REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THIRD JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT Branch 40, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus SATURNINO OCAMPO, ET AL., Accused.
x---------------------------------------------x Criminal Case Nos.
1879-P & 1880-P
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE (WITH PRAYER
TO DISMISS THE CASE OUTRIGHT)Accused SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO
A. CASIO, LIZA L. MAZA and RAFAEL V. MARIANO, by undersigned
counsels, most respectfully move that this Honorable Court conduct
a determination of probable cause pursuant to Article III, Section
2 of the 1987 Constitution and in support thereof state the
following:
PREFATORY The obvious involvement of political considerations in
the actuations of respondent Secretary of Justice and respondent
prosecutors brings to mind an observation we made in another
equally politically charged case. We reiterate what we stated then,
if only to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of
criminal prosecutions in general and preliminary investigations in
particular, thus: [W]e cannot emphasize too strongly that
prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid, giving the
impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted,
wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or other purposes
alien to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of
observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or
favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or
strong, powerless or mighty. Only by strict adherence to the
established procedure may be publics perception of the impartiality
of the prosecutor be enhanced.11
Consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 172070-72 (Vicente Ladlad, et al.
vs. Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco, et al.), G.R. Nos.
172074-76 (Liza Maza, et al.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
1.
The Supreme Court, in a recent case also involving herein
accused has made the foregoing strong admonition against public
prosecutors.
2.
It is unfortunate that despite the admonition, the panel of
prosecutors who conducted the preliminary investigation of the
instant cases chose to defy such clear warning by no less than the
Supreme Court, as will be discussed below.
In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the members of the
Investigating Panel committed grave prosecutorial misconduct which
deprived accused of their right to due process.
------------------------------------------------------
3.
The preliminary investigation proceeding, like court
proceedings, is subject to the requirements of both substantive and
procedural due process. 2
4.
As an indispensable requirement of due process, the
investigating prosecutors must possess the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge.
5.
In the instant cases, however, accused-movants were denied due
process when the panel of public prosecutors committed the
following grave misconduct which also clearly showed that they did
not possess the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. 5.1. Despite
failure to comply with the requirement under Rule 112, Section 3
(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that the affidavits
of the complainants and his witnesses shall be
vs. Raul M. Gonzalez, et al.) and G.R. No. 175013 (Crispin
Beltran vs. People, et al.) promulgated on 1 June 2007. 2 Cruz vs.
People, 237 SCRA 439, citing Cojuangco vs. PCGG, 190 SCRA 266 and
as cited in page 48 of Alejandro Ramon C. Alanos Handbook on
Preliminary Investigation and Inquest & Remedies
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor x x x, the
investigating prosecutors gave due course to the criminal
complaints of the alleged widows, instead of dismissing them
outright. 5.2. The Investigating Panel refused to grant
clarificatory hearing despite the existence of important issues and
matters to be clarified before a fair resolution of the complaints
may be made. 5.2.1. While it is true that the conduct of
clarificatory hearing is not mandatory, Rule 112, Section 3(e)
directs that it be conducted when there are facts and issues that
must be clarified before the prosecutors can resolve the cases.
5.2.2. Accused-movants repeatedly requested and insisted on the
panel of investigating prosecutors the need to require the
complainants and their witnesses to appear for confrontation with
the accused-movants and for clarificatory questioning. 5.2.3.
Accused-movants identified the following important issues and
crucial facts that needed clarification: a) Re the confession of
Julie Flores Sinohin, the specific dates of the alleged meetings
attended by the accused-movants.
It is well to note that the accused-movants were linked by Julie
Sinohin to the three killings as the alleged masterminds who had
allegedly ordered the liquidation of former CPP/NPA/NDFP members
who were supporting AKBAYAN party-list. Accused-movants pointed out
that Julie Sinohin failed to specify the dates in which the alleged
meetings were held and in this connection questions. manifested
their intention to pose clarificatory
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
b)
Re the submission of the investigation report of the Philippine
National Police of Nueva Ecija on the deaths of Felipe, Peralta and
Bayudang.
Accused-movants also pointed out that witnesses Alvaro L.
Juliano, Cleotilde A. Peralta and Julie F. Sinohin executed their
Sinumpaang Salaysay only in November 2006. The first two executed
their Sinumpaang Salaysay on November 21, 2006 while Sinohin
executed his the following day. After comparing the accounts of the
above three witnesses with those who gave their statements shortly
after the alleged killings, accused-movants noted glaring
contradictions which support a reasonable conclusion that there
existed a pattern of suppressing evidence that were executed or
prepared shortly after the killings and that the suppressed
evidence were replaced by recent statements taken only in November
2006. Given the above and considering that accused-movants were
charged with non-bailable crime of two counts of murder, the
investigating panel should have subpoenaed the complete result of
the original police investigations on the killings. c) The need to
establish the identity of the complaining witnesses
This Honorable Court can take judicial notice of the fact that
when the herein complaining witnesses filed a petition to
disqualify accused-movants party-lists for last years electoral
contest, the same witnesses appeared before the COMELEC with their
faces covered with scarves. They refused to remove these scarves on
the shallow pretext of personal security, thereby rendering
questionable their real identities. The panel of investigating
public prosecutors should have dispelled doubts over the
complainants identities by requiring them to
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
appear and making themselves available for questioning in the
presence of the accused-movants. As stated in accused-movants
letter dated 14 January 2008 addressed to the panel of
investigating prosecutors, what actually happened during the
supposed preliminary investigation was a hide and seek type of
proceedings whereby the complainants surreptitiously appeared
before the public prosecutors without notice to the
accused-movants. A big question remains: Was the panel able to
confirm the identity of the complaining witnesses? d) There were
material gaps, ambiguous and sweeping statements and serious
inconsistencies in the affidavits of the Julie Sinohin and the
complaining witnesses.
Accused-movants enumerated in their counter-affidavits and their
subsequent pleadings and letters submitted to the panel the
material gaps and inconsistencies in the claims of the
newlysurfaced witnesses with those of the first-hand accounts of
witnesses whose testimonies or statements were secured shortly
after the killings. e) Lastly, considering that accused-movants
have sufficiently shown that the instant cases are part of the
existing pattern to neutralize them, the panel of investigators
could have addressed this by making the complainants available for
questioning by the accused-movants.
In the same letter dated 14 January 2008, accused-movants
insisted that a clarificatory hearing with the appearance of the
complainants and their witnesses in an open public hearing was
necessary considering that the complainants and their witnesses are
under the custody and control of their military handlers.
