Motion For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause RE Palayan Case PDF

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 40, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P &
- versus - 1880-P
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. CASIÑO, 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 public’s 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 2
(People vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Alano’s Handbook on Preliminary
Investigation and Inquest & Remedies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 year’s 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 panel’s
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 panel’s lack of impartiality and prior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 panel’s 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 panel’s 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.2. 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 People’s 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. 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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Bayudang’s
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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------
15. An analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution against each
accused-movant reveals the following:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
a. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF JIMMY PERALTA
1) Julie Sinohin claimed that he planned the killing of “Ricardo

Peralta” in such a way that he would be bumped from behind and
that it would be made to appear as an accident.
This is plainly unbelievable as they could not have predicted where

“Ricardo Peralta” would go and whether their plan would work, say, if
the person they were tailing suddenly took a different direction, road or
path.
2) That his group bumped Jimmy Peralta’s motorcycle at its

back11 causing the latter to fall down.
3) That the white car was going the same direction as the
motorcycle being driven by the victim.
4) That he could not remember the name of the other person who
was with him and Ka Mig inside the car.
In fact, the whole story of Julie Sinohin, e.i. the planning and mistaken
killing of Jimmy Peralta is a fabrication. This is proven by no less than the
evidences submitted by the complainants and/or included by the police, as
follows:
a) Spot Report prepared by one AC Binuya the day after the

incident or on December 24, 2004, and released by one Aquino BF
which contained the following:
“PD SPOT REPORT ON RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE TO

HOMICIDE ON OR ABOUT 2322001 DECEMBER 2001 AT
NATIONAL HIGHWAY BARANGAY, SINIPIT, BONGABON
NUEVA ECIJA ONE JIMMY PERALTA ASUNCION 25 YEARS
OLD MARRIED, FARMER AND RESIDENT OF BARANGAY
VEGA THIS TOWN DEAD ON THE SPOT WHILE DRIVING A
11
Paragraph 21, Sinumpaang Salaysay of Julie F. Sinohin dated November 22,
2006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTORCYCLE SUZUKI 125 WITH NO PLATE WHEN HIT A

CERTAIN MARLON BANICOD OF BARANGAY PALOMARIA
THIS TOWN CAUSING THE FELL DOWN THE SAID
MOTORCYCLE AS WELL AS THIS JIMMY PERALTA THEREBY
ACCIDENTALLY RUN OVER BY SPEEDING VEHICLE COMING
FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTION WHICH HAS NOT FULLY
IDENTIFIED BY THE WITNESS HERETO ONLY DESCRIBE AS
WHITE AUTOMOBILE FLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
INCIDENT VICTIM MARLON BANICOD RUSH TO THE
HOSPITAL FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT WHILE JIMMY
PERALTA IS NOW LIES AT THEIR RESIDENCE AND THE
MOTORCYCLE WAS TAKEN BY THE VICTIMS FAMILY
PROGRESS REPORT TO FOLLOW OFFICER ON THE CASE
FOR BINUYA AC ED.”
From the above Spot Report, it is clear that Jimmy Peralta hit a
certain Marlon Banicod with his motorcycle which caused the
former to fall down on the road and he was then ran over by
speeding vehicle coming from the opposite direction and not
from the same direction as Julie Sinohin claimed.
b) November 15, 2006 Statements of the following who were present

at the scene of the accident (Marlon D. Banicod, Eugene Macayan,
August L. Angeles) – they were then walking home along the
National Highway at Barangay Sinipit, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, when
Marlon was hit after which they saw a person (later identified as Jimmy
Peralta) lying on the road, hit by an oncoming white car.
c) Special Report of the Bongabon Chief of Police dated

September 18, 2001 – stated in paragraph 1 that Jimmy Peralta
accidentally bumped a pedestrian from behind which caused Jimmy to
lose control of the motorcycle. He fell down and was hit by a rushing
vehicle from opposite direction.
It is worth noting that the said Special Report called the case a hit-and-
run case. It also mentioned that there was an eyewitness who
executed an affidavit and that a copy of which was attached to the
Special Report. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Report stated the following,
to wit:
“2. Initial investigation of this case reveals that the herein victim
was then on board his motorcycle when a pedestrian accidentally
bumped from behind, causing to lost control and subsequently hit
by a rushing vehicle from opposite direction upon falling down,
thereby said victim fatally hit on the spot.
3. Follow-up investigation of the incident appears that the

circumstances surrounding hereto is hit-and-run case in which the
vehicle involved described as automobile with no specific
brand/make, color white, plate nr. was not taken by the
eyewitness, who executed an affidavit relevant to this incident
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and a copy of which is attached hereto, ready reference.”

