Juancito, Freddie Jr., M.

BS-Criminology 4A / OJT Output

Bank Robbery at Landbank San Fernando Branch

On July 21, 2008 on or about 6 o’clock in the evening, San Fernando Police Station
received a call from an unknown caller that the Landbank San Fernando Branch has been robbed
and reported that a guard on duty named Jose Manaloto has been shot down by the four (4)
suspects. After the report call, PNP-San Fernando immediately headed to the said bank that had
been robbed.
Before the arrival of the police to the area, the suspects already fled mounted with a white
Toyota Camry Sedan with a plate number of 3PL Z149 and heading north bound. The suspects
were described by the victims as follows: Suspect (1) about 5’6 in height, masculine build, white
skin, wearing plain shirt, blue jeans, and ski mask; Suspect (2) about 5’9 in height, skinny, white
skin, stocky accent, black leather jacket and ski mask; Suspect (3) about 5’8 in height, around
20’s, wearing hoodie, and ski mask; and Suspect (4): about 5’7 in height, brown skin, wearing
blue shirt, with a mustache, and around 30’s.
Moreover, the bank robbery incident alerted the nearby police station that a patrolling and
police checkpoint were initiated. At Barangay Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union, Patrolman
Juan Del Mundo and PCL James Sebastian spotted a white Toyota Camry Sedan with a plate
number of 3PL Z149, two occupants were found inside the car and immediately pulled over the
car because the vehicle matches the description of the getaway vehicle. The two occupants were
arrested, and the other two suspects were still being chase.
 PROBABLE CAUSE

An arrest may be made at any day or any time of day by virtue of a Warrant of Arrest,
issued by the court or by warrantless arrest. A police officer or a private person may make an
arrest without a warrant under the following conditions:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
b. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe,
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement area to another.

According to Republic Act 7438, rights of a person arrested, and the responsibilities and
authority of a police officer during arrest if you are arrested, the arresting officer has the
responsibility to ensure that your rights are protected and respected:
a. The arresting officer has the responsibility of informing you of the reason for the
arrest in a language known to you.
b. You may require the arresting officer to show you the Warrant of Arrest.
c. The arresting officer should inform you of your constitutional right to remain
silent and that any statement you might make could be used for or against you in
any court of the law; that you have the right to counsel of your own choice, and if
you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one shall be provided to assist you; and that
the arresting officer should ask you if you understand those rights. You have the
right to communicate with your lawyer or your immediate family. It is the
responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that these are accomplished.
d. If you are arrested without a warrant (on conditions in Para 1.1), you will be
immediately brought to the proper police station and kept there for not more than
12 hours for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties; 18 hours for crimes
or offenses punishable by correctional penalties; and 36 hours for crimes or
offenses punishable by capital penalties. You must undergo inquest proceedings
in accordance with Section 7, Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure.
e. You shall not be subjected to torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will. You should not be brought to secret
detention places, solitary confinement (incommunicado) or other forms of
detention.
f. If you have been arrested without a warrant and you waive your right under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, the arresting officer shall
ensure that you sign a waiver of detention in the presence of the counsel of your
choice. If you waive your right against self-incrimination and opt to give your
statement, the arresting officer shall ensure that the waiver be made in writing and
 signed by you in the presence of a counsel of your own choice or a competent and
independent counsel provided by the government.
g. Immediately after your arrest, you should be subjected to a physical examination
by a medico-legal officer or, in the absence of such medico-legal officer, by any
government physician in the area. Prior to your release or any change of custody,
you will also be physically examined.

Responsibilities and Authority of the Arresting Officer The arresting officer has the
responsibility to ensure that warrant of arrest is properly served, and he is vested with certain
authority to enable him to accomplish the task. His authority includes:
a. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. An officer in order to make an
arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant, may break into building
or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be, if
he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose.
b. Right to break out from building or enclosure. Whenever an officer has entered
the building or enclosure to make an arrest, he may break out from there in order
to liberate himself.
c. Arrest after escape or rescue. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued
by his cohorts, any person may immediately pursue to retake him without a
warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines.