Prosecution witnesses Alvaro L. Juliano, Cleotilde A. Peralta and
Julie F. Sinohin claimed to be rebel returnees who have
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
surrendered to and are likely to be under the custody or
protection of the military. A clarificatory hearing could have
given the public prosecutors and the defense the opportunity to
test the voluntariness and credibility of the complainants and
their witnesses. The panel of investigating prosecutors did not
only refuse to consider the foregoing reasons for accused-movants
request for clarificatory questioning, the panel even went to the
extent of accusing accused-movants of delaying the proceedings.
5.3. The need for clarificatory hearing is even admitted by panel
member Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eddie Gutierrez who wrote by
hand his comment in the Joint Resolution3 dated 11 April 2008 that
I concur with the conclusion but I would have been more than
satisfied if the witnesses for the prosecution were present. 5.4.
The panel readily dismissed accused-movants manifestation and
request to allow them to submit a Memorandum. 5.4.1. Although the
submission of a Memorandum is not required, Section 33 of the DOJ
Manual for Prosecutors allows the filing of the same in cases
involving difficult or complicated questions of law or fact. 5.4.2.
Accused-movants have raised several questions of law, in particular
the application of the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet embodied in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court and the political offense doctrine.
3
See page 11 of the Joint Resolution dated 11 April 2008 a copy
of which is hereto attached as Annex 1.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
5.4.3.
As also stated above, the alleged involvement of herein
accused-movants involved complicated factual questions for which a
Memorandum may be filed.
5.4.4.
Unfortunately, the panel readily dismissed and even treated
accused-movants request as dilatory tactic.
5.5.
The adverse Joint Resolution contained very scant and token
presentation and discussion of accused-movants evidence and
defenses.
5.5.1.
Way before the resolution of the instant cases, accusedmovants
have insisted that the actions of the panel of investigating
prosecutors clearly revealed their feigned ignorance and lack of
impartiality and obvious bias against accused-movants. And this is
confirmed by the panels adverse Joint Resolution dated 11 April
2008 where accused-movants evidence were given very scant and token
consideration and discussion.
5.5.2.
Of the average 20 pages each of accused-movants
counter-affidavits and a number of communications/pleadings
submitted thereafter, the 11page Joint Resolution devoted only four
(4) short paragraphs that can fit in a mere half page the defenses,
allegations and counter-allegations and defenses of herein
accused-movants.
5.5.3.
Worse, of the numerous defenses presented by the accused-movants
and the major inconsistencies they have pointed out in the
affidavits of the complainants and their witnesses, the panel only
presented minor inconsistencies and left behind the major and
crucial ones.
5.5.4.
The Joint Resolution, as written, does not only insult the
intelligence and logic of any average thinking person. It clearly
betrays the panels lack of impartiality and prior
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
intent to find probable cause against herein accusedmovants at
all cost. 5.5.5. The Joint Resolution clearly shows that the panel
did not at all consider the evidence and defenses presented by
herein accused-movants. As such, the Joint Resolution is a nullity.
5.6. Despite express manifestation, the panel did not give the
accused-movants the opportunity to avail of their right to file a
Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to and within the period
provided under Section 56 of the Manual for Prosecutors. 5.6.1.
Foreseeing what was to come given the panels numerous
transgressions, as early as November 2007, after accusedmovants
Motion to Conduct Clarificatory Hearing was denied by the panel,
accused-movants requested that they be furnished a copy of an
adverse resolution and manifested their intention to avail of their
right to file a motion for reconsideration. 5.6.2. On 18 April
2008, accused-movants undersigned counsels learned for the first
time that an adverse Joint Resolution had been issued by the panel
and that corresponding Informations for murder (two counts) and
kidnapping with murder have been filed before the Regional Trial
Courts of Palayan City and of Guimba. 5.6.3. To date,
accused-movants and their counsels are yet to receive a copy of the
panels Joint Resolution. 5.6.4. Clearly, the panel never intended
to give the accusedmovants the opportunity to avail of their right
to file a timely motion for reconsideration. 5.6.5. Accused-movants
likewise learned that on the same day of 18 April 2008, elements of
the Criminal Investigation and
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs.
Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
Detection Group of the Philippine National Police were closely
monitoring and awaiting the issuance of warrants of arrest against
the accused-movants. 5.6.6. All these clearly show the prior intent
to see to it that cases be filed against accused-movants and
warrants be issued for their arrest.
6.
All the foregoing show that accused-movants were denied their
right to due process and that the panel of public prosecutors that
conducted the investigation were biased against them.
7.
The reason for the evident lack of impartiality of the panel of
investigating prosecutors is totally exposed when we learned from a
very reliable source that Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Antonio
Ll. Lapus, Jr., who led the panel, is reportedly an applicant for
RTC judgeship in Nueva Ecija. Hence, the inescapable conclusion
that he may have succumbed to political pressure.
The instant cases are part of a vicious pattern of political
persecution against accusedmovants progressive party-list
representatives.
-----------------------------------------------------8. As in these
cases, accused-movants and their party-list organizations are
constantly being maligned and falsely accused as communist fronts
by top civilian and military leadership of the present
dispensation.4
9.
In these cases, all four accused-movants are being maliciously
tagged as CPP/NPA/NDFP members and their party-lists as purportedly
front
4
Attached as Annex 2 is a photocopy of the news item: GMA aide
wants CPP fronts out of polls Party-list hopefuls aiding NPA,
Gonzales charges, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 5, 2004; AFP
wants militant groups out of politics, The Daily Tribune, January
17, 2007.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 10 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
organizations of the CPP/NPA even as their party-lists are all
duly accredited and registered with the COMELEC.
10.
At the outset, all these labeling is in itself an act of
political persecution, given the propensity of our government
officials to vilify their critics by resorting to such childish and
anti-democratic tactics such as labeling those who do not agree
with their anti-people policies as communists or leftists.
11.
This complaint on three counts of murder has been concocted by
police and military operatives, obviously acting under central
directive and command. As in prior legal offensives against the
respondents the game plan is to neutralize the respondents
politically, by filing and securing warrants of arrest at all costs
for the non-bailable offense of murder. Fortunately, and as clearly
demonstrated in their counter-affidavits, the fabrication of
evidence has been so crudely done that even on their faces, the
perjured statements have been exposed by the very weight of their
inconsistencies, inherent incredibility and barefaced lies.
11.1. All the four affiants themselves are undoubtedly working
as military/ police assets under the custody, direction and control
of the AFP and /or PNP. All claim to be former members of the
CPP/NPA/NDF. Sinohin and C. Peralta surrendered in 2006 and
2005, respectively, as per their affidavits, and Juliano claims he
was arrested in April 2003 by the Alpha Coy, 71st IB, Philippine
Army. Bayudang claims she and her deceased husband decided to
finally cut any ties with the NPAs in 1992, but claims to have
decided to reunite with the government way back in 1987.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 11 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.2.
