Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Manila

LEONARDO DA VINCI REYES,

Complainant- Appellant,
NPS DOCKET NO. III-13-INV-15B-
00120
For: Carnapping/Qualified
Theft/Estafa
-versus-

MICHELANGELO PINEDA,
Respondent-Appellee.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Complainant-Appellant LEONARDO DA VINCI REYES, through the

undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Office most respectfully states that:

I.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This is an appeal from the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor,
Angeles City dated May 5, 2017 dismissing the above-stated criminal complaints
filed by Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes, and the Resolution of
Hon. Beverly F. Pangilinan, as Acting City Prosecutor, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga, resolving to deny the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 9, 2017
filed by Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes, the dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is

hereby DENIED for lack of merit.”

II.

THE PARTIES

Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes is of legal age, Filipino

citizen, married, and residing at 123 Roma Italia St., Brgy. Europe, Angeles City.
The latter may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of this
Honorable Office at the law office address of the undersigned counsel given below.
 Respondent-Appellee Michaelangelo Pineda is of legal age, Filipino citizen
and residing at 123 Sistine Chapel St., Brgy. Vatican, Angeles City, where he may
be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes.

III.

NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

This is a Petition for Review under Section 4 of the NPS Rules on Appeal
(i.e. Department Circular No. 70, 3 July 2000), which provides:

“Section 4. How appeal taken. An aggrieved party may appeal

by filing a verified petition for review with the Office of the
Secretary, Department of Justice, and by furnishing copies thereof to
the adverse party and the Prosecution Office issuing the appealed
resolution.”

Section 3 of the same rules requires that the Petition for Review be filed
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed resolution or from the denial of
the motion for reconsideration if one has been within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the assailed resolution.

Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes appeals to the Resolution

of the Office of the City Prosecutor, Angeles City dated May 5, 2017 dismissing
the above-stated criminal complaints filed by latter, and the Resolution of Hon.
Angelina Jolie, as Acting City Prosecutor, City of San Fernando, Pampanga,
resolving to deny the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 19, 2017. Original
copies of the Motion to Inhibit the Entire Office of the City Prosecutor of Angeles
with attached Motion for Reconsideration dated June 9, 2017 filed by herein
Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes and the Opposition to the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by Respondent-Appellee Michaelangelo Pineda
are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “A” and “B”, respectively.

The Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration was received by herein

Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes on October 25, 2017. Original
copies of the assailed Resolutions dated May 5, 2017 and October 19, 2017 are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes “C” and “D”, respectively.

Hence, this Petition is timely filed pursuant to Section 3 of Department

Circular No. 70 of the Department of Justice.

IV.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

As regards to the facts and proceedings which led to the filing of this
Petition, we are hereby adopting and reiterating all the delictive allegations
advanced in the Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes’ Sinumpaang
Sumbong Salaysay, to wit:

“NA, noong 11:28 ng umaga ng February 7, 2017 (Tuesday) at

tinawagan ako ni MICHELANGELO sa aking cellphone upang
magpa-book ng Van para sa limang (5) araw mula sa February 8,
2017 (Wednesday) hanggang February 12, 2017 (Sunday) para sa
biyaheng Tagaytay;

NA, ang usapan namin ni respondent MICHELANGELO ay

babayaran niya nang tag Php 2,000.00 kada araw ang renta ng
kanyang rerentahang sasakyan sa amin;

NA, ang sinabi ni respondent MICHELANGELO sa akin na

siya ang magda-drive ng kanyang reretahang sasakyan (Van) sa
amin;

NA, napaniwala naman ako ni respondent MICHELANGELO

kaya ako nagtiwala sa kanya;

NA, mga bandang ika-1:20 ng hapon ng February 08, 2017

(Wednesday) ay pumunta sa aming bahay itong is respondent
MICHELANGELO para kuhanin ang aming Toyota Hi-Ace
Commuter Van na may plakang WOD-143 Silver in color;

NA, noong kunin ni respondent MICHELANGELO ang aming

Van ay naka-record sa aming CCTV camera;