On my point of view, the police officers had a probable cause to perform police actions.
Based on the video, by the personal knowledge of the police officers for the facts or
circumstances, pertaining to the car description and the persons inside the vehicle has matched
with the information that was relayed in their radio. In addition, an offense has just been
committed and they had a probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
 SEACH AND SEIZURE
POLICE OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TO
ENSURE THAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE RESPECTED AND PROTECTED. The conduct of PNP
operations is governed by rules of procedures that are anchored on the Bill of Rights as contained
in Article III of the 1987 Constitution which identifies and defines the fundamental rights of
citizens, to wit:
a. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. All
persons shall enjoy equal protection of the law (Section 1).
b. All persons have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
be issued except upon probable cause (Section 2).
c. Any person under investigation shall have the right to be informed of his rights to remain
silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Section 12.1).
d. There should be no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited (Section 12.2) and any confession or admission
obtained through these shall be in admission in evidence against him (Section 12.3).
e. The accused shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty (Section 14.2).

A valid search warrant must meet four requirements:

1) the warrant must be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer;

2) the warrant must be based on reliable information showing probable cause to search;

3) the warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and

4) the warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
Police may only search the particular area and seize the specific items called for in
the search warrant. Police may search outside the scope of the warrant only if they are
protecting their safety or the safety of others, or if they are acting to prevent the
destruction of evidence. Police may seize objects not specified in the warrant only if they
are in plain view during the course of the search under some circumstances, police are
authorized to conduct a search without first obtaining a search warrant. Common
exceptions to the warrant requirement include:

 Consent. Police may conduct a search without a search warrant if they obtain consent.
Consent must be freely and voluntarily given by a person with a reasonable expectation
of privacy in the area or property to be searched.
  Plain View. An officer may seize evidence without a warrant if an officer is on the
premises lawfully and the evidence is found in plain view.
 Search incident to arrest. While conducting a lawful arrest, an officer may search an
individual's person and their immediate surroundings for weapons or other items that may
harm the officer. If a person is arrested in or near a vehicle, the officer has the right to
search the passenger compartment of that vehicle.
 Exigent Circumstances. Police are not required to obtain a search warrant if they
reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed, or others may be placed in danger in
the time it would take to secure the warrant.
 Automobile Exception. An officer may search a vehicle if they have a reasonable belief
that contraband is contained inside the vehicle.
 Hot Pursuit. Police may enter a private dwelling if they are in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing
criminal. Once inside a dwelling, police may search the entire area without first obtaining
a search warrant.

A police officer may stop an individual to conduct a field interview if the officer has
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has been, is being or is about to be committed. During
the field interview, the officer may conduct a pat-down search of the outer garments for weapons
if the officer has a reasonable fear for his or her own safety as well as that of others.

If evidence is obtained without a valid search warrant, and no exception to the warrant
requirement applies, the evidence may be subject to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary
rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in a court of law. Evidence
gathered on the basis of illegally obtained evidence (known as "fruit of the poisonous tree") will
also be excluded.

The search made by the police officers in the scenario was unlawful because based on the
Philippine Constitution Article III: Bill of Rights which defines the rights of a person being
searched. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
 MIRANDA RIGHTS

The Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police officers to

criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to
silence; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law
enforcement or other officials. These rights are often referred to as Miranda Rights. The
purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during
custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings.

What rights are stated under the Miranda Rule?

1. You Have the Right to Remain Silent.
Silence cannot be used against defendants in court. However, there is a term known as
“pre-Miranda” silence, which occurs when a suspect has not been read his or her Miranda Rights
and still remains silent. In that case, silence can be seen as unusual and suspect. Suspects who
state something like “my attorney has always told me not to give statements without him
present,” may avoid the negative consequences of refusing to speak.

2. Anything You Say Can Be Used Against You in a Court of Law.

All suspects have the right to remain silent. Those who give up that right face the
prospect that their statements will be used against them in court. This can be tricky, as many
times the only evidence against a defendant is a confession. Defense lawyers contend that many
innocent suspects, intimidated by arrest and interrogation, may speak to police without realizing
the danger.

3. You Have the Right to Have an Attorney of your own choice

This gives a suspect the right to have legal counsel present at the time of the
interrogation. A suspect must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an
attorney and have an attorney present before answering any questions by police. If the police try
to question a suspect after an arrest, they must stop the interrogation if the suspect requests an
attorney. 