(Emphasis supplied)
17. But where is that affidavit which was supposedly attached to the above
Special Report and which affidavit can potentially totally discredit the
testimony of Julie Sinohin?
18. As per the same report, the case was considered an unsolved Traffic
Accident. Even the filled up Case Report Chart classified the case as one
of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
19. After tailing the person for a few hours and after the alleged Intelligence
Group conducted surveillance, how could Julie Sinohin credibly explain
the alleged mistake in identity that resulted to the killing of the wrong
person?
20. Indeed, Jimmy Peralta appears to be a victim of a real hit-and-run case
perpetrated by an unknown individual but certainly not by Julie Sinohin’s
group as he claims. Jimmy Peralta was not a victim of a mistaken identity;
rather, he is a victim of a recycled identity.
b. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF CARLITO S. BAYUDANG
1) Julie Sinohin claimed that Carlito Bayudang was killed

pursuant to the order of the Central Committee which, in turn,
was in compliance with Accused-movants’ alleged order to
liquidate supporters of AKBAYAN who were hindering the
campaign and election of Gabriela and Bayan Muna.
The evidence that were executed or prepared in 2004 shortly after

the shooting (which are the following: The Spot Report, the May 7,
2004 Special Report, the May 19, 2004 Progress Report and the
June 7, 2004 Sinumpaang Salaysay of Angel Ayson) never
mentioned or considered this angle as the motive behind the killing,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this, considering that the police were not unaware of their
active membership in and campaigning for AKBAYAN Party List.
As per the May 19, 2004 Progress Report, Carlito Bayudang’s
killing appears to be a land dispute-related killing on account of his
and his group’s (the Red Vigilante Group) involvement in the forced
take-over of the 150-hectare Vijandre land.
The suspected mastermind of his killing was one DOMINGO DELA

CRUZ and not accused-movant Maza or her co-accused-movants .
This Domingo Dela Cruz, according to the widow is an alleged
CPP/NPA hitman connected with the Vijandre’s.
2) Julie Sinohin claimed that there were three of them, Ka Nasa, Ka

Apple and himself, who perpetrated that killing.
Angel Ayson who gave a sworn statement in June 7, 2004 stated that
he saw only two men; one who was already outside waiting for the
other who went out shortly, and that he saw them (the 2 men) board
the black motorcycle and drove towards the highway.
All other reports including the Salaysay of Isabelita Bayudang stated

that there were only two men who perpetrated the crime.
Moreover, with only a motorcycle as a get-away vehicle, it would have

been impractical and certainly risky to employ three (3) hitmen or
assailants as their escape and mobility away from the scene of the
crime will be greatly hampered.
Lastly, there was no explanation and certainly no need to employ more

than three hitmen as Julie claimed that the killing was planned and
pursuant to a prior surveillance.
3) Julie Sinohin claimed that his companions were Ka Nasa and Ka

Apple; that it was Ka Apple who went with him inside the house of
Bayudang while Ka Nasa waited in the get-away motorcycle.
Angel Ayson who gave a sworn statement in June 7, 2004 stated that
he saw only two men and that he heard the man standing on a black
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
motorcycle shout “tayo na KA RON, may dumarating” then he saw

another man who emerged from the yard of Carlito Bayudang. There
was no mention of the name/s of Julie Sinohin’s alleged companion/s
and Julie Sinohin did not claim in his statement to have employed the
alias “Ka Ron.”
4) Julie Sinohin and Isabelita Bayudang claimed that there were two
(2) people with whom the victim was talking to in the living room of
Bayudang’s house.
The May 19, 2004 Progress Report clearly stated that there was only
one (1) witness and named him as ERROL GERONIMO JR. but in
Isabelita Bayudang’s November 21, 2006 Sinumpaang Salaysay, she
stated that her late husband was talking to two (2) people and named
them as GERONIMO RAZON and ANTONIO COLLADO.
The same May 19, 2004 Progress Report stated that Isabelita
Bayudang was willing to give a sworn statement that will implicate
Domingo dela Cruz as the mastermind. Where is this Sworn
Statement? Certainly, it cannot be credibly said that Isabelita
Bayudang changed her mind into giving this sworn statement and
which she only decided to give more than two (2) years after the killing
when Julie Sinohin “miraculously” surfaced.
Moreover, it will be noted that while Sinohin12 listed the following