NA, noong petsa February 12, 2017 (Sunday) ay tumawag sa

aking cellphone si respondent MICHELANGELO para sabihin na
mag-e-extend pa ng dalawang (2) araw hanggang February 14,
2017 (Tuesday) at imbes na Php 10,000.00 ang kanyang
babayaran sa amin ay magiging Php 14,000.00 ang ibabayad sa
akin ni respondent MICHELANGELO;

NA, tinanong ko pa ng ilang beses itong si respondent

MICHELANGELO kung siya ba talaga ang nagmamaneho ng
aming Van at ang sagot naman niya sa akin ay siya nga daw ang
driver nito;

NA, muli ay napaniwala na naman ako ni respondent

MICHELANGELO sa kanyang litany at pangako;

NA, ngunit dumating ang araw ng February 14, 2017

(Tuesday) ay tumawag sa akin itong si respondent
MICHELANGELO sa kanyang cellphone (091711111111) para
sabihin niya sa akin na mag-e-extend ulit ang mga bisita niyang
amerikano ng hanggang Sabado ( February 18, 2017) at
magbabayad siya ng halagang Php 20,000.00;
 NA, sinabi pa mandin sa akin ni respondent MICHELANGELO
na huwag daw kaming mag-alala at hawak niya na an gaming Van
at siguradong magbabayad siya ng halagang Php 20,000.00;

NA, dumating ang petsa February 18, 2017 (Saturday) mga

6:20 ng gabi, tumawag ako kay respondent MICHELANGELO
upang kumustahin ang aming Van, sumagot naman siya na
pababa nga sila galing Tagaytay;

NA, mula alas 11:26 ng gabi ng February 18, 2017 hanggang

1:30 ng madaling-araw ng February 19, 2017 (Sunday) ay HINDI
na siya sumasagot sa aming mga tawag;

NA, mga bandang ika-3:00 ng madaling araw ng February 19,

2017 (Sunday) ay muli akong tumawag kay respondent
MICHELANGELO, sa pagkakataong ito ay nanginginig na ang
kanyang boses; at sinabing wala ang van sa kanya at inaming
hindi siya ang gumamit at nagmaneho ng van mula noong kinuha
nya sa akin kungdi ibinigay sa kanyang kaibigan na ka frat na si
Roel Cabigting;

NA, ang ginawa naman naming mag-asawa ay pumunta kami

sa bahay nina respondent MICHELANGELO sa address na 839-A
Lot 132, San Pablo St., San Ignacio, Pandan;

NA, sa loob na ng bahay nina respondent MICHELANGELO

na niya sinabi na nawawala na nga an gaming Van, natulala ako
at parang nanlambot sa aking narinng, sa madaling salita pala ay
NILOLOKO lamang kami ni respondent MICHELANGELO na
siya ang may hawak n gaming Van;

NA, inamin na rin ni respondent MICHELANGELO na

nagsinungaling siya sa amin;

NA, inamin ni respondent MICHELANGELO sa aming mag-

asawa na ang talagang nagmamaneho ng aming Van ay ang
kanyang kaibigan na si Roel Cabigting;

NA, pagkatapos naming mag-usap ni respondent

MICHELANGELO ay naisipan kong tawagan ang aking
kakilalang pulis na si SPO4 Policeman Lopez na taga PNP CIDG
para i-report ang pangyayari at magpatulong na rin sa kanya;

NA, noong umaga (8:30) ding petsa February 19, 2017

(Sunday) ay pumunta kami sa opisina ng CIDG, Pampang para
magpasama kay SPO4 Edon Yalung kung saan ay nalaman namin
na ang tunay napangalan ni ROEL CABIGTING ay ROEL/RUEL
DIMABAYU sa opisina ng CIDG ng Carnapping;
 NA, may mga NPS Docket Number III-01-INV-17A-00009
(CARNAPPING) at NPS Docket Number III-01-INV-16L-00988
(CARNAPPING) na nakasampa sa opisina ng Department of
Justice, Angeles City laban pa din kay RUEL DIMABUYU;

NA, sinabi pa din ni respondent MICHELANGELO sa amin na

ka-brod niya si RUEL/ROEL DIMABUYU sa fraternity;

