REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF BAGUIO

People of the Philippines,

Complainant,
-versus-

PHILMORE BIANG y
BONUAN
Respondent.
X-----------------------------------X

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 44669-R

NPS No. I-17-INQ-21-1053

FOR:
VIOLATION OF R.A. 10591
MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION
UNTO THIS HONORABLE OFFICE comes the Accused, through
counsel, most respectfully submits to the Office this MOTION FOR
REINVESTIGATION and for this purpose states that:

TIMELINESS OF THE FILING OF THIS MOTION

On August 2, 2021, the Respondent got hold of an information that

an Inquest Resolution was signed and that an Information has already
been filed by the Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor before the
Regional Trial Court.
Thus the period to file this motion has not yet lapsed.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

According to the Supreme Court:

1
 “In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided
by evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony
with the usual course of human experience and not by
mere conjecture or speculation1; while guilt should not
escape, innocence should not suffer.2”

THE ASSAILED INQUEST RESOLUTION

The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

“x x x Wherefore, premises considered, the

undersigned hereby respectfully recommends the
indictment and prosecution of Respondent PHILMORE
BIANG y BONUAN for Violation of RA 10591, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act.

Baguio City, Philippines, August 2, 2021. x x x

GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR THIS

MOTION FOR RE-INVESTIGATION

Preliminary investigation was not conducted;

Respondents were not given
the opportunity to file their
Counter-affidavits

After the alleged incident, the arresting officers, based on their

Joint Affidavit of Arrest/Complaint3, acting on the information given
by Mr. Lex Virzon Badana (Badana); JUN JUN TANAS AGNO and
JAYDEE MAR BELLEZA DARIA(complainants), police officers then
proceeded to the area of the incident which is Carino Street, Rizal
Monument, Baguio City where Mr. PHILMORE BIANG y
BONUAN(respondent) and after positive identification, and a
warrantless search and frisk handcuffed the respondent, and was
taken into custody at Station 7 Baguio City Police Station.

To this date, respondent has not yet been given the opportunity
1 People vs. Fausto Obedo y Borbajo, G.R. No. 123054, June 10, 2003.
2 People v. Baldevieso, 314 SCRA 803 [1999].
3 Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated August 2, 2021.

2
to be heard like, but not limited to, filing a counter affidavit; and
neither was a preliminary investigation conducted.

Well settled in our jurisprudence is the rule that as a

component part of due process in criminal justice, a complete
preliminary investigation must be made to prevent a hasty and
precipitate filing of criminal cases to save a person from the stigma of
a criminal imputation.

In this instant case, the Informations were filed even before the
respondent could file their counter affidavits within the period
required for them to file. The precipitate filing of the Information
deprived them of the right to a full-blown preliminary investigation.

In Ocampo v. Hon. Abando et.al. G.R. No. 176830, February 11,

2014, the Supreme Court held that:

“A preliminary investigation is "not a casual affair." It is

conducted to protect the innocent from the
embarrassment, expense and anxiety of a public trial.
While the right to have a preliminary investigation before
trial is statutory rather than constitutional, it is a
substantive right and a component of due process in the
administration of criminal justice.

In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to

due process of law entails the opportunity to be heard. It
serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the
respondent’s side with regard to the accusation.
Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether
the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief
that a crime has been committed, and that it was the
respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating
officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.
"The essence of due process is reasonable opportunity to
be heard and submit evidence in support of one's defense."

In a separate opinion of Justice Vitug in the case of Honasan II vs.

Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ, he cited the cases of:

Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan, 352 SCRA 587, where the Supreme Court

3
declared:

“. . .that a Preliminary investigation is an initial step in

the indictment of an accused; it is a substantive right, not
merely a formal or technical requirement, which an
accused can avail himself of in full measure.”

The assailed Resolution may

still be reviewed even if the
Information was already filed
in court

In the case of Ombudsman v. Castro(supra), the Supreme Court

upheld the Court of Appeals in finding:

“ . . that the Regional or City Prosecutor may exercise the

power and authority of their superior, the Secretary of
Justice, to review resolutions of their subordinate in
criminal cases despite an information already filed in
court.”

Lack of Probable Cause

to conduct a Warrantless Arrest of the Respondent
For Violation of RA 10591

There was no probable cause in the instant case that could have
been the basis for the Complainants Police Officers to conduct a
warrantless arrest of the Respondent.

As provided by the Joint-Affidavit Of Arrest/Complaint, the

police officers acted on a singular tip provided by a certain Badana
who requested the officers to be known as anonymous. The tip
consisted of a general description of the Respondent and an
allegation that he is in possession of a handgun. Without verifying the
same or looking into the veracity of the tip, the Complainants went to
Baguio’s Angels in Carino Street.