persons: Ricardo Peralta, Danilo Felipe, Carlito Bayudang, Francisco
Peralta, one Ka Ben and one Ka Ricky, to have been ordered killed by
12
Paragraph 14 of Sinohin’s Sinumpaang Salaysay stated:
“14. Disyembre ng 2000 pinatawag ako ni @ Sendong sa isang pagpupulong sa
isang liblib na Barangay sa bungabon, Nueva Ecija. Sa pulong na iyon ay ibinaba sa
amin ang atas na likidahin ang mga sumusunod bilang pagtupad sa inuutos nina Satur
Ocampo, Liza Maza, Teddy Casino, at Rafael Mariano na likidahin ang mga dating
kasama na sumosuporta sa AKBAYAN:
1. RICARDO PERALTA
2. DANILO FELIPE
3. CARLITO BAYUDANG
4. FRANSICO PERALTA;
5. KA BEN
6. KA RICKY
Ang amin (6) na nabanggit ay mga dating miyembro ng CPP/NPA/NDFP na
sumapi at sumoporta sa AKBAYAN na nag resulta sa malamya na pagtangkilik ng masa
sa BAYAN MUNA sa Lalawigan ng Nueva Ecija.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the CPP/NPA pursuant to the order allegedly handed down by the

accused-movants during the alleged meeting, the placard that was
recovered on the dead body of Felipe listed the following: 1. Danilo
Felipe with X mark; 2. Lito Bayudan, killed on May 06, 2004, 3. Ric
Peralta, 4. Fred Sadoy, 5. Eduardo Balay, 6. Hernan Ocampo, 7. and
Arjee Esquejo.
If Sinohin’s group was the one who prepared the placard that was
placed on Felipe’s dead body, how can he explain the discrepancy?
21. Significantly, the testimonies on accused-movant MAZA’s alleged
participation in the killings are replete with tell-tale signs of a perjured
testimony as follows:
a. The meetings were supposedly big meetings (malaking

pagpupulong) of high-ranking officials of the CPP/NPA/NDFP
Central Luzon, and yet the meeting was repeatedly held (all of the
three) in the same venue – the house of Cleotilde Peralta @ Joy at
Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.
b. All three (3) witnesses could not mention any other matters
discussed during the meeting than our alleged order to liquidate
AKBAYAN supporters.
c. All three (3) remembered almost exactly the same people who
attended the said meetings, save for one or two, whose alleged
aliases they could only provide.
d. All three (3) are rebel returnees who have surrendered to and are
not unlikely to be under the custody or protection of the military.
e. All three (3) executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay only in

November 2006. Alvaro L. Juliano and Cleotilde A. Peralta
executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay on November 21, 2006 while
Julie F. Sinohin executed his the following day. Both Sinohin and
Peralta gave the identical reasons for the execution of their
affidavits, to wit:
“Habang lumilipas ang mga panahon ay hindi ko na masikmura

ang mga pagpapatay na isinagawa namin sa mga inosenteng tao.
Dahilan nito, ako ay nagpasya na lisanin ang kilusan upang
makapamuhay ng tahimik ...”
f. Julie Sinohin claimed in paragraph 28 of his Sinumpaang Salaysay

that after the 2004 elections, he was summoned to a meeting at @
Joy’s house in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.
However, Cleotilde @ Joy Peralta stated in paragraph 23 of her
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinumpaang Salaysay that in the year 2004, she lied low and went
abroad and that when she came back she heard that our alleged
order was implemented prior to the elections.
22. How then could we have held a meeting in Joy’s house after the 2004
elections when Joy herself claimed that she lied low and went abroad in
2004?
23. Accused-movant MAZA made the following conclusions:
1) There is a pattern of suppression of evidence that were executed

or prepared shortly after the alleged killings or deaths of Danilo
Felipe, Jimmy Peralta and Carlito Bayudang;
2) The suppressed evidence were replaced by recent statements

taken only in November 2006 when Julie Sinohin “miraculously”
surfaced, admitted participation in the killings and implicated
myself and my co-respondents as the masterminds;
3) The fabrication of new evidence were, however, sloppily done as