Their affidavits, aside from appearing contrived, also contain
statements that are baseless and patently bereft of any logic. It
also contained statements based on mere hearsay. On the whole, the
allegations appear contrived, biased and reeked of prejudice
against the four respondents who were all perceived to be members
of the New Peoples Army. For instance, and assuming only for the
sake of argument that the affiants statements are true, the lengthy
text seen in the karton allegedly found in the crime scene as
testified by the witness DIONISIO ROXAS is even incredibly stated
in toto in the affidavit of MEDELYN FELIPE.
11.3.
All of these accounts are highly suspect and defies logic it
even is contrary to human experience for it is highly incredible
for individuals living totally different lives to recall exactly
the same thing -- verbatim -- what they read in a text that they
came across years ago.
11.4.
The fact that Isabelita Bayudang testified that she saw Mabuhay
ang NPA written into the text of the carton allegedly found in the
crime scene is also blatantly revealing: it shows her utmost bias
against this organization, a bias that is translated into her
overzealousness to make false allegations just to destroy the
reputation of those individuals whom she imagines are members of
the NPA.
11.5.
The testimony presented against the four accused-movants, being
manifestly biased and malicious, aside from being false, highly
indicate a mechanism ensured to persecute the four.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 12 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.
The filing of the instant cases, however, is not the only
attempt by the government to prosecute and persecute
accused-movants. The following events/cases reveal a pattern of
persecution consciously carried out by the state and its security
forces against the progressive party-list representatives accused
herein.
12.1.
Since 2002, after BAYAN MUNA won the most number of votes in its
first participation in the partylist election in 2001, National
Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales already begun his campaign of
vilification against BAYAN MUNA, intimating he would seek ways to
have the partylists BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA and ANAKPAWIS disqualified
from further participating in elections.
12.2.
Since the creation of the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group
(IALAG) through Executive Order 493,5 accused-movants party-list
representatives, including Rep. Crispin Beltran, of BAYAN MUNA,
Anakpawis and Gabriela Women's Party, have been harassed with cases
of rebellion6 which have been ordered dismissed7 by the Supreme
Court as earlier stated.
12.3.
Then came the filing of these murder cases (including another
kidnapping with murder case8 filed in Guimba, Nueva Ecija).
5 6
Attached as Annex 3 is a copy of E.O. 493 creating IALAG. A copy
of the Information in the rebellion case filed against
accused-movants in the Makati Regional Trial Court is hereto
attached as Annex 4. 7 A copy of the Supreme Court decision in the
rebellion case dated 1 June 2007 is hereto attached as Annex 5. 8 A
copy of the kidnapping with murder case filed against the same
accusedmovants is hereto attached as Annex 6.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 13 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.4.
After the filing of these cases in Nueva Ecija, the same
complainants in said cases filed petitions for disqualification
against BAYAN MUNA, Anakpawis and Gabriela and herein
accusedmovants, including Rep. Crispin Beltran, with the Commission
on Elections.
12.5.
The complaints at the COMELEC were initially docketed as SPA No.
07-015 and SPA 07-016, later redocketed as SPP No. 07-015 and SPP
07-016.9 The filing of the disqualification complaints was even
dramatized through the presentation to the media of the two
complainants with their faces covered, allegedly to prevent
retaliatory action against them by the adverse parties -- implying
the respondents.
12.6.
Incidentally, the COMELEC in its Resolution10 promulgated on 1
June 2007 made a significant ruling that demolishes the credibility
and weight of the affidavits of Isabelita Bayudang, Medelyn Felipe
and their witnesses, who are also the same witnesses in these cases
for murder. Said COMELEC Resolution, which by the way set out in
toto the verified complaint and/or petition filed therein by
Isabelita Bayudang (noticeably, said verified complaint and/or
petition contains identical statements contained in Bayudangs
Sinumpaang Salaysay, so identical that the Sinumpaang Salaysay and
the verified complaint and/or petition seem culled from one and the
same document), ruled that after a careful scrutiny of the
9
Copies of the complaints for disqualification filed at the
COMELEC are hereto attached as Annexes 7 and 7-A. 10 A copy of the
COMELEC Resolution dismissing the complaints for disqualification
is hereto attached as Annex 7-B.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 14 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
records of this case, x x (there is) no sufficient and
convincing evidence to support the petitions and the allegations
contained therein. (page 12 of the Resolution) (Emphasis
supplied.)
13.
Indeed, if there is one thing that is clear in these charges, it
is that the four accused-movants are victims of malicious political
persecution, perjury and incriminatory machination. There can be no
doubt that these charges are just one of the numerous trumped-up
cases being hurled against them, all highly politically motivated,
and all being repugnant to the democratic principles enshrined in
the Constitution. harassment in the guise of legal/judicial action.
This constitutes political
14.
It is well that we be reminded of the Supreme Court ruling in
Allado vs. Diokno (232 SCRA 192) which held: The sovereign power
has the inherent right to protect itself and its people from
vicious acts which endanger the proper administration of justice;
hence, the State has every right to prosecute and punish violators
of the law. This is essential for its self-preservation, nay, its
very existence. But this does not confer a license for pointless
assaults on its citizens. The right of the State to prosecute is
not a carte blanche for government agents to defy and disregard the
rights of its citizens under the Constitution. (Underscoring is
ours)
The evidence submitted by the prosecution are insufficient to
establish probable cause against accused-movants.
-----------------------------------------------------15. An
analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution against each
accused-movant reveals the following:
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 15 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence Against Accused-Movant Liza Maza
16.
Aside from her categorical denial and the impossibility of her
having participated in the alleged killings, Accused-movant MAZA
pointed out the following inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
Complainants and their witnesses: a. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF JIMMY
PERALTA 1) Julie Sinohin claimed that he planned the killing of
Ricardo Peralta in such a way that he would be bumped from behind
and that it would be made to appear as an accident. This is plainly
unbelievable as they could not have predicted where Ricardo Peralta
would go and whether their plan would work, say, if the person they
were tailing suddenly took a different direction, road or path. 2)
That his group bumped Jimmy Peraltas motorcycle at its back11
causing the latter to fall down.
3) That the white car was going the same direction as the
motorcycle being driven by the victim. 4) That he could not
remember the name of the other person who was with him and Ka Mig
inside the car. In fact, the whole story of Julie Sinohin, e.i. the
planning and mistaken killing of Jimmy Peralta is a fabrication.
