REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FIRST JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 21 VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus JOEL APORONGAO and JOVY APORONGAO Accused,

CRIM CASE NO. 6875-V For: Violation of Section 11 of RA 9165

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus JOEL APORONGAO and JOVY APORONGAO Accused, , x-----------------------------------------x PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus JOEL APORONGAO, Accused, x------------------------------------------x

CRIM CASE NO. 6874-V For: Violation of Section 11 of RA 9165

CRIM CASE NO. 6876-V For: Violation of Section 15 of RA 9165

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, 11 -versus JOEL APORONGAO and JOVY APORONGAO Accused, x--------------------------------------------------x PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versus JOEL APORONGAO and JOVY APORONGAO Accused, x--------------------------------------------------x

CRIM CASE NO. 6873-V For: Violation of Section of RA 9165

CRIM CASE NO. 6872-V

MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE

(To Accused Motion to Quash Search Warrant Nos. 116, 117, 118 Series of 2010)
ACCUSED, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully state:

1. cases;

That they are the accused in the in the above-entitled criminal

2.

That initially the accused filed a motion dismiss through quashal of

search warrant numbers 116, 117 and 118 series of 2010 issued by Hon. Francisco A. Ante, Jr. of Municipal Trial Court in Cities. Cetifiedtrue Xerox copies of these warrants are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 1, 2, and 3;

3.

Accused through counsel in said motion to dismiss essentially

assailed and/or questioned the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses in their application for search warrant as it failed to meet the constitutional and staturory requirements. This fact is shown, apparent and

readily observed in their respective affidavits. Attached hereto are the certified true copies of the affidavits of P/Supt. Elpidio Ritua Nartatez, SPOIV Alexander Tapaya and POI Dennis Reoliquio made as an integral part hereof as Exhibit 4 and 5, respectively; 4. Moreover, the transcript of the preliminary hearing conducted by

Hon. Judge Francisco Ante, Jr., with all due respect, evinced lack of personal knowledge on the part of the applicant, P/Supt. Elpidio Ritua Nartatez, and his witnesses, SPOIV Alexander Tapaya and POI Dennis Reoliquio. A more microscopic scanning to the transcript on the hearing of the application for search warrants it readily evinced that the Honorable Judge failed to propound questions, let alone probing questions to the applicant and his witnesses. Thus, it is worth, at this juncture to reiterate, the ruling of the Supreme Court in PICOP vs. Judge Asunsion, et al, which states: Chief Inspector Pascua was asked nothing else, and he said nothing more. In fact, he failed even to affirm his application. Contrary to his statement, the trial judge failed to propound questions, let alone probing questions, to the applicant and to his witnesses other than Bacolod (whose testimony, as will later be shown, is also

improper). Obviously, His Honor relied mainly on their affidavits. This Court has frowned on this practice in this language: Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. xxx xxx xxx

It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.

Similarly,

a closer examination to said transcript it appears that the

manner of questioning was not considered to be probing and exhaustive on the but merely routinay and pro-forma. Attached hero is the certified true copy of the transcript dated July 9, 2010 made as an integral part hereof as Exhibit 6;

5.

That Accused pleads for the admission of the foregoing exhibits

and/or accused evidence the purpose of which is to prove that the applicant for the assailed search warrant has no personal knowledge as well as his witnesses thereto.

6.

Thus, begging the judicial compassion and benevolence of this

Honorable to admit the accused evidence and/or exhibit in view of special and important reason to which this motion will be considered.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to grant the motion and admit evidence of the accused.

Other reliefs just and equitable under premises are likewise prayed for. Respectfully Submitted. Quezon City for Vigan City July 19, 2011

ATTY. JASON A. CANTIL Counsel for the Accused 3rd Floor Mencorp Bldg 701 EDSA Corner New York Street Cubao, Quezon City IBP No. 801896 January 12, 2011 PTR No. 4645880 January 12, 2011 Roll No. 56515 MCLE Compliance No. III-0012814 April 19, 2010 Telefax (02) 727-2354

NOTICE OF HEARING

To the Clerk of Court RTC Br. 21, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur

Dear Sir/Madam: Please set the foregoing motion for consideration of this Honorable Court on July 19, 2011 at 8:30 in the morning.

Atty. Jason A. Cantil

Copy Furnished:

OCP, Vigan City