their cross-matching with submitted earlier reports reveal major
inconsistencies that discredit the whole allegation of my and my
co-respondents’ participation.
24. Lastly, the complainants and their witnesses failed to attribute a credible
motive on all the accused’s 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 it13. In the instant cases, there is certainly more than just
some doubt on all the accused’s participation or guilt.
25. Accused-movant MAZA maintained 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
13
People vs. Galano, 327 SCRA 462.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Nueva Ecija will have no or very little effect on the electoral strength of
their party-list organizations.
26. 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 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 WOMEN’S
PARTY.
27. 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 former’s 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 Felipe’s 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.
28. 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 RP’s 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.
Evidence Against Accused-Movant Teodoro Casiño
a. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF JIMMY PERALTA
(1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mayumi Peralta
There is no mention of accused-movant Casiño or Bayan Muna in her
sinumpaang salaysay, or any allegation that it was accused-movant
Casiño or any Bayan Muna leader that ordered the killing of her
husband.
(2) Affidavit of Cleotilde Peralta
Accused-movant Casiño 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 Casiño through her task of coordinating with CPP’s
legal front organizations; that after 1987, she met accused-movant
Casiño, Father Balweg and other CPP/NPA leaders on various
meetings; that she saw accused-movant Casiño 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 Casiño and
his co-accused-movants; that in 2004 she lied low in the Kilusan and
went abroad but later came back and that’s when she heard that the
alleged order to liquidate Carlito Bayudang was carried out.
This is an outright lie. Accused-movant Casiño 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. Affiant’s 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.
(3) Affidavit of Alvaro Juliano
He said that he was designated as one of the security leaders in a
meeting held at @ Joy’s 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His statement is an outright fabrication. To reiterate, accused-movant
Casiño 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.
(4) Affidavit of Julie Sinohin
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 Casiño,
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.
Again, there was no such meeting on August 2000, much less an order
to kill from accused-movant Casiño or his fellow accused-movants.
Even in Sinohin’s 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 alleged hit list, is purely their initiative and cannot be
attributed to accused-movant Casiño or his fellow accused-movants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no time had accused-movant Casiño any motive to kill Peralta and
Bayudang. He does not know them, much less their activities.
Sinohin details his participation in the murders but his account is
inconsistent with the attached police reports and other evidence.
b. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF CARLITO BAYUDANG
(1) Affidavit of Isabelita Bayudang
There is no mention here of accused-movant Casiño. Neither is there
any allegation that it was him who ordered the killing of Carlito
Bayudang.
Contrary to the malicious claim of affiant, Bayan Muna is a political
party organized not by the CPP but by Filipino citizens who saw the
need to establish an alternative political party to represent the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors in Philippine society.
Bayan Muna is duly registered in and accredited by the COMELEC.
It is patently false and ridiculous for affiant to allege that her husband’s
activities weakened Bayan Muna. Having topped the 2001 party-list
elections, for Bayan Muna, Akbayan was never seen as a threat to it.
On her alleged and hearsay statement that Bayan Muna sent a
warning to Carlito Bayudang to stop his support for Akbayan on pain of
liquidation, affiant never identified specifically who sent the alleged

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
warning and, therefore, she or her husband has no basis in concluding
that it came from Bayan Muna.
(2) Affidavits of Julie Sinohin, Cleotilde Peralta and Alvaro Juliano
Please refer to the above discussion on their respective affidavits.
Evidence Against Accused-Movant Saturnino Ocampo
29. A reading of the affidavits that directly implicate Saturnino Ocampo as
well as Representatives Liza L. Maza, Teodoro A. Casiño 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
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.
30. 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.
31. 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 one’s 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.
32. Sinohin likewise stated:
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.
33. 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 police’s 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.
34. 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.
35. 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 Carlito’s house after the gunshots were
heard. Angel Ayson likewise specifically mentioned that he heard a man
standing by the motorcycle outside Carlito’s house shout: “tayo na KA
RON may dumarating,” That was all. A review of Sinohin’s 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 Sinohin’s 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.
36. Sinohin’s 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.
37. Even Isabelita Bayudang’s 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 .
38. 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
Bayudang’s, alleged that two cartons were found beside the body of
Danilo Felipe.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Noteworthy that the statements of the complainants Isabelita Bayudang,
Medelyn Felipe, and Mayumi Peralta did not mention Saturnino Ocampo’s
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.
43. The most notable element in the separate statements of Sinohin, C.
Peralta and Juliano is their uniform allegation that accused Ocampo,
Maza, Casiño 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.
44. 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 Casiño 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.”
45. 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.
46. The falsity of this uniform statement is obvious:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.1. 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.
46.2. 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.
46.3. It likewise strains credibility to take as factually correct that all the
four accused -- Ocampo, Maza, Casiño, Mariano - could have
ordered the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to
“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:
47. By what authority could Ocampo, Maza, Casiño and Mariano have
ordered the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to undertake the
alleged liquidation?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. How did the four issue the alleged order-all together, or one after the other
speaking at the alleged meeting?
49. 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.
50. 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?
51. 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.
52. 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
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.
53. 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
54. Prosecution witness Julie Sinohin Flores volunteered accused-movant
Rafael Mariano’s 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
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:
55. According to Sinohin’s web of lies, in August 2000, accused Rafael
Mariano, together with his co-accused-movants Reps. Satur Ocampo, Liza
Maza and Teodoro Casiño 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”.
56. 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
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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. 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.”
58. 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)
59. 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,
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.
60. 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.
61. The affidavits of the above-named persons provide nothing on accused-
movant Mariano’s 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 Mariano’s Supposed Participation To The Murder Of The