This is proven by no less than the evidences submitted by the
complainants and/or included by the police, as follows: a) Spot
Report prepared by one AC Binuya the day after the incident or on
December 24, 2004, and released by one Aquino BF which contained
the following:PD SPOT REPORT ON RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE TO HOMICIDE ON
OR ABOUT 2322001 DECEMBER 2001 AT NATIONAL HIGHWAY BARANGAY,
SINIPIT, BONGABON NUEVA ECIJA ONE JIMMY PERALTA ASUNCION 25 YEARS
OLD MARRIED, FARMER AND RESIDENT OF BARANGAY VEGA THIS TOWN DEAD ON
THE SPOT WHILE DRIVING A11
Paragraph 21, Sinumpaang Salaysay of Julie F. Sinohin dated
November 22,
2006.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 16 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MOTORCYCLE
SUZUKI 125 WITH NO PLATE WHEN HIT A CERTAIN MARLON BANICOD OF
BARANGAY PALOMARIA THIS TOWN CAUSING THE FELL DOWN THE SAID
MOTORCYCLE AS WELL AS THIS JIMMY PERALTA THEREBY ACCIDENTALLY RUN
OVER BY SPEEDING VEHICLE COMING FROM OPPOSITE DIRECTION WHICH HAS
NOT FULLY IDENTIFIED BY THE WITNESS HERETO ONLY DESCRIBE AS WHITE
AUTOMOBILE FLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT VICTIM MARLON
BANICOD RUSH TO THE HOSPITAL FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT WHILE JIMMY
PERALTA IS NOW LIES AT THEIR RESIDENCE AND THE MOTORCYCLE WAS TAKEN
BY THE VICTIMS FAMILY PROGRESS REPORT TO FOLLOW OFFICER ON THE CASE
FOR BINUYA AC ED.
From the above Spot Report, it is clear that Jimmy Peralta hit a
certain Marlon Banicod with his motorcycle which caused the former
to fall down on the road and he was then ran over by speeding
vehicle coming from the opposite direction and not from the same
direction as Julie Sinohin claimed. b) November 15, 2006 Statements
of the following who were present at the scene of the accident
(Marlon D. Banicod, Eugene Macayan, August L. Angeles) they were
then walking home along the National Highway at Barangay Sinipit,
Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, when Marlon was hit after which they saw a
person (later identified as Jimmy Peralta) lying on the road, hit
by an oncoming white car. c) Special Report of the Bongabon Chief
of Police dated September 18, 2001 stated in paragraph 1 that Jimmy
Peralta accidentally bumped a pedestrian from behind which caused
Jimmy to lose control of the motorcycle. He fell down and was hit
by a rushing vehicle from opposite direction. It is worth noting
that the said Special Report called the case a hit-andrun case. It
also mentioned that there was an eyewitness who executed an
affidavit and that a copy of which was attached to the Special
Report. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Report stated the following, to
wit:2. Initial investigation of this case reveals that the herein
victim was then on board his motorcycle when a pedestrian
accidentally bumped from behind, causing to lost control and
subsequently hit by a rushing vehicle from opposite direction upon
falling down, thereby said victim fatally hit on the spot. 3.
Follow-up investigation of the incident appears that the
circumstances surrounding hereto is hit-and-run case in which the
vehicle involved described as automobile with no specific
brand/make, color white, plate nr. was not taken by the eyewitness,
who executed an affidavit relevant to this incident
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 17 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and a copy of which is attached hereto, ready reference.
(Emphasis supplied)
17.
But where is that affidavit which was supposedly attached to the
above Special Report and which affidavit can potentially totally
discredit the testimony of Julie Sinohin?
18.
As per the same report, the case was considered an unsolved
Traffic Accident. Even the filled up Case Report Chart classified
the case as one of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.
19.
After tailing the person for a few hours and after the alleged
Intelligence Group conducted surveillance, how could Julie Sinohin
credibly explain the alleged mistake in identity that resulted to
the killing of the wrong person?
20.
Indeed, Jimmy Peralta appears to be a victim of a real
hit-and-run case perpetrated by an unknown individual but certainly
not by Julie Sinohins group as he claims. Jimmy Peralta was not a
victim of a mistaken identity; rather, he is a victim of a recycled
identity.
b. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF CARLITO S. BAYUDANG1) Julie Sinohin
claimed that Carlito Bayudang was killed pursuant to the order of
the Central Committee which, in turn, was in compliance with
Accused-movants alleged order to liquidate supporters of AKBAYAN
who were hindering the campaign and election of Gabriela and Bayan
Muna. The evidence that were executed or prepared in 2004 shortly
after the shooting (which are the following: The Spot Report, the
May 7, 2004 Special Report, the May 19, 2004 Progress Report and
the June 7, 2004 Sinumpaang Salaysay of Angel Ayson) never
mentioned or considered this angle as the motive behind the
killing,
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 18 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this, considering that the police were not unaware of their
active membership in and campaigning for AKBAYAN Party List. As per
the May 19, 2004 Progress Report, Carlito Bayudangs killing appears
to be a land dispute-related killing on account of his and his
groups (the Red Vigilante Group) involvement in the forced
take-over of the 150-hectare Vijandre land. The suspected
mastermind of his killing was one DOMINGO DELA CRUZ and not
accused-movant Maza or her co-accused-movants . This Domingo Dela
Cruz, according to the widow is an alleged CPP/NPA hitman connected
with the Vijandres.
2) Julie Sinohin claimed that there were three of them, Ka Nasa,
Ka Apple and himself, who perpetrated that killing. Angel Ayson who
gave a sworn statement in June 7, 2004 stated that he saw only two
men; one who was already outside waiting for the other who went out
shortly, and that he saw them (the 2 men) board the black
motorcycle and drove towards the highway. All other reports
including the Salaysay of Isabelita Bayudang stated that there were
only two men who perpetrated the crime. Moreover, with only a
motorcycle as a get-away vehicle, it would have been impractical
and certainly risky to employ three (3) hitmen or assailants as
their escape and mobility away from the scene of the crime will be
greatly hampered. Lastly, there was no explanation and certainly no
need to employ more than three hitmen as Julie claimed that the
killing was planned and pursuant to a prior surveillance.
3) Julie Sinohin claimed that his companions were Ka Nasa and Ka
Apple; that it was Ka Apple who went with him inside the house of
Bayudang while Ka Nasa waited in the get-away motorcycle. Angel
Ayson who gave a sworn statement in June 7, 2004 stated that he saw
only two men and that he heard the man standing on a black
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 19 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
motorcycle shout tayo na KA RON, may dumarating then he saw
another man who emerged from the yard of Carlito Bayudang. There
was no mention of the name/s of Julie Sinohins alleged companion/s
and Julie Sinohin did not claim in his statement to have employed
the alias Ka Ron. 4) Julie Sinohin and Isabelita Bayudang claimed
that there were two (2) people with whom the victim was talking to
in the living room of Bayudangs house.
