Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
Las Piñas City
Email address: rtc1lpn202@judiciary.gov.ph
0936095445396/09666944542

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE
ANTI-CYBERCRIME GROUP
Plaintiff/Movant,

WSSECD Nos. SW-LP-23-007 to

- versus - WSSECD Nos. SW-LP-23-011 and
Search Warrants Nos. 23-012 to
Search Warrants Nos. 23-018

ALIAS “QUIHA LU”,

“LIANGFEI CHEN”, JIMMY
LIN, ABBEY NG, AND/OR THE
OWNER, MAINTAINER,
FACILITATOR, MANAGER OF
BUILDINGS “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”,
“E”, “F”, AND “G” OF
XINCHUANG TECHNOLOGY,
INC. MS. DANICA ANDRES
MENSAH, MR. OLIVER ONG,
MS. DIVINA TRILLANES
VIDAL, AND DAISY CORDERO,
INCORPORATORS OF
XINCHUANG NETWORK
TECHNOLOGY, INC.
FORMERLY “HONG TAI”,
LOCATED AT 501 ALABANG
ZAPOTE ROAD, ALMANZA
UNO, LAS PIÑAS, METRO
MANILA 1750.
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TO THE ORDER DATED APRIL 19, 2024

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff-Movant through the undersigned, unto

this honorable court, respectfully states the following:
1. On April 23, 2024, Pat ___________, personnel of the Philippine
National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP ACG) (Plaintiff-
Movant) opened an email, through email address acg@pnp.gov.ph,
from RTC Branch 202 Las Pinas City, through email address
rtc1lpn202@judiciary.gov.ph, with subject: “Order dated 19 April
2024 – Search Warrant Nos. 23-012 to 23-018 and WSSECD Nos. 23-
007 to 23-011, (PNP ACG v. Alias “Quiha Lu”, et al.);

2. The subject email contained the following message hereto quoted in

verbatim:

“Re:
Entry of Appearance with Motion for the Release of Seized Items

Good morning. Please see attached file and acknowledge receipt

hereof. Thank you.”

3. However, there was no file attached to the said email. Pat _______,
then replied informing the sender that there was no file attached and
requested that the file be sent;

4. On the same date, the Women and Children Cybercrime Protection

Unit (WCCPU) of the PNP ACG received via email an Order dated
April 19, 2024 issued by ELIZABETH YU-GURAY, Executive
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Las Pinas City, granting the Motion for
the Release of Seized Items (subject Motion) filed by Xinchuang
Network Technology (Xinchuang) and its incorporators/officers
Danica Andres Mensah, Oliver Ong, Divina Trillanes Vidal, Daisy
Cordero, Quiha Lu, Liangfei Chen, Jimmy Lin, and Abbey Ng
(Incorporators/Officers);

5. The grant of the Motion was subject, however, to the submission (not
later than seven (7) days from notice) by Xinchuang Network
Technology and its Incorporators/Officers, through their counsel on
record, of a certified true copy of DOJ’s resolution dismissing the
case/s filed against them by the herein Plaintiff-Movant;

TIMELINESS

6. Considering that the undersigned received the Court Order on April

23, 2024, herein Plaintiff-Movant has until May 8, 2024 to file a
Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, this Motion is timely filed;

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

7. At the outset, herein Plaintiff-Movant was neither furnished nor

notified of the Motion for the Release of Seized Items filed by
Xinchuang and its Incorporators/Officers prior to the issuance of the
Page 2 of 5
 subject Court Order. It was only on April 26, 2024, or seven (7) days
after the Order granting the said Motion was issued by the Court, that
the Plaintiff-Movant was able to receive a soft copy (pdf) of the
Motion via email;

8. By this fact alone, the right to due process of herein Plaintiff-Movant

was severely violated. Thus, it is only proper that the Order granting
the release of seized items should be invalidated;

9. The subject motion is a litigious motion as it prejudices not only the

right of herein Plaintiff-Movant but also the right of the State and the
Filipino people to prosecute the Respondents for their crimes. Under
the Rules, all motions shall be served by personal service, accredited
private courier or registered mail, or electronic means so as to ensure
their receipt by the other party.1

10.Although the subject Motion was received by herein Plaintiff-Movant

on April 26, 2024, it was already too late to file an opposition to the
subject Motion since the Order granting the same was already issued
on April 19, 2024 and was received by herein Plaintiff-Movant on
April 23, 2024. Hence, the filing of an opposition to the subject
Motion would already be moot;

11.Furthermore, herein Plaintiff-Movant did not consent to the service of

motions through electronic means. Under the Rules, service by
electronic means shall be made if the party concerned consents to
such mode of service.2 Consequently, the service of the subject
Motion via email to herein Plaintiff-Movant is also invalid;

12.The Court indeed granted the subject Motion of Respondents but it is

not without condition. Based on the Court Order, Respondents must
submit a certified true copy of DOJ’s resolution dismissing the case/s
filed against them by the herein Plaintiff-Movant not later than seven
(7) days from notice of the Court Order. Until now, herein Plaintiff-
Movant has not yet received notice from the Court as to whether or
not the Respondents complied with the said condition.