Victims Is Based On Hearsay Evidence.
62. 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
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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. The prosecution’s 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.
66. 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
designed Julie Sinohin’s 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.
67. 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.
------------------------------------------------------
68. 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,14 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
admission in evidence of the extrajudicial confession of Adelberto
Camota and his conviction on the sole basis thereof.
14
215 SCRA 43 [1992].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“But as is made clear by the Solicitor General in his “Manifestation

in Lieu of Appellee’s Brief,” the matter of that confession’s
competency need not be delved into as the issue of accused-
appellant’s 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 Camota’s 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 man’s 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.”
69. 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

15
case. As held in People v. Tena and reiterated in People v.
Surigawan,16 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.
70. In People v. Surigawan (supra), the Court said:
“The error of the trial court is compounded by the use of similar

uncounselled confessions made by the other accused to convict
15
Supra.
16
228 SCRA 458, 464-465 [1993].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
71. 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.
72. The public prosecutors categorically stated in their Resolution dated 11
April 2008 that the testimony of Julie Flores Sinohin is “an absolute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
necessity xxxx if we are to successfully prosecute these cases.”
However, the prosecution has not proven the supposed conspiracy
through any other evidence other than Julie Flores Sinohin’s sole extra-
judicial confession dated 22 November 2006. Nor were his declarations
made during the existence of the alleged conspiracy.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
17
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. 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.
77. 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.18
“Conspiracy must be real and not presumptive,19 and must be

proved as the crime itself independent from the confession.”20
78. In People v. Ortiz,21 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.’”
79. 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,22 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-
18
Pecho v. People, 262 SCRA 518, 27 September 1996.
19
U.S. v. Figueras, 2 Phil 491.
20
People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, 23 SCRA 127, 144.
21
G.R. No. 111723, 27 January 1997.
22
140 SCRA 277 [1985].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 latter’s
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.)
80. In the subsequent case of People vs. Pamon,23 the High Court
emphatically reiterated the ruling in People vs. Plaza 24 thus,
“We cannot sustain the trial court’s 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.”
81. 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.
82. 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
23
217 SCRA 501 [1993].
24
Supra.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Casiño, 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.
------------------------------------------------------
83. The Supreme Court in People vs. Hernandez,25 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,
25
99 Phil. 515, 18 July 1956.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or

complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a
graver penalty.
84. Likewise, in the landmark case of People vs. Hernandez,26 as reiterated
in People v. Geronimo,27 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.
85. 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
26
Supra.
27
100 Phil. 90.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as to facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose of rebellion. All
the said acts constitute not two or more offenses, but one crime, that of
rebellion plain and simple, punishable with one single penalty.
86. More than thirty years (30) later, the High Court reaffirmed this doctrine in
the case of Enrile v. Salazar,28 saying:
The ruling remains good law, its substantive and

logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and
no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to
warrant a complete reversal.
Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to

prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means
necessary to its commission or as an intended effect of an
activity that constitutes rebellion.
87. The decisive factual issue that can determine if the political offense
doctrine of absorption enunciated in the landmark case of People vs.
Hernandez,29 that was subsequently affirmed in Enrile vs. Salazar 30 and
Enrile vs. Amin,31 will apply to this case is whether political motivations
attended the alleged killing of Carlito Bayudang and Jimmy Peralta. The
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija itself submits ample
proof that the alleged offenses of the accused are politically motivated.32
88. Based on the records that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva
Ecija submitted, they made the following findings:
28
186 SCRA 217, 5 June 1990.
29
Supra.
30
Supra.
31
189 SCRA 573, 13 September 1990.
32
Please see the Joint Resolution dated 11 April 2008 of the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija through Assistant Provincial Prosecutors Antonio
Lapus, Jr., Edison Rafanan and Eddie Gutierrez that Provincial Prosecutor Floro
Florendo approved attached herewith as Annex “1.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Respondents Party List representatives are labeled

by the (S)tate authorities as leftist organization(s) and are
alleged as fronts of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.
“Eugenia Magpantay, Vicente Cayetano, Delfin

Pimentel and Emeterio Antalan are high(-)ranking officials of
the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija provincial
committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.
“Julie Flores Sinohin and the other eleven (11)

respondents bearing aliases were the designated members
of the liquidation squad and intelligence group tasked by the
regional and provincial committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP
and the Party List representatives to liquidate Danilo Felipe,
Ricardo Peralta and Carlito Bayudang.
“On February 19, 2001 Danilo Felipe was murdered

followed by the killing of Jimmy Peralta who was mistaken
for Ricardo Peralta and on May 6, 2004 the killing of Carlito
Bayudang.
XXXX
“That after the discussion Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza,

Teddy Casiño and Rafael Mariano directed the leaders of
the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to liquidate former CPP/NPA
members who will support the party list AKBAYAN.
“Liza Maza suggested that members of GABRIELA be

used in gathering intelligence among former CPP/NPA
members who will support party list AKBAYAN.
XXXX
“There were many others whom they liquidated for

being suspected as military spies and these liquidations
were ordered by the Central and Regional Committee of the
CPP/NPA/NDFP.”
89. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija, in fact, proceeds
from the State’s presumption that BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA and
ANAKPAWIS Party-Lists, the organizations of accused-movants, namely
Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Teodoro Casiño and Rafael Mariano are mere
fronts of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90. It further states that the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija
Provincial Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP along with accused party-list
representatives designated the alleged intelligence and liquidation team of
a certain Mr. Julie Flores Sinohin to kill Ricardo Peralta and Carlito
Bayudang.
91. The alleged victims were either military spies, members of the dreaded
Red Vigilante Group (RVG) or supporters of the AKBAYAN Party-List that
is the purported rival and thorn in the side of BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA
and ANAKPAWIS.
92. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija states that the
entire hierarchy of the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija Provincial
Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and the herein accused are working in
tandem so as to further their goals of eliminating all opposition to their
ultimate objective of overthrowing the government.
93. Clearly, therefore, the prosecution itself pegs the motive for the separate
killings as political and, hence, naturally for furthering the purpose of
rebellion. The men killed were certainly not portrayed as eliminated out of
a whim or random selection but because their deaths served to achieve
revolutionary ends.
94. In fact, the indictment of the so-called officers of the Central Luzon
Regional and Nueva Ecija Provincial Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP,
namely, Eugenia Magpantay, Vicente Cayetano, Delfin Pimentel and
Emeterio Antalan as the co-conspirators of the accused party-list