The May 19, 2004 Progress Report clearly stated that there was
only one (1) witness and named him as ERROL GERONIMO JR. but in
Isabelita Bayudangs November 21, 2006 Sinumpaang Salaysay, she
stated that her late husband was talking to two (2) people and
named them as GERONIMO RAZON and ANTONIO COLLADO. The same May 19,
2004 Progress Report stated that Isabelita Bayudang was willing to
give a sworn statement that will implicate Domingo dela Cruz as the
mastermind. Where is this Sworn Statement? Certainly, it cannot be
credibly said that Isabelita Bayudang changed her mind into giving
this sworn statement and which she only decided to give more than
two (2) years after the killing when Julie Sinohin miraculously
surfaced. Moreover, it will be noted that while Sinohin12 listed
the following persons: Ricardo Peralta, Danilo Felipe, Carlito
Bayudang, Francisco Peralta, one Ka Ben and one Ka Ricky, to have
been ordered killed by12
Paragraph 14 of Sinohins Sinumpaang Salaysay stated: 14.
Disyembre ng 2000 pinatawag ako ni @ Sendong sa isang pagpupulong
sa isang liblib na Barangay sa bungabon, Nueva Ecija. Sa pulong na
iyon ay ibinaba sa amin ang atas na likidahin ang mga sumusunod
bilang pagtupad sa inuutos nina Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Teddy
Casino, at Rafael Mariano na likidahin ang mga dating kasama na
sumosuporta sa AKBAYAN: 1. RICARDO PERALTA 2. DANILO FELIPE 3.
CARLITO BAYUDANG 4. FRANSICO PERALTA; 5. KA BEN 6. KA RICKY Ang
amin (6) na nabanggit ay mga dating miyembro ng CPP/NPA/NDFP na
sumapi at sumoporta sa AKBAYAN na nag resulta sa malamya na
pagtangkilik ng masa sa BAYAN MUNA sa Lalawigan ng Nueva Ecija.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 20 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the CPP/NPA pursuant to the order allegedly handed down by the
accused-movants during the alleged meeting, the placard that was
recovered on the dead body of Felipe listed the following: 1.
Danilo Felipe with X mark; 2. Lito Bayudan, killed on May 06, 2004,
3. Ric Peralta, 4. Fred Sadoy, 5. Eduardo Balay, 6. Hernan Ocampo,
7. and Arjee Esquejo. If Sinohins group was the one who prepared
the placard that was placed on Felipes dead body, how can he
explain the discrepancy?
21.
Significantly, the testimonies on accused-movant MAZAs alleged
participation in the killings are replete with tell-tale signs of a
perjured testimony as follows: a. The meetings were supposedly big
meetings (malaking pagpupulong) of high-ranking officials of the
CPP/NPA/NDFP Central Luzon, and yet the meeting was repeatedly held
(all of the three) in the same venue the house of Cleotilde Peralta
@ Joy at Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. b. All three (3)
witnesses could not mention any other matters discussed during the
meeting than our alleged order to liquidate AKBAYAN supporters. c.
All three (3) remembered almost exactly the same people who
attended the said meetings, save for one or two, whose alleged
aliases they could only provide. d. All three (3) are rebel
returnees who have surrendered to and are not unlikely to be under
the custody or protection of the military. e. All three (3)
executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay only in November 2006. Alvaro L.
Juliano and Cleotilde A. Peralta executed their Sinumpaang Salaysay
on November 21, 2006 while Julie F. Sinohin executed his the
following day. Both Sinohin and Peralta gave the identical reasons
for the execution of their affidavits, to wit:Habang lumilipas ang
mga panahon ay hindi ko na masikmura ang mga pagpapatay na
isinagawa namin sa mga inosenteng tao. Dahilan nito, ako ay
nagpasya na lisanin ang kilusan upang makapamuhay ng tahimik
...
f. Julie Sinohin claimed in paragraph 28 of his Sinumpaang
Salaysay that after the 2004 elections, he was summoned to a
meeting at @ Joys house in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.
However, Cleotilde @ Joy Peralta stated in paragraph 23 of her
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 21 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinumpaang Salaysay that in the year 2004, she lied low and went
abroad and that when she came back she heard that our alleged order
was implemented prior to the elections. 22. How then could we have
held a meeting in Joys house after the 2004 elections when Joy
herself claimed that she lied low and went abroad in 2004? 23.
Accused-movant MAZA made the following conclusions: 1) There is a
pattern of suppression of evidence that were executed or prepared
shortly after the alleged killings or deaths of Danilo Felipe,
Jimmy Peralta and Carlito Bayudang; 2) The suppressed evidence were
replaced by recent statements taken only in November 2006 when
Julie Sinohin miraculously surfaced, admitted participation in the
killings and implicated myself and my co-respondents as the
masterminds; 3) The fabrication of new evidence were, however,
sloppily done as their cross-matching with submitted earlier
reports reveal major inconsistencies that discredit the whole
allegation of my and my co-respondents participation. 24. Lastly,
the complainants and their witnesses failed to attribute a credible
motive on all the accuseds alleged participation in the killings.
And while it is true that motive is not an element in the crime of
murder, it becomes material when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive, and there is some doubt on whether the crime was
committed or whether the accused has committed it13. In the instant
cases, there is certainly more than just some doubt on all the
accuseds participation or guilt.
25.
Accused-movant MAZA maintained that BAYAN MUNA, ANAKPAWIS and
GWP have strong constituencies nationwide and whatever influence
Akbayan or the three alleged victims will have in a few barangays
or towns
13
People vs. Galano, 327 SCRA 462.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 22 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in Nueva Ecija will have no or very little effect on the
electoral strength of their party-list organizations.
26.
It is to be noted that all three victims were residents of the
town of Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. As per latest (January 25, 2007)
COMELEC data, Bongabon has 28 barangays with total registered
voters of only Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred Ninety Three
(32,193). Surely, this number of voters could not have any
significant effect to the national or overall election of BAYAN
MUNA, ANAKPAWIS and GABRIELA WOMENS PARTY.
27.
While the widows of Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe admitted
that they are supporters and/or leaders of AKBAYAN, such fact does
not seem to be the highlight of their personalities. All three (3)
intended victims are members of the dreaded Red Vigilante Grour
(RVG), who figured in a deadly conflict with another group led by
one DOMINGO DELA CRUZ on account of the formers involvement in the
forcible take-over of the 150hectare Vijandre land discussed above.
It is therefore more credible to consider that Felipe and Bayudang
were killed because of their connection with the RVG, hence, one of
the placards found on Felipes body read: Tao ng RVG followed by
enumeration of the people who were to be killed next. Jimmy
Peralta, on the other hand, appears to have been a real victim of a
hit-and-run.
28.