NA, pagkatapos ay pumunta kami sa bahay ni JAY LORD

MATIC (one of the complainant agaist ROEL/RUEL DIMABUYU)
sa may Claro M. Recto, A.C. kasama pa din namin itong mag-
asawang MICHELANGELO PINEDA noon;

NA, noong Makita namin si JAY LORD MATIC ay binigyan

niya kami ng kopya ng Warrant of Arrest ni ROEL/RUEL
DIMABUYU na inisyu ng RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City;

NA, ang usapan namin nina respondent MICHELANGELO ay

ita-trap namin is ROEL/RUEL DIMABUYU para siya ay mahuli
ng mga taga CIDG at marekober ang aming sasakyan sa madaling
panahon;
NA, nalaman na lang namin na ipinahuli na ni respondent
MICHELANGELO itong kanyang ka brod na si ROEL/RUEL
DIMABUYU sa mga pulis at hindi naman sa CIDG na nauna
naming napag kasunduan;

NA, nakita namin itong si RUEL/ROEL DIMABUYU na

nakakulong na nga sa may Police Station 6, ACPO;

NA, aking ilalakip ang OR at CR ng aming sasakyan para sa

kaukulang reperensiya at impormasyon;

NA, may unit price an gaming Van na nagkakahalaga ng Php

1.2 Million.”

Original copies of the Sinumpaang Sumbong Salaysay and Sinumpaang

Kontra Salaysay are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “E” and “F”,
respectively.

On June 8, 2017, Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes received the

Resolution of Honorable Brad Pitt, Assistant City Prosecutor of Angeles City,
dated May 5, 2017, dismissing the above-stated criminal complaints, marked above
as Annex “A”.

Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes assailed the aforesaid

Resolution and filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Angeles City a
Motion to Inhibit the Entire Office of the City Prosecutor of Angeles City with
attached Motion for Reconsideration dated June 9, 2017;
 Accordingly, the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor granted the Motion to
Inhibit and designated Honorable Angelina Jolie, Acting City Prosecutor of the
City of San Fernando, Pampanga to resolve said motion. On October 19, 2017, the
latter resolves to deny the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 9, 2017, filed by
Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes, marked above as Annex “B”,

Hence, this Petition for Review.

V.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The Honorable Investigating Prosecutor erred in finding

that there is no probable cause to warrant the filing of
Informations in the proper court for the crimes of
Carnapping/Qualified Theft/Estafa against Respondent-
Appellee Michelangelo Pineda.

VI.

ARGUMENT

Probable Cause exists to warrant

the filing of Informations for the
crimes of Carnapping/Qualified
Theft/Estafa against Respondent-
Appellee Michelangelo Pineda.