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
representatives makes sense only when viewed under the framework of a
rebellion and not merely killing in isolation.
95. On the other hand, a careful reading of the 12-page Information in
Criminal Case No. 06-944 of the Makati Regional Trial Court, the said
case for rebellion against Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño, Liza Maza,
Rafael Mariano, among others accused therein, would clearly show that
the broad allegations therein encompass all the supposed criminal acts
and activities of the CPP/NPA/NDFP from the time of their founding thirty-
eight years ago on 26 December 1969 up to the filing of that rebellion
case on 12 May 2006.33
96. Although the “multiple” murders in Nueva Ecija were not explicitly
mentioned in the information for rebellion in Criminal Case No. 06-944, the
following matters would show that the purported killings that are the
subject matters of the instant criminal cases are included in the indictment
in afore-cited rebellion case:
97. The period and places mentioned in the Information, in relation to the
enumeration of the twelve categories of alleged acts of rebellion, covers
the entire existence of the CPP/NPA/NDF from their founding thirty-eight
years ago up to the filing of the rebellion case with the Makati Regional
Trial Court. These illegal acts were allegedly committed in the entire
territory of the Philippines.
33
Please see the Information appended to the record of the Criminal Case No. 06-
944 filed at the Makati Regional Trial Court attached herewith as Annex “4.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98. The first paragraph of the information explicitly alleges murder as a
“means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in
furtherance thereof.”
99. The enumeration of the acts of rebellion in paragraph 1 of the Information
for rebellion clearly includes “removal of disloyal members of the
CPP/NPA/NDF.”
100. The list of alleged atrocities in paragraph 2 of the same Information
expressly mentions the “wanton acts of murder x x x of other persons as
alleged payment of political debts and/or in furtherance of their
(respondents’) objective of the CPP/NPA/NDF to overthrow the
government.”
101. Paragraph 4 of thereof likewise alleged that “in furtherance of (said)
rebellion, the accused implemented the different policies of the
CPP/NPA/NDF including, but not limited to x x x.”
102. The only possible conclusion then is that it is but proper to deem the
instant case as absorbed in the rebellion case docketed as Criminal Case
No. 06-944 filed before the Makati Regional Trial Court, following the
political offense doctrine of absorption since the crimes the accused party-
list representatives ostensibly committed were allegedly done in pursuit of
revolutionary ends. Considering that the rebellion case has been ordered
dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1 June 2007,34 the present criminal
34
Please see the Supreme Court decision in G.R Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76 &
175013 promulgated on 1 June 2007, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “5.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cases for murder must also necessarily be dismissed pursuant to the
doctrine above discussed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, in the interest of justice and to
uphold the rule of law, accused SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A.
CASIÑO, LIZA L. MAZA and RAFAEL V. MARIANO pray for the outright
dismissal of this case.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the premises are
also prayed for.
Makati City for Palayan City. April 21, 2008

Motion For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause RE Palayan Case PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause RE Palayan Case PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

SATURNINO OCAMPO, ET AL.,

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

Accused SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, LIZA L.

MAZA and RAFAEL V. MARIANO, by undersigned counsels, most respectfully

move that this Honorable Court conduct a determination of probable cause

state the following:

The obvious involvement of political considerations in

[W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that

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

In the conduct of preliminary

3. “The preliminary investigation proceeding, like court proceedings, is

4. As an indispensable requirement of due process, the investigating

5. In the instant cases, however, accused-movants were denied due process

subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor x x x,” the

5.2. The Investigating Panel refused to grant clarificatory hearing

5.2.1. While it is true that the conduct of clarificatory hearing is not

5.2.2. Accused-movants repeatedly requested and insisted on

5.2.3. Accused-movants identified the following important issues

a) Re the confession of Julie Flores Sinohin, the specific dates

It is well to note that the accused-movants were linked by Julie

Accused-movants pointed out that Julie Sinohin failed to specify the

b) Re the submission of the investigation report of the

Accused-movants also pointed out that witnesses Alvaro L. Juliano,

After comparing the accounts of the above three witnesses with

Given the above and considering that accused-movants were

c) The need to establish the identity of the complaining

The panel of investigating public prosecutors should have dispelled

appear and making themselves available for questioning in the

As stated in accused-movants’ letter dated 14 January 2008

d) There were material gaps, ambiguous and sweeping

Accused-movants enumerated in their counter-affidavits and their

e) Lastly, considering that accused-movants have sufficiently

In the same letter dated 14 January 2008, accused-movants

surrendered to and are likely to be under the custody or protection

A clarificatory hearing could have given the public prosecutors and

The panel of investigating prosecutors did not only refuse to

5.3. The need for clarificatory hearing is even admitted by panel

5.4. The panel readily dismissed accused-movants’ manifestation

5.4.1. Although the submission of a Memorandum is not required,

5.4.2. Accused-movants have raised several questions of law, in

5.4.3. As also stated above, the alleged involvement of herein

5.4.4. Unfortunately, the panel readily dismissed and even

5.5. The adverse Joint Resolution contained very scant and

5.5.1. Way before the resolution of the instant cases, accused-

5.5.2. Of the average 20 pages each of accused-movants’

5.5.3. Worse, of the numerous defenses presented by the

intent to find probable cause against herein accused-

5.6.1. Foreseeing what was to come given the panel’s numerous

5.6.2. On 18 April 2008, accused-movants’ undersigned counsels

5.6.3. To date, accused-movants and their counsels are yet to

5.6.4. Clearly, the panel never intended to give the accused-

5.6.5. Accused-movants likewise learned that on the same day of

Detection Group of the Philippine National Police were

The instant cases are part of a

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