In fact, Ricardo Peralta (who was the alleged intended target
when his brother was allegedly killed) was the suspected leader of
the RVG and who prior to his arrest in October 2004 was considered
as RPs Public Enemy No. 1 and commanded a bounty of P1.2M on his
head. Upon his
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 23 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arrest, he was even presented by the Philippine National Police
to President Macapagal-Arroyo. Newspaper reports also described the
RVG as engaged in gun-for-hire and high profile kidnap for ransom
activities operating in Nueva Ecija. Certainly, then, even AKBAYAN
would not have been proud to have them as members.
Evidence Against Accused-Movant Teodoro Casio
a. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF JIMMY PERALTA (1) Sinumpaang
Salaysay of Mayumi Peralta There is no mention of accused-movant
Casio or Bayan Muna in her sinumpaang salaysay, or any allegation
that it was accused-movant Casio or any Bayan Muna leader that
ordered the killing of her husband. (2) Affidavit of Cleotilde
Peralta
Accused-movant Casio does not know anyone named Cleotilde
Peralta @ Joy. She claimed that she was the @ Joy whose house in
Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija was used by and others in
the above-mentioned meetings; that in 1986 she personally knew
accused-movant Casio through her task of coordinating with CPPs
legal front organizations; that after 1987, she met accused-movant
Casio, Father Balweg and other CPP/NPA leaders on various meetings;
that she saw accused-movant Casio in the alleged meeting held at
her house in August 2000 and that she served food during the
meeting; that there was another big meeting at her house in the
last
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 24 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quarter
of
2003,
which
meeting
was
again
attended
by
CPP/NPA/NDFP high-ranking leaders and leaders of BAYAN MUNA,
GABRIELA and ANAKPAWIS, including accused-movant Casio and his
co-accused-movants; that in 2004 she lied low in the Kilusan and
went abroad but later came back and thats when she heard that the
alleged order to liquidate Carlito Bayudang was carried out.
This is an outright lie. Accused-movant Casio has never been to
the house of Cleotilde Peralta or to any house in Brgy. Tugatog,
Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Neither could he be attending meetings
therein, much less give orders to kill people whose deaths would
not have any interest to him. Affiants conclusion that the killings
were done at the instance of accused-movants is absolutely hearsay.
She never stated she actually heard accused-movants giving orders
to allegedly liquidate Peralta or Bayudang.
Having admitted to surrendering to the AFP in 2005, her
testimony is expectedly full of bias and therefore self-serving and
cannot be taken seriously. (3) Affidavit of Alvaro Juliano
He said that he was designated as one of the security leaders in
a meeting held at @ Joys house in August 2000 in Barangay Tugatog,
Bongabon, Nueva Ecija where he allegedly recognized accusedmovant
as one of the attendees and where he and his co-accusedmovants had
ordered the liquidation of the former kasamas who have shifted
their support to AKBAYAN.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 25 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His statement is an outright fabrication. To reiterate,
accused-movant Casio has never been to the house of Cleotilde
Peralta or to any house in Brgy. Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.
Neither could he be attending meetings therein, much less give
orders to kill people whose deaths would not have any interest to
him. Having admitted to be a rebel returnee in April 2003, affiant
is most likely under the custody of the military. Thus, his
testimony is self-serving and lacks credibility. (4) Affidavit of
Julie Sinohin
At the outset, Sinohin is a self-confessed triggerman and should
be accused as a principal in the murders of Peralta and Bayudang.
His testimony is self-serving and meant to lessen or absolve
himself from his criminal liability. As repeatedly stated by
accused-movant Casio, he has never been in any of the meetings
alleged by the witnesses for the complainant. More importantly,
there is no reason for him or his party-list to order the killing
of Akbayan supporters in Central Luzon or in any part of the
country. In the 2001 elections, Akbayan was never a threat to Bayan
Muna which garnered 1.7 million votes, the highest number of votes
in the party-list elections. Then again, Bayan Muna topped the 2004
elections, obtaining 1.2. million votes.
Again, there was no such meeting on August 2000, much less an
order to kill from accused-movant Casio or his fellow
accused-movants. Even in Sinohins account of the alleged two
meetings, the alleged order to kill Akbayan supporters did not
mention any specific name. Thus, whatever plan Sinohin and his
co-conspirators had cooked up, including their alleged hit list, is
purely their initiative and cannot be attributed to accused-movant
Casio or his fellow accused-movants.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 26 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no time had accused-movant Casio any motive to kill Peralta
and Bayudang. He does not know them, much less their
activities.
Sinohin details his participation in the murders but his account
is inconsistent with the attached police reports and other
evidence. b. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF CARLITO BAYUDANG (1)
Affidavit of Isabelita Bayudang
There is no mention here of accused-movant Casio. Neither is
there any allegation that it was him who ordered the killing of
Carlito Bayudang.
Contrary to the malicious claim of affiant, Bayan Muna is a
political party organized not by the CPP but by Filipino citizens
who saw the need to establish an alternative political party to
represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors in
Philippine society. Bayan Muna is duly registered in and accredited
by the COMELEC.
It is patently false and ridiculous for affiant to allege that
her husbands activities weakened Bayan Muna. Having topped the 2001
party-list elections, for Bayan Muna, Akbayan was never seen as a
threat to it.
On her alleged and hearsay statement that Bayan Muna sent a
warning to Carlito Bayudang to stop his support for Akbayan on pain
of liquidation, affiant never identified specifically who sent the
alleged
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 27 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
warning and, therefore, she or her husband has no basis in
concluding that it came from Bayan Muna. (2) Affidavits of Julie
Sinohin, Cleotilde Peralta and Alvaro Juliano Please refer to the
above discussion on their respective affidavits.
Evidence Against Accused-Movant Saturnino Ocampo
29.
A reading of the affidavits that directly implicate Saturnino
Ocampo as well as Representatives Liza L. Maza, Teodoro A. Casio
and Rafael V. Mariano reveal that they are executed and sworn to by
four affiants who claim to be former members of the CPP/NPA/NDF,
namely, Julie Flores Sinohin, Cleotilde Aguilar Peralta, Alvaro
Juliano y Laureano and Isabelita Bayudang. All the four affiants
executed their extra-judicial confessions before their military/
police handlers and all are now undoubtedly working as military/
police assets under the custody, direction and control of the AFP
and /or PNP. To mention again, Sinohin and C. Peralta surrendered
in 2006 and 2005, respectively, as per their affidavits, and
Juliano claims he was arrested in April 2003 by the Alpha Coy, 71st
IB, Philippine Army. Bayudang claims she and her deceased husband
decided to finally cut any ties with the NPAs in 1992, but claims
to have decided to reunite with the government way back in
1987.
30.
