Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Davao City

FLORA MAY L. LAMBA NPS No. Docket No. XI-02-INV-22-D-04079

Complainant
-versus- For: VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
7610
HAMIL D. LINGAS
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x
FLORA MAY L. LAMBA NPS No. Docket No. XI-02-INV-22-D-04080
Complainant
-versus- For: LIGHT COERCIONS
(ART. 287 of RPC)
HAMIL D. LINGAS
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x
FLORA MAY L. LAMBA NPS No. Docket No. XI-02-INV-22-D-04081
Complainant
-versus- For: OTHER LIGHT THREATS
(ART. 285 of RPC)
HAMIL D. LINGAS
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x
FLORA MAY L. LAMBA NPS No. Docket No. XI-02-INV-22-D-04082
Complainant
-versus- For: SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
(ART. 266 of RPC)
HAMIL D. LINGAS
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x
HAMIL D. LINGAS NPS No. Docket No. XI-02-INV-22-E-05366
Complainant,

-versus- For: Violation of Republic Act No. 7610

FLORA MAY LAMBA
Respondent.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Comes now, Respondent and unto this Honorable Office, respectfully move a
reconsideration of the Honorable Office’s Resolution dated 16 August 2022, and in
support thereof, respectfully states the following:

PREFARATORY STATEMENT

Complainant Lamba has truthfully filed her complaint and adduced evidence under
oath in support thereof that such averments be duly considered.

Further, it is with sincere submission that in the child abuse case filed against
Complainant Flora May Lamba, now Respondent in said case, being a housewife and
presently the sole parent taking care of three daughters, 19-year-old, 12 years old and 2
years old, pursue efforts of extra source of income to meet daily needs. Having limited
means of income and opportunity, the Head of the family was constrained to leave his
family and worked overseas despite the risk of pandemic. It is very unfortunate for herein
Respondent to be indicted on an alleged crime knowing that being a nurturing mother
Respondent wanted nothing but only to provide the best for family without causing any
adversities to others.

TIMELINESS

Complainant Flora May L. Lamba received a copy of the Joint Resolution on

September 2, 2022 and has fifteen (15) days therefrom, or until September 17, 2022 to
file her motion for reconsideration. Hence, this motion is respectfully filed within time.

GROUNDS

Complainant most respectfully moves for a reconsideration of said Resolution on

the grounds of error in finding of facts and wrong interpretation of the law.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS

 The Honorable Office’s Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaints, with NPS Docket Nos. XI-
02-INV-22-D-04079, XI-02-INV-22-D-04081, and XI-02-INV-22-D-04082, filed against
respondent, Hamil Deporos Lingas are hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of
evidence, lack of probable cause and failure to comply with the condition precedent of
undergoing barangay conciliation and mediation.”

“For the complaint with NPS-Docket No. XI-02-E-05366 filed against respondent,
Flora May L. Lamba, the undersigned Prosecutor recommends the filing of the
Information before the Regional Trial Court for violation of Article Vi, Section 10 (a) of
Republic Act No. 7610 in relation to Republic Act No. 8369.”

SO RESOLVED.

A. NPS Docket Nos. XI-02-INV-22-D-04079

1. Let it be stressed that emotional or mental abuse impairs a child’s emotional

development or sense of self-worth. As such, reiterating paragraph 32 of the Complaint,
“After witnessing the violent actions of SP03 Hamil, it was observed that my 2-year-old
daughter Rhadz manifested trauma related symptoms, as she would cry spontaneously
or be easily frightened of loud sounds or voices.”.

2. As stated in paragraph 22 in the Complaint, the 2-yr old minor had witnessed
the slapping incident, seeing here mother violently harassed and hurt certainly caused
emotional distress, and worst, trauma, which is tantamount to emotional and mental
abuse, “I noticed my two year old daughter watching us at the door, SHAKING and
CRYING. I then carried her while respondent continued yelling “Putang Ina!””. This
scenario is consistent with the definition provided by law affecting the child’s emotional
development.

B. XI-02-INV-22-D-04081 and XI-02-INV-22-D-04082

1. The Honorable Office states that “these acts of respondent of uttering the
aforementioned phrase and pointing a finger at complainant Lamba in a threatening
manner do not fall under the provision of Other Light Threats under Article 285, paragraph
2 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 10951. It is not clear in these
acts if respondent was threatening any harm not constituting a crime upon the person of
complainant Lamba.”

2. Given the surrounding circumstances, contrary to the findings of the Honorable

Office, the offense committed falls under Article 285 (3), to state: “Art. 285. Other light
threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos shall be imposed upon: xxx (3) Any person who shall orally threaten to do
another any harm not constituting a felony.”

