Xxxx
Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan 27 sets a standard for
determining the existence of probable cause. While it
appears in that case that we have granted the prosecutor
and the trial judge seemingly unlimited latitude in
determining the existence or absence of probable cause by
affirming the long-standing procedure that they can base
their findings merely on their personal opinion and
reasonable belief, yet, this permissiveness should not be
interpreted as giving them arbitrary powers and letting
them loose in the determination of the existence of
probable cause, a delicate legal question which can
result in the harassment and deprivation of liberty of the
person sought to be charged or arrested. There we said
—
Xxx
Xxx
93 In this case, there is nothing on record that would justify the finding of
herein accused.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 37
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
agreed upon.
15
People v. Tiongson, 47 SCRA 243; People v. Ancheta, 66 Phil. 638.
16
Orodio v. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 316.
17
United States v. Figueras, 2 Phil 491.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 38
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
reasonable doubt.”18
101 To reiterate, in the affidavit of Vincent Silva, he did not say that
the alleged burning of the Globe tower or in the alleged ambush of the
himself Silva did not say that the sixty-seven others were perpetrators
these sixty seven (67) accused only had knowledge or knew of these
102 Significantly too, Silva confessed that he was one of the perpetrators
and explicitly named and narrated the criminal acts performed by four
others in the two incidents. He was silent on the sixty-seven (67) other
the incidents.
18
Pecho v. People, 262 SCRA 518 [1996].
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 39
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
and Joseph Panes that “more than fifteen heavily armed men”
accused other than the “more than fifteen heavily armed men” were
105 Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court enshrines in our legal
system the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet
106 In the case of People v. Tena20, the Honorable Supreme Court said:
19
See People v. Buntag, 427 SCRA 190 (2004)
20
215 SCRA 43, 47-48
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 40
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
107 In the instant case, the prosecution relies principally on the sworn
the “Amended Information” that the same was filed on the basis of
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 41
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
x x x x
108 It is clear from his sworn statement that he was part of the alleged
109 In People v. Tena21 and People v. Cui, et al.22, the High Court
110 While the res inter alios acta rule admits of certain exceptions, one of
21
Supra.
22
314 SCRA 166-168 (1999), citing People v. Raquel, 265 SCRA 248.
23
Supra.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 42
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
x x x
Silva, to establish the alleged conspiracy between him and all the
witness Silva, the entire records are utterly bereft of any other
between accused Atty. Saladero, all the other accused and witness
Silva.
Motion to Quash/Recall Warrant of Arrest & Motion to Dismiss the Case 43
People v. Rustom Simbulan, et al. Crim. Case No. CR-06-8525
August 19, 2008, when he and the accused were no longer engaged in
the alleged conspiracy and after the consummation of the crime. His
he neither gave details when he allegedly joined the NPA as a DPA and
Dolor should not have given any credence to Silva’s sworn statement
accordingly, the Honorable Presiding Judge should not have issued the
115 It is worthy of note that without the sworn statement of witness Silva,
Atty. Saladero and the other additional accused. Thus, the dearth of
pursuing for decades, including the reputation and the lives of the
PRAYER
to uphold the rule of law, accused Atty. Remigio D. Saladero, Jr. respectfully
prays that the Warrant of Arrest dated October 6, 2008 issued against him BE
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the premises are