These affidavits, aside from appearing contrived, biased and
concocted, even contain numerous inconsistencies and statements
that are baseless, or based on mere hearsay, and bereft of any
logic. Indeed, these are obviously false and manufactured
statements that do not deserve to be accorded any credibility. For
instance, Sinohin stated:
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 28 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Noong ika-23 ng buwan ng Disyembre taong 2001, ay namatyagan
naming si RICARDO PERALTA sa Bongabon, Nueva Ecija na sakay sa
kanyang motorsiklo. Gamit ang puting kotse na minaneho ni Ka MIG ay
sinundan naming ang motorsiklo ni RICARDO PERALTA. Kasama naming sa
loob ng nasabing puting kotse ang isa pang kasama na hindi ko na
natandaan ang pangalan subalit makikilala ko siya kung makikita ko
muli.
31.
Assuming only for the sake of argument that Sinohin is not
lying, it defies logic and reason that Sinohin in his statement was
able to recall as many as twenty-two names (22) from different
occasions dating as far back as 1999 -- most of these occasions
allegedly attended by numerous people where ones ability of
recollection could be expected to be hampered-- but he could not
even remember his one companion in the car they rode on the night
of the fateful incident, considering that there were only three of
them inside the car.
32.
Sinohin likewise stated: 21. x x x Noong gabi ng araw na iyon ay
naabutan naming ang motor ni RICARDO PERALTA sa National Highway sa
Barangay Sinipit, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Habang tumatakbo ang
nasabing motorsiklo ay binangga naming ito sa likuran. Nakita ko na
tumilapon ang sakay nito sa kalsada at ng bumagsak siya ay
sinagasaan naman ng kotse sa sinasakyan namin.
33.
The statement reeks of so many inconsistencies that it is just
incredible. For one, while Sinohin stated that their white car was
going in the same direction as the motorcycle being driven by the
victim, the polices Spot Report prepared by one AC Binuya on
December 24, 2004 based on first hand accounts of witnesses show
that Jimmy Peralta hit a certain Marlon Banicod with his motorcycle
which caused Jimmy Peralta to lose control
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 29 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and fall down, and while Jimmy lay fallen, a speeding vehicle
coming from the opposite direction accidentally ran him over.
34.
Sinohin also stated that: 26. x x x Minaneho ni KA NASA ang
motorsiklo at kami naman ni KA APPLE ay naglakad at sumunod sa
motor ni AKA (sic) NASA patungo sa bahay ni CARLITO BAYUDANG. Nang
makarating kami ay dali-dali kami ni KA APPLE na pumasok sa bahay
ni CARLITO BAYUDANG at inabutan naming siya na nakaupo at may
ka-kuwentuhan na dalawang tao sa salas ng kanilang bahay. Agad kong
binaril ng tatlong beses si CARLITO BAYUDANG ng dala kong .45 na
pistola. Narinig ko na pumutok din ng dalawang beses si KA APPLE na
noon ay nasa tabi ko. Nang matiyak naming patay na si CARLITO
BAYUDANG ay agad na sumigaw ako na mga NPA kami at saka mabilis
kaming sumakay sa motor na dala ni KA NASA at lumayo kami sa
nasabing lugar.
35.
This is inconsistent with the affidavit of one witness, Angel
Ayson, who, in his sworn statement revealed that he saw only two
men board the black motorcycle and sped away from Carlitos house
after the gunshots were heard. Angel Ayson likewise specifically
mentioned that he heard a man standing by the motorcycle outside
Carlitos house shout: tayo na KA RON may dumarating, That was all.
A review of Sinohins statement reveals that he used the code: Ka
RB, Ka Sam, Ka Ramil, at Ka Berting. In this narrative, assuming it
were true, nowhere did he mention the name Ka Ron. The credibility
of Sinohins statement is put into question, for if Sinohin
maliciously and deliberately stated one falsity in one or two
details, this is a tell-tale sign that the rest of his affidavit is
unreliable and unworthy of credit.
36.
Sinohins statement (No. 19) in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that they
boarded the victim Danilo Felipe on the hand tractor and brought
him to
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 30 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barangay Maeling, Nampicuan where they allegedly killed him is
likewise inconsistent with the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay
together with Barangay Captain Rodrigo A. Toribio and the
Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay of Danilo T. Centro wherein it was
stated that the armed men, after allegedly abducting Danilo Felipe,
allowed the rest of them to leave unharmed and he, Centro and his
companions, did leave on board the hand tractor.
37.
Even Isabelita Bayudangs affidavit on the alleged murder of
Danilo Felipe gives away a crucial yet telling inconsistency, a
detail that shows the motive why she filed this charges against
people she imagines to be connected with the NPA. In her statement,
Isabelita states: 16. Noong Pebrero 17, 2001 ay dinukot ng mga
pinaghihinlang (sic) miyembro ng NPA si DANILO FELIPE at noong
Pebrero 20, 2001 ay natagpuan ang kanyang bangay (sic) sa Narvacan
1, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. Nakasabit sa bangay (sic) ni Danilo ang
isang papel na may nakasulat na Mabuhay ang NPA at nakasulat din
ang listahan ng mga taong susunod na itutumba ng NPA at isa doon ay
ang pangalan ng asawa ko .
38.
The inconsistency lies in the account of witnesses DIONISIO
ROXAS, in the affidavit of MEDELYN FELIPE and the report of
P/Senior Inspector Palomo. Assuming they were true, all of these
accounts, except Isabelita Bayudangs, alleged that two cartons were
found beside the body of Danilo Felipe.
39.
Likewise, assuming for the sake of argument that they are true,
in all of these accounts, nobody alleged that they saw Mabuhay ang
NPA in the text written on the cartons. The account of witnesses
DIONISIO ROXAS alleges a different text, a text that is even
incredibly stated in toto in the
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 31 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
affidavit of MEDELYN FELIPE and the report of PSenior Inspector
Palomo.
40.
The fact that Isabelita Bayudang alone testified that she saw
Mabuhay ang NPA written into the text of the carton allegedly found
in the crime scene is also blatantly revealing: it shows her utmost
bias against this organization, a bias that is translated into her
overzealousness to make false allegations just to destroy the
reputation of those individuals whom she imagines are members of
the NPA. Her testimony, being manifestly biased and malicious,
aside from being false, does not deserve to be accorded any
credibility.
41.
All the allegations reeked of ill-motives against persons whom
the four perceive to be NPAs, and do not deserve to be given any
credence at all.
42.
Noteworthy that the statements of the complainants Isabelita
Bayudang, Medelyn Felipe, and Mayumi Peralta did not mention
Saturnino Ocampos name or that his co-respondents as perpetrators
of the offense being charged; nor did they mention any act
committed by the four accused for them to be charged with murder.
On the other hand, a close scrutiny of the allegations in the sworn
statements of complainants witnesses will readily show signs that
they were synchronized, coached, directed and sourced, albeit
crudely, from the same minds.
43.