4. If You Cannot Afford an Attorney, One Will Be Appointed to You by the Government
In order to make sure a person being interrogated has a clear understanding of his or her
rights, the suspect must be told that a lawyer will be appointed without charge if needed. Without
this additional advisory, the caution of the right to consult with an attorney could be
misunderstood and rendered meaningless.

Arrest Without the Reading of Miranda Rights

The Miranda decision is intended to make suspects aware of their Constitutional rights.
Police can ask routine questions—such as name, address, date of birth, and social security
number—without reading Miranda Rights, Again, most states enforce their own rules on when
and how police officers can place suspects under arrest, so it is difficult to generalize. Here in the
Philippines, arresting without saying Miranda rights can lead to dismissal of the case.

Art. 269.  Unlawful arrest.  — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or
without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering
him to the proper authorities. Unlawful Arrest is committed by any person who shall arrest or
detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities without being
authorized by law or reasonable ground therefor. Elements:
1. The offender arrests or detains another person;
2.  The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities; and
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground therefor.

Note:

● The offender is any person, whether a public officer or a private individual.

● If the arrest is made without a warrant and under circumstances not allowing a warrantless
arrest, the crime would be unlawful arrest.
● If the person arrested is not delivered to the authorities, the private individual making the arrest
is liable for illegal detention.
● If the person arrested is not delivered to the authorities, the public officer making the arrest is
liable for arbitrary detention.
● If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground but the public officer delays delivery of the
person arrested to the proper judicial authorities, the public officer is guilty of delay in the
delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities under Art. 125.

Arbitrary Detention vs. Unlawful Arrest

● The essence of the crime of arbitrary detention is a public officer’s act of detaining a person
without any lawful cause. In unlawful arrest, the crime is the act of arresting a person without a
legal cause for the purpose of delivering the person arrested to proper authorities.
● Arbitrary Detention - if the public officer has the authority to arrest and detain a person, but
the arrest is without legal ground.
 ● Unlawful Arrest - if the public officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person, or if he
did not act in his official capacity.

Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons (Art. 125) vs. Unlawful Arrest (Art. 269) 

1. In Art. 125, the detention is for some legal grounds; in Art. 269, the detention is not authorized
by law.
2. Under Art. 125, the crime committed is failing to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authority within a certain period of time; in Art. 269, it is committed by making an arrest not
authorized by law.
 ADMISSIBLITY OF EVIDENCE
Section 3 Rules of Court. Admissibility of evidence- Evidence is admissible when it is
relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or these rules.  

Elements present for an evidence to be admissible

1. The evidence is relevant
2. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent)
The two axioms of admissibility by Wigmore
1. That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible
2. That all facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some specific rule
forbids them.
NOTE: The first axiom is, in substance, the axiom of relevance while the second axiom is of
competence.

A. Multiple Admissibility
There are times when a proffered evidence is admissible for two or more purposes. Thus,
depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a declaration may be admissible for several
purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration, as part of the res gestae, or as a declaration
against interest.
Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against another. An
extrajudicial statement of a robbery subject is not admissible against his co-accused under the
res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as an admission
pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130.

NOTE: If the testimony is offered to prove that the subject was completed pursuant to the
contract, it cannot be offered to prove that the project was delayed. It must be noted that the
purposes for which evidence is offered must be specified because such evidence may be
admissible for several purposes under the doctrine of multiple admissibility, otherwise the
adverse party cannot interpose the proper objection. 

B. Curative admissibility
It allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing
party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence if it would remove any unfair prejudice
caused by the admission of the earlier inadmissible evidence (Adams v. Burlington, 1993).

Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence into the trial
cannot complain of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating
to the same subject matter. 

C. Conditional Admissibility
 It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent at
the same time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to
other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The proponent of the evidence may ask that the
evidence be conditionally admitted in the meantime subject to the condition that he is going to
establish its relevancy and competency at a later time. If the connection is not shown as
promised, the court, may upon motion of the adverse party, strike out from the record the
evidence that was previously conditionally admitted. 

