U l>

a) The movant is still of the position that the subject vehicle

is never considered in custodial legis as sholtm of the
following undisputed facts :

r) Based on the blotter entry of the E.B. Magalona pNp,

the subject vehicle \\.as not properly identified. In fact,
no document wonld show that the same was seized by
the police authorities and placed it in the custody of the
E.B. Magalona PI{P.

z) There is no mention in the original criminal complaint

filed before the Prov-incial Prosecutor's Office, dated
April 25, 2c22 at the instance of Police Staff Sergeant
Investigator Orly B. De Asis that the said vehicle is one
of the er,'idence to be presented.

3) All the Informations against the accused in these cases,

L all dated April 25,2cz2 has no narrative that the crime
\vas cornrnitted on board the subject vehicle and
that the vehicle was used to cornmit the crime or
in furtherance of the crime of violation of Articles
rr and e of RA 9165.

4) The Pre-Trial Order for these cases also makes no

rnention of the subject vehicle as one of the obiect
evidence to be presented by the prosecution during trial.

b) Unfortunately, the foregoing arguments of the movant was

not even discussed by this Honorable Court in arrir.ing at a
decision of denying the motion of the herein movant.

c) It not being in cusfodia legis, there is no legal ground why

the said vehicle shall be continued to be impounded at the
E.B. Magalona PNP to the prejudice of the herein movant,
a third-party ovmer w;ho is into the rent-a-car business
using the subject vehicle, among other trnits he ourrs.

E\|E,N THE MOTION TO RELEASE OF THE

SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLE IS DENIED, IT IS
SUBMITfED THAT TrIE MOVANT SHOULD BE.
ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THESE CASES
d) EVEN ASSTIMING that the subiect vehicle had to remain
in the custody of the E.B. Magalona PNP, as per
jurisprudence, the herein movant, with all due respect had
to be allorved to intervene considering that it is his own
norcnil .l ,--^^^r.f-'+L^+ i- i-"^1.,^l :- +L^^^ l\T^^-11