13.Be that as it may, Respondents could not possibly comply with the
condition given by the Court for the simple reason that at present,
there is a pending criminal complaint filed against them with the
Department of Justice (DOJ).

SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS

14. Xinchuang and its Incorporators/Officers tried to trick this Honorable

Court by alleging that the case filed against them had already been
1
Rule 15 Sec. 5(b) Rules of Court
2
Rule 13 Sec. 9 Ibid.

Page 3 of 5
 dismissed. This declaration in their motion to release the seized items
is beyond the truth. The case dismissed by the DOJ was entitled “PNP
Anti-Cybercrime Group represented by PCpl Christopher F Salarda
vs. LI JIancheng @ “Li JIachang,” Xiao Liu @ “Xioa Lin,” Yan Jia
Ying @ “Pan Wen Jie,” Duan Haozhuan and Li Hongkun @
“Liyang;”

15.This Honorable Court is correct in its eagle-eye observation that

Respondents Xinchuang, et al. were not the same persons/respondents
in the above-mentioned dismissed case. This only shows that
Respondents’ ploy to hoodwink and bamboozle this Honorable Court
was doomed from the very beginning;

16.As a matter of fact, a criminal complaint with NPS Docket Nos. XVI-
INV-24C-00072 for Violation of Sec. 4 (f)(2), Sec. 7 (a)(c), Sec. 8 (a)
(f)(g)(l) & Sec. 9 (a)(c)(o) of RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons
Act of 2003), Art. 267 (Serious Illegal Detention) of the RPC against
the Respondents is pending at the DOJ. Attached herewith is the
_______ as Annex “A”.

17.For the information of this Honorable Court, the Business Permits and
Licensing Office, Las Piñas City issued a certification that Xinchuang
Network Technology Inc. was not the only occupant of Buildings
“A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” located at 501 Alabang Zapote
Rd, Almanza Uno, Las Piñas City. Attached herewith is the
Certification from Business Permits and Licensing Office, Las Piñas
City as Annex “B”. Logically, the seized monetary items were not
exclusively owned by Xinchuang Network Technology Inc. since
during the confiscation and inventory of the said items, it was
recovered to different vaults distributed to the mentioned buildings
where other entities also occupy.

18.Since there is a pending case before the DOJ for a preliminary

investigation that has yet to be resolved, the release of the monetary
seized evidence would defeat the very purpose of the seizing of the
same. Would the resolution of the DOJ and eventually by a judgment
of the court tilt in the herein Plaintiff/Movant favor, said confiscated
and seized monetary evidence will fall within the concept of proceeds
derived from the commission of the crime 3, thus, it will be subject for
forfeiture in favor of the government. In addition thereto, Section 10
of RA No. 11862 amending Section 15 of RA No. 9208 states that:

“Sec. 10 Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9208 is hereby

amended to read as follows:

“Section 15. Trust Fund. – All fines imposed under this Act and
the proceeds and properties forfeited and confiscated pursuant
3
Sec. 14 of RA No 9208

Page 4 of 5
 to Section 14 hereof, as well as those collected by the AMLC,
shall accrue to a Trust Fund to be administered and managed
by the Council to be used exclusively for programs that will
prevent acts of trafficking and protect, rehabilitate, reintegrate
trafficked persons into mainstream of society.4

19.Given the foregoing, the herein Plaintiff/Movant beseeches the

understanding of the Honorable Court that the monetary seized
evidence is proceeds derived from the commission of the crime and
should remain in the custody of the former pending resolution of the
DOJ to the criminal complaint filed against the incorporators of
Xinchuang Network Technology Inc.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that the Order dated April 19, 2024 granting the
Motion for the Release of the Seized Items be reconsidered and other relief
be granted as shall be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Las Pinas City, May 6, 2024

4
RA No. 9208 as amended by RA No. 11862

Page 5 of 5