Policy on the Admissibility of Evidence

 
A. Policy of Liberality: In case a question arises as to whether or not a particular material
should be admitted as evidence, Courts are given wide discretion what to admit and to be liberal
in admitting materials offered as evidence, unless the material is clearly incompetent. The
reasons are:
a) so that it may have a substantial range of facts as basis for deciding the case;
b) in case of appeal the appellate court may have before it all the evidence to
determine whether the decision appealed from is in accordance with the
evidence; and
c) to minimize any adverse effect of the non-admission upon the party affected.
 
B. Limitations:
1. Evidence may be excluded even if relevant if its probative value is outweighed by the risk that
its admission will cause:
a). undue or unfair prejudice
b). confusion of the issues
c). misleads the court
d). undue delay or waste of time
 
2. The court has the power to limit the presentation of additional evidence which are but
cumulative, or to prove points which a party has already well presented.

The pieces of evidence gathered in the scenario are not admissible because it was
collected with force and by virtue of the exclusionary rule principle and the Doctrine of the Fruit
of the Poisonous Tree which mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest,
unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be
excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence. The principle judges the
admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT
the evidence proves. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the
constitution or by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of
a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then such evidence
will be admissible.
 FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest,
unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or violation of a particular exclusionary law.
2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to primary evidence. The doctrine
applies only to secondary or derivative evidence. There must first be a primary evidence which is
determined to have been illegally obtained then secondary evidence is obtained because of the
primary evidence. Since the primary evidence is inadmissible, any secondary evidence
discovered or obtained because of it may not also be used.
a. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search or interrogation. The fruit
of this poisonous tree is evidence discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal
search, arrest, or interrogation or violation of a law.
b. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to
gain other evidence because the original illegally obtained evidence taints all those subsequently
obtained.

Section 3 Art. III on the Rules of court states Evidence Excluded by the Constitution
 
A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence are inadmissible:

1. Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure;
2. evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication and correspondence,
except upon lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise; 
3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are uncounseled, or when the
confessant was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, or when the confession
was coerced; and  
4. evidence obtained in violation of the right against self-incrimination.
 
B. Principles:
 
1. The exclusionary rule in all the foregoing provisions is TOTAL in that the inadmissibility
or incompetency applies to all cases, whether civil criminal or administrative, and for all
purposes.
 2. The incompetency applies only if the evidence was obtained by law enforcers or other
authorized agencies of the government. It does not apply if the evidence was obtained by
private persons such as private security personnel or private detectives even if they
perform functions similar to the police whenever a crime was committed.  
3. Secondary evidence resulting from a violation of the foregoing provisions is inadmissible
under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.  

The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from
an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law,
must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
1. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence is
obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves.    
2. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the constitution or
by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of a
certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then such
evidence will be admissible. 
3. The phrase is attributed to Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme and has its
biblical reference to Mathew 7: 17-20.

Are evidences seized without a search warrant valid and admissible?

No, because the Exclusionary Rule is embodied in Section 3 (2), Article 3, of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that “any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” This provision prevents the
government from using pieces of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution, particularly
the provisions on the Bill of Rights. It aims to protect its citizens from unreasonable searches and
seizures conducted by the State through its agents like the military and other law enforcement
agencies. The provision tells us that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures is deemed polluted, stained or contaminated and should be
excluded for being a fruit of the poisonous tree. Hence, it is inadmissible in evidence for any
purpose in any proceeding.
 Spot Report

Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
_______________________________________

___________________________

MEMORANDUM

FOR :
FROM :
SUBJECT : Spot Report
DATE :

1. On July 21, 2008, on or about 6 o’clock in the evening, a bank robbery at Landbank San
Fernando Branch located at City of San Fernando, La Union was reported.

2. San Fernando Police Station received a call from an unknown caller that the Landbank San
Fernando Branch has been robbed and reported that a guard on duty named Jose Manaloto has
been shot down by the four (4) suspects. After the report call, PNP-San Fernando immediately
headed to the said bank that had been robbed.

