Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BASILAN

9TH Judicial Region
Branch 1
Isabela City, Basilan

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER: 4228-842

-versus- FOR

PO1 JAINUDDIN H. HAKIMIN MURDER

Et. AL.,
Accused

x----------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ACCUSED through the undersign counsel and unto this honorable court, most
respectfully move for reconsideration of the judgement of conviction, and in support thereof,
alleges:

1. In a judgement that was promulgated in an open court on October 6, 2022,

accused PO1 Jainuddin H. Hakimin was convicted and was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with no possibility of parole. He was also
ordered to pay civil damages including indemnification for the life of the late Julia
G. Bernardo who was shot and killed last June 22, 2004, near her residence at
the junction of Formation Center at Carlos P. Garcia Street, Sta. Cruz, Isabela
City;

2. The judgement of conviction appears to have been on the strength of the

testimonies of three witnesses namely: PMSg Dante Sagrado, PINSP. Ener L.
Velasco, and Faustino T. Perez. PO1 Dante Sagrado was the case investigator
and his investigation report was noted by his immediate superior PINSP Ener
Velasco. Faustino T. Perez was the eyewitness who identified PO1 Jainuddin H.
Hakimin as the alledge gunman;

3. In his testimony in open court, PMSG Dante Sagrado declared in substance that
accused PO1 Jainuddin H. Hakimin was identified by the eyewitness through a
photo appearing in his school records in Basilan State College and that the
identification was done at the school where he was shown photos the size of
which was either 1 x 1 or 2 x 2;

4. PINSP Ener L. Velasco corroborated the testimonies of PMSg Dante Sagrado;

5. In substance, eyewitness Faustino T. Perez declared that he is a tricycle driver

and was at the vicinity of Formation center waiting for passengers that the late
afternoon of June 22, 2004; that he saw the deceased Julia G. Bernardo
walking towards her house when he was shot by the gunman whom he later
identified as PO1 Jainuddin H. Hakimin; that after few days, he identified said
gunman through photo that was shown to him by PMSg Dante Sagrado at the
house of the complainant Oscar Bernardo, brother of the deceased;

6. Based on the testimonies of PMSg Dante Sagrado and the eyewitness Faustino T.
Perez, the place where the latter was made to identify the suspect is conflicting.
 While the eyewitness said the identification was done through a photo at the
house of Oscar Bernardo, the case investigator said it was done at Basilan State
College. Apparently, PMSg Sagrado either could no longer recall this fact or he
attempted to make impartial as practicable the identification of the suspect by
making it appear that it was done at the said school since the records are there
kept. Declaring otherwise, or that it was done at the private residence of the
brother of the deceased would somehow shows some kind of bias. Thus,
affecting the weight of the testimony of the eyewitness in the matter of
identification of the gunman. If the identification was done at the school or at
the office of the case investigator, there would have been color of impartiality in
the said respect;

7. Going to the uncorroborated testimony of the eyewitness, the same appears to

be sweeping and cannot be relied upon with absolute certainty given the
circumstances under which he happened to be at the crime scene. Said
circumstances are as follow, to wit:

a. The incident took place on or about 5:10 in the afternoon of June 22,
2004, This is apparently rush hour because the students and employees
in the area will be off. For tricycle drivers like the eyewitness, the ideal
place to be during the such rush hour is at the Claret College of Isabela
where one can surely have passengers get on board a tricycle. Formation
Center located at Carlos P. Garcia Street is not the place to be because
there are no passengers there during rush hour. Given this fact, his
presence in the area is of doubtful veracity and that he only made this up
in order to make it appear that he was in a position to identify the
gunman;

b. The shooting incident took place very briefly and the eyewitness had only
very few precious seconds seeing the shocking incident unfolding. Since
the shooting incident took place during rush hour where many vehicles
would negotiate that part of the road, it would be a fair statement to say
that there was an obstruction every now and then between the area
where the eyewitness was allegedly waiting for passengers and the area
where the deceased was gunned down. Given these obstructions and the
very few seconds the eyewitness had to see the shooting incident
unfolding and identify the gunman, his identification of the suspect
cannot be relied upon with absolute certainty;

c. The identification of the suspect through a small size photo at the house
of the brother of the deceased is highly irregular. There is no clear
showing how many photos were shown to the eyewitness at that time.
But given the declarations of Oscar Bernardo and Carmen Bernardo about
the information relayed to them by their deceased sister that she was
threatened by two (2) students, namely: Midin and Madin, surnamed
Jabarani, and a policeman named Jainuddin Hakimin, then it may be
assumed that photos of the suspects were shown to him;

d. Notably, the photos which was allegedly shown to the eyewitness was
never offered in evidence by the prosecution. It was also never identified
by the three government witnesses, namely: PMSg Dante Sagrado (case
investigator), PINSP Ener L. Velasco, and the eyewitness Faustino T.
Perez. With all due respect to the opinion of the honorable court, it is
respectfully submitted that the introduction of these photos as evidence
was absolutely necessary because it was the basis of identification of the
accused PO1 Jainuddin H. Hakimin. But even then, the said photos could
have ascertained for the court only the facial description of the gunman
and not his physical description as a whole being;
e. The non – production of the photos as basis of identification of accused
PO1 Jainuddin H. Hakimin is fatal to the case of the people. Suppression
of same could mean a not favorable factual conclusion to the cause of
the prosecution