When they allegedly found a person in a parking lot near the

area who matched the description provided by Badana; the
Complainants conducted a warrantless search of the Respondent

4
after which a warrantless arrest.4 The Respondent was merely
standing there in the area, he was not overtly engaged in a crime, nor
was any of his actions suspicious. The Complainants merely acted on
one tip and did no other actions in order to have Probable Cause to
arrest the Respondent.
Looking at these alleged facts, the Complaint Officers arrested
the Respondent without affording him the opportunity to file a
counter-affidavit and other remedies provided by law.

“In criminal cases, speculations cannot take the

place of proof beyond reasonable doubt”. (People vs.
Padas, 388 SCRA 587).

In resolving this issue, we are guided by the

pronouncement of the Supreme Court to the effect that it
is always easy to make an accusation, but more difficult
to prove the same. Besides, presumptions,
speculations, accusations, and conjectures are not
evidence and can never be equated or be
synonymous with guilt.

However, it is also quite true, as stated by the

Supreme Court, that “It must be stressed that in our
criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is
not whether the court doubts the innocence of the
accused, but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as
to their guilt. Where there is no moral certainty as to
their guilt, they must be acquitted even though their
innocence may be questionable.” (People vs. Satorre, GR
No. 133858, August 12, 2003, 408 SCRA 642)

Again, speculations, conjectures and presumptions should

never be a basis in finding a probable cause and in filing an
information because it would be very easy to concoct allegations but
difficult to prove the same.

In the case of ALLADO and MENDOZA vs. HON. DIOKNO G.R. No.
113630 May 5, 1994, the Supreme Court said:

“For the prosecuting officer "is the representative

4 Joint-Affidavit of Arrest/Complaint dated August 2, 2021

5
 not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern all; and whose
interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it
shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he
is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the
law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape
or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness
and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may
strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It
is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods
calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use
every legitimate means to bring about a just one"

Further the Supreme Court said:

“Indeed, the task of ridding society of criminals and

misfits and sending them to jail in the hope that they will
in the future reform and be productive members of the
community rests both on the judiciousness of judges and
the prudence of prosecutors. And, whether it is a
preliminary investigation by the prosecutor, which
ascertains if the respondent should be held for trial, or a
preliminary inquiry by the trial judge which determines if
an arrest warrant should issue, the bottomline is that
there is a standard in the determination of the existence
of probable cause, i.e., there should be facts and
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a prudent and cautious man to believe that the
accused is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.
Judges and prosecutors are not off on a frolic of their
own, but rather engaged in a delicate legal duty defined
by law and jurisprudence.”

In the case of Kalalo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 158189,

April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 141, 148-149, the Highest Tribunal stated
that:

For purposes of filing an information in court,

probable cause refers to facts and circumstances
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime

6
 has been committed and that the respondents probably
committed it. To guide the prosecutor’s determination, a
finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and that it was committed by the accused; the
quantum of proof to establish its existence is less
than the evidence that would justify conviction, but it
demands more than bare suspicion. (emphasis
supplied)

It is to be stressed that respondent was not afforded the

opportunity to be heard and that his side as presented in his counter-
affidavit could have put light regarding the issue surrounding this
case.

Again, what a preliminary investigation requires only is a

finding of probable cause – which may even be prima facie evidence
in nature only. And herein respondent maintains that the
Complainant had not satisfied this quantum with the evidence that
she had thus adduced against the Respondents. Bare uncorroborated
allegations must be meticulously appreciated so as to adhere to the
goal of attaining fair play and justice.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION be granted, and to humbly
return the case to the City Prosecutor to conduct a Reinvestigation.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Baguio City, Philippines, AUGUST 4, 2021.

BENGWAYAN MENDOZA and WOODEN LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Respondents
Suite 307 3rd Floor Jose Miguel Bldg.,
No. 1 Labsan St., Kayang Ext. Brgy.,
2600 Baguio City

By:

EUGENE ALBERT O. JAVILLONAR

7
 IBP No.: 164355; 05/14/2021; Baguio City
PTR No.: 5256607; 08/04/2021; Baguio City
MCLE Compliance; (Newly Admitted Member of the Bar YR. 2020)
Roll No. 75228; 07/22/2020

Copy Furnished:

[ by personal service ]

Office of the City Prosecutor

Hall of Justice
Baguio City

Baguio City Police Station 7

(Complainants:
- Jun Jun Tanas Agno and Jaydee Mar Belleza Daria)