1. The allegations in the complaint, as well as the evidence presented in

support thereof, for the crimes of Carnapping/Qualified Theft/Estafa against
Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda are sufficient in form and
substance for purposes of determining probable cause to warrant the filing of
the complaints in court;
2. Probable Cause has been defined as “the existence of such fact and
circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecution, that the person charged was
actually guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.” Probable cause is
a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well
founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a
person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or
strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean actual and
positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on
opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a
conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for
 the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge ( Rueda
vs. Pascasio, 86 SCAD 791).
3. It is very clear from the facts surrounding the case and pieces of evidence
submitted by the Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes that he
was deceived and defrauded by Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda.
4. Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes would not entrust the
subject motor vehicle (van) in favor of the Respondent-Appellee
Michelangelo Pineda, if not through the latter sweet talks, machinations and
well-executed evil scheme. The Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda
effectively executed his evil intent to deceive the Complainant-Appellant
Leonardo da Vinci Reyes, which inveigled the latter to entrust the subject
vehicle to respondent Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda for rental;
5. True enough, Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda’s evil motive of
defrauding the Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes apparently
manifested when the former failed to surrender the rented van with the
Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes after the lapse of the rental
period agreed upon;
6. The said defense of the Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda is not
only self-serving but also without any probative value, because what is at
issue here is the Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda’s rental on the
subject vehicle. When the contract of rental/lease of the subject was
consummated, juridical possession passed upon him, no more no less, and
Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda has the obligation to return the
same upon demand, failure on his part to return upon demand constitutes the
crime of Estafa. This is plain and simple, and does not require a legal mind
to understand the same.
7. To reiterate, the fact remains that the subject motor vehicle (van) was
entrusted to Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda for rent, thus, the
latter has the legal obligation to return the same with the Complainant-
Appellant Leonardo da Vinci Reyes after the agreed period of rental. Failure
on the part of the Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda to deliver the
same beyond the agreed period constitutes the crime of Estafa.
8. Thus, justice and equity dictates that Complainant-Appellant Leonardo da
Vinci Reyes cannot be made to suffer from acts of Respondent-Appellee
Michelangelo Pineda, who is now scot-free roaming around looking for
another unsuspecting victim. Further investigation revealed that said
Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda is not gainfully employed and
has victimized several other persons. There is an uncomforting report, the
Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda was boasting around that he is
untouchable saying that “Pera lang ang katapat nyan”.
9. In sum, it is respectfully prayed that the Honorable Office of the Department
of Justice to carefully appreciate the real facts that transpired between the
parties and finds probable cause to indict Respondent-Appellee
Michelangelo Pineda for the crime of Estafa with the proper court.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office that the assailed Resolutions dated May 5, 2017 and October 19,
2017 be reversed and set aside, and that there be a finding of probable cause to
warrant the filing of the corresponding criminal Informations for Estafa against
Respondent-Appellee Michelangelo Pineda before the proper Court.
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Angeles City for Manila, November 3, 2017.

OLODIANS LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Complainant-Appellant
*Address*

By:

ATTY. NICK OLODIANS

Roll of Atty. No. 12345
IBP No. 12345/Lifetime Member
PTR No. 1234567/01-01-21/Angeles City
MCLE Compliance No. V– 0003936 dated 05-25-16

Copy Furnished:
HON. ANGELINA JOLIE R.R.R. No._____________
Acting City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
City of San Fernando, Pampanga

HON. BRAD PITT R.R.R. No._____________

Office of the City Prosecutor
Pulung Maragul, Angeles City

HON. RYAN GOSLING R.R.R. No._____________

Office of the City Prosecutor
Pulung Maragul, Angeles City

MICHELANGELO PINEDA R.R.R. No._____________

Respondent-Appellee
123 Sistine Chapel St., Brgy. Vatican,
Angeles City
 Explanation

The foregoing Petition for Review was served to Hon. Angelina Jolie
(Acting City Prosecutor), Hon. Brad Pitt (Assistant City Prosecutor), Hon. Ryan
Gosling (City Prosecutor) and Respondent-Appellee and was filed before the
Department of Justice, Manila through registered mail due to lack of time and
personnel to effect personal service.

NICK OLODIANS

VERIFICATION

I, LEONARDO DA VINCI REYES, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married,

and residing at 123 Roma Italia St., Brgy. Europe, Angeles City, after being sworn,
depose and state that:

1. I am the Complainant-Appellant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the Petition for Review to the
Honorable Secretary of Justice;

3. I have read the same and all the allegations therein, including the documents
appended thereto; and

4. The same are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and copies
of authentic records of the case in my possession.

5. Further, I hereby declare that the documents and annexes thereof hereto
submitted electronically, in accordance with the Rule on Electronic Filing of
Petitions for Review, are complete and faithful electronic reproductions
thereof filed with the Department of Justice.

LEONARDO DA VINCI REYES

Affiant/ Complainant-Appellant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of November, 2017

in Angeles City, by the affiant, who is personally known to me, that he is the same
person who personally signed before me the foregoing Verification and
acknowledged that he freely executed the same.

ATTY. NICK OLODIANS

Notary Public for Angeles City
Until December 31, 2021
Commission Serial No. 2019-123
 Until December 31, 2021
Roll of Atty. No. 12345
Admitted t o the Bar on January 1, 2000
Doc. No. 01; IBP No. 1234/Lifetime Member
Page No. 06 ; PTR No. 1234567/01-01-21/Angeles City
Book No. I ; 123 Eme eme St., Brgy. Eme
Series of 2021. Angeles City