3. Complainants were affected and distressed by the threats made by respondent

as the instant case is evidenced by the attached Medical Certificate marked as ANNEX
“C” issued and signed by Dr. Jay Mark C. Leyva of the Southern Philippines Medical
Center.

C. NPS-Docket No. XI-02-E-05366

1. It is the complainant’s humble position that the Honorable Office committed

serious error in finding probable cause on the child abuse case filed against respondent,
Flora May Lamba. In LINA TALOCOD VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
250671, October 07, 2020, it states that: “for one to be held criminally liable for the
commission of acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 (a), Article VI of RA 7610, the
prosecution [must] prove a specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic
worth of the child; otherwise, the accused cannot be convicted for the said offense.”

2. Respondent vehemently denies the accusation that she accused complainant,

Homel Lingas, of theft. As stated in paragraph 3 (iii) of the Counter-Affidavit, respondent
merely asked the latter, “Homer, is the information that someone told me that it was you
and your group who tampered with the locks of the PisoNet and PisoWifi units of my
internet shop true?” Respondent simply clarified with Homer the information provided by
the children who witnessed the incident. Nowhere in the said document that it was
specifically proven that respondent accused Homer of theft.

3. Further, while records fall short to establish proof of “accusing” the complainant
of theft, still in confronting Homer of the incident, as alleged and denied by herein
respondent, to state: “Homer nanglungkab ka sa akong internetan? Kawatan ka og walay
Batasan” the same does not show proof of the specific intent to degrade, debase or
demean the intrinsic worth of herein minor, Homer, as a human being.
 4. In a similar case of BRINAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R NO.
254005, JUNE 23, 2021, the court states that “acts allegedly constituting child abuse were
done in the spur of the moment, out of emotional outrage” as in the herein case, the
moment when respondent talked to Homer and asked him about the PisoNet and PisoWifi
locks were because of mere utterances, sudden impulse, and anger which, to reiterate,
cannot be deemed as an act of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A 7610.

5. To reiterate, in ESCOLANO V. PEOPLE, GR 226991, DECEOMBER 10, 2018,

the Court held that “the mere shouting of invectives at a child, when carelessly done out
of anger, frustration, or annoyance, does not constitute Child Abuse under Section 10 (a)
of RA 7610 absent evidence that the utterance of such words was specifically intended
to debase, degrade, or demean the victim's intrinsic worth and dignity.”

6. Considering further that the Complaint did not present proof of psychological
evaluation and assessment to corroborate the claim of child abuse and psychological
suffering that prejudiced the child’s development, the same is more than enough to
warrant the dismissal of the Complaint.

PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS

1. Several attempts to meet and settle at the Office of the Barangay yielded no
results. The barangay refused to receive the initial Complaint alleging that respondent,
Lingas is known to the neighborhood and the barangay to be a police officer.

2. A photo of the Barangay logbook is hereby attached and marked as ANNEX

“A” to prove that complainant reported the confrontation and slapping incident on 02
March, 2022 and is designated as Brgy. Case No. 425-S-21 for Physical Injury. Since
the report, no summons was served to call for a hearing for the parties to meet and settle
at the barangay. The barangay claimed that it is already beyond its jurisdiction if it shall
serve summons to Hamil Lingas because of his being a uniformed personnel. A Certificate
of Blotter marked as ANNEX “B”, was issued by Barangay Sirawan on 14 September
2022 to put into writing the instant case.

5. On September 14, 2022, complainant resorted to a Baragwa mediation, which

is tantamount to a barangay proceeding under Islamic law. During such, disputes among
Muslim communities are resolved outside court through the guidance and
recommendation of their Islam Imams and elders.
 7. All efforts to resort to settlement, conciliation, and mediation were made but to
no avail.

PRAYER

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

Office to reconsider its Joint Resolution dated 16 August 2022, thereby finding probable
cause for the proper filing of the Information against Respondent Hamil Lingas the
following: Child Abuse (RA 7610), Other Light Threats (Art. 285 of the RPC), and Slight
Physical Injuris (Art. 266 of the RPC). Further, it is respectfully prayed that the Child
Abuse case filed by Hamil Lingas against Flora May Lamba be dismissed for lack of
probable cause and insufficiency of evidence.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

15 September 2022, Davao City, Philippines

Copy furnished:

1. HAMIL DEPOROS LINGAS and HOMER LINGAS

Purok 12, Sirawan Toril
Davao City