3. The suspects already fled mounted with a white Toyota Camry Sedan with a plate number of
3PL Z149 and heading north bound. The suspects were described by the victims as follows:
Suspect (1) about 5’6 in height, masculine build, white skin, wearing plain shirt, blue jeans, and
ski mask; Suspect (2) about 5’9 in height, skinny, white skin, stocky accent, black leather jacket
and ski mask; Suspect (3) about 5’8 in height, around 20’s, wearing hoodie, and ski mask; and
Suspect (4): about 5’7 in height, brown skin, wearing blue shirt, with a mustache, and around
30’s.
4. Progress report will follow ________________________:

PMAJ TEODORO M MERCADO

Chief of Police, San Fernando Police
 Station

SEARCH WARRANT

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch ________, City of ___________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SEARCH WARRANT NO._____

Plaintiff, FOR: Violation of Article __, RPC
(State the Specific Violations)
-versus-
____________________,
Respondent
x----------------------------------------x

APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

COMES NOW, the undersigned, PCL James Sebastian, presently assigned at San
Fernando City Police Station and having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby
depose and state the following under oath:

1. That he was informed and verily believes that _Mario D. Prudencio_, who may be found
at the premises _Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union , is in possession or has in his control a
property (subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense;
used or intended to be used as a means of committing an offense), which he is keeping and
concealing in the premises above described.

2. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact and was confirmed
to him by his witnesses, Police Officer PTL Juan Del Mundo and PCL James Sebastian ,who
were able to gain entry into the aforementioned premises of the respondent, and has therefore
reason to believe that search warrant should be issued to enable the undersigned to take possession
and bring to this Court the following described property:

a. Vehicular car

b. (Complete and detailed description of the property to be seized)

3. WHEREFORE, the undersigned prays to this Honorable Court to issue a search

warrant authorizing him and or his men or any peace officer to search the premises and if
machines are attached to the ground, padlock the premises described in this application and to
seize and bring to this Honorable Court the personal property above described to be dealt with the
full accord with existing laws.

City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, 28 day of July, 2008.

PCL James Sebastian

Applicant

RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR FILING: APPROVED FOR FILING:

PLT Liam L. Amorin PMAJ TEODORO M MERCADO

(Unit Head) (Chief of Office)
 INVENTORY RECEIPT

Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
______________________________________
_______________________

Date: July 21,

2008

INVENTORY SHEET/RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY / GOODS RECOVERED

Inventory Sheet of article/items seized from the vehicle of Mario D. Prudencio located at
Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union, by virtue of Warrantless search:

ITEMS/ARTICLES QUANTITY/UNIT
Cal .38 Pistol 4 pcs.
12-gauge Shotgun 4 pcs.
M16 Rifle 4 pcs.
Bag full of cash 3 bags
Ski mask 4 pcs.
Handheld Radio 4 pcs.
PTL Juan Del Mundo PCL James Sebastian
Witness Seizing Officer

BLOTTER REPORT

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
Philippine National Police
La Union Police Provincial Office
San Fernando Police Station
City of San Fernando, La Union

CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that based on the Police Blotter of this Police

Station,
record of the events mentioned hereunder was entered in the Log Book Blotter,
to
wit:

BLOTTER ENTRY No : 0721-2008-45

PAGE NUMBER : 0045
NATURE OF CASE.INCIDENT : Bank Robbery
DATE/TIME OF OCCUREANCE : July 21, 2008 / 6 o’clock in the evening
PLACE OF OCCURRENCE : City of San Fernando, La Union

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. On July 21, 2008, on or about 6 o’clock in the evening a bank robbery was
reported by an unknown caller that transpired at San Fernando City, La Union
specifically at Landbank San Fernando Branch wherein the caller said that
there are four (4) suspects all male, one guard was shot down by the suspects
named Jose y Manaloto, 33 years old, married, and a resident of Taboc, San
Juan, La Union. As a result, thereof, the victim sustained multiple gunshot
 wounds in the different parts of the body and was immediately rushed to La
Union Medical Hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival (DOA) by the
attending physician thereat. The police force of San Fernando Police Station
conducted checkpoint and patrol to capture the suspects.

DISPOSITION : For record as requested.

ATTENDED BY : PLT JUAN DELA CRUZ

This certification is being issued upon request of

___________________ in
connection with his application foe availment of Protective Security Personnel.

Issued this ____ day of ________________, _________________,

Philippines.

For the Station Commander:

PMAJ TEODORO M
MERCADO
Chief of Police, San Fernando
Police Station