The most notable element in the separate statements of Sinohin,
C. Peralta and Juliano is their uniform allegation that accused
Ocampo,
Maza, Casio and Mariano attended an alleged meeting of the top
leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDF in Central Luzon and leaders of
BAYAN
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 32 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUNA and BAYAN on an unspecified date in August 2006 in the
house of Peralta (@Joy) in Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.
44.
Sinohin and Juliano claim they were assigned as security
officers at the alleged meeting (pagpupulong), while C.Peralta
claims to have served food to the participants, under which
circumstances the trio explain how they came to know of the
contents of the long discussions. Thus, they uniformly state almost
verbatimly in their separate sworn statements the following:
Isa sa mga natalakay ay ang pagsali ng BAYAN MUNA sa halalan
noon taong 2001 at ang epekto sa pagsuporta ng mga dating kasamahan
sa kalaban na party-list organization ng AKBAYAN. Pinag-usapan nila
ang magiging epekto ng pagbaligtad at pagsuporta ng mga dating
kasama sa kalaban na party-list organization na AKBAYAN at matapos
ang mahabang talakayan ay ini-utos nina Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza,
Teddy Casio at Rafael Mariano sa mga lider ng CPP/NPA ng Central
Luzon na agad likidahin ang sinumang dating kasamahan na susuporta
sa AKBAYAN at magiging sagabal sa ikapapanalo ng BAYAN MUNA.
Narinig ko na minungkahi ni Liza Maza ang paggamit sa mga miyembro
ng Gabriela sa paniniktik sa mga dating kasama na sumusuporta sa
AKBAYAN.
45.
The above-quoted statement is found in the affidavits of
C.Peralta (No.19) and Juliano (No. 17). The only variance in the
affidavit of Sinohin (No. 13), from the other two are the word
sinuri (ang magiging epekto) in lieu of the phrase pinag-usapan
nila common to the C.Peralta and Juliano affidavits, and matapos
ang palitan ng kuro-kuro in lieu of matapos ng mahabang talakayan
in the Peralta and Juliano affidavits.
46.
The falsity of this uniform statement is obvious:
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 33 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46.1. It is inherently incredible that all three affiants were
present in the room where the alleged meeting took place ALL
throughout the discussions, as to listen in and intellectually
ingest the long discussions while Sinohin and Juliano stood as
security and C.Peralta served food to the participants. It is also
incredible to assign security people in the room where the alleged
meeting took place instead of outside the house to better secure
the venue of the meeting against strangers and intruders. 46.2.
Furthermore, granting there was such a meeting, it was
inconceivable for the leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDF in Central Luzon
and the leaders of BAYAN MUNA and BAYAN to have assigned security
details inside the meeting room if the topic of discussion was as
sensitive as the affiants allege. Likewise, it was inconceivable
for C. Peralta - even if she owned the house-to have been allowed
to stay in the meeting room when her acknowledged task was simply
to serve food to the participants. 46.3. It likewise strains
credibility to take as factually correct that all the four accused
-- Ocampo, Maza, Casio, Mariano - could have ordered the leaders of
the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to immediately liquidate any former
comrade who supported AKBAYAN and hindered the victory of BAYAN
MUNA in the 2001 partylist election. This allegation raises the
following questions:
47.
By what authority could Ocampo, Maza, Casio and Mariano have
ordered the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to undertake
the alleged liquidation?
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 34 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48.
How did the four issue the alleged order-all together, or one
after the other speaking at the alleged meeting?
49.
Who presided over the alleged meeting? Is there any proof that
the four representatives or anyone of them was a member or leader
of the CPP/ NPA/ NDF? All three affiants are silent on these
questions.
50.
Given the fact that the party-list election was held nationwide,
why should BAYAN MUNA be concerned that the activities of a few
supposed former comrades supporting AKBAYAN in a few towns or
barangays in Nueva Ecija can hinder (magiging sagabal) the party's
victory in the 2001 partylist election?
51.
As earlier stated, the COMELEC records of the 2001 partylist
election show that BAYAN MUNA garnered One Million Seven Hundred
Thousand (1.7M) votes, as against AKBAYAN'S 357,274.
52.
Surely, AKBAYAN was no threat to BAYAN MUNA's victory. Clearly,
the motive attributed to the four respondents for allegedly
ordering the liquidation of the supporters of AKBAYAN in Nueva
Ecija is baseless. It is a malicious imputation of ruthlessness
which is sought to be backed-up by alluding to an imagined meeting
in August 2000, using the perjured testimonies of persons who are
police/ military assets under effective military custody and
control.
53.
It bears repeating that all the four affiants claim to be former
members of the CPP/NPA/NDF and all are now police/ military assets
under the custody and control of the AFP and/or PNP. Sinohin and C.
Peralta
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 35 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
surrendered in 2006 and 2005, respectively as per their
affidavits, and Juliano claims he was arrested in April 2003 by the
Alpha Coy, 71st IB, Philippine Army. Bayudang claims she and her
deceased husband decided to finally cut any ties with the NPAs in
1992, but claims to have decided to reunite with the government way
back in 1987. Hence, their testimonies and/or extrajudicial
admissions all lack credibility for being biased and patently
fabricated. Having themselves admitted that they left the movement
with resentments and ill-feelings boiling in their hearts, it is
but inevitable and almost natural to expect that their statements
would be full of biased and false allegations that reek of motives
to demonize, vilify, and demolish the reputation of the movement
that they deserted, including the reputation and the lives of the
people whom they imagine to be members or sympathizers of the CPP/
NPA/ NDF.
Evidence Against Accused-Movant Rafael Mariano
54.
Prosecution witness Julie Sinohin Flores volunteered
accused-movant Rafael Marianos alleged participation on the
supposed murders of the above-named persons. Julie Sinohin
confesses that he was the one who directly committed and executed
the dastardly acts. He executed his
affidavit before Police Superintendent Ferdinand Vero, the
administering officer thereof on 22 November 2002. Alvaro Juliano y
Laureano and Cleotilde Aguilar Peralta, who both executed their
affidavits on 21 November 2006 also before Police Superintendent
Vero, supposedly corroborate the sworn statement of Sinohin.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 36 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Affidavit of Julie Flores Sinohin:
55.
According to Sinohins web of lies, in August 2000, accused
Rafael Mariano, together with his co-accused-movants Reps. Satur
Ocampo, Liza Maza and Teodoro Casio attended a meeting of the
leaders of the CPPNPA-NDF in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva
Ecija. Allegedly,
during the said meeting, the said accused ordered the
liquidation or summary execution of former members of CPP/NPA who
supported Akbayan and who would derail the victory of Bayan Muna.
Further, Sinohin said that in December 2000 a certain @ Sendong
summoned him and he received an order to liquidate Ricardo Peralta,
Carlito Bayudang, and Danilo Felipe which the herein accused
allegedly issued. Thus, according to Sinohin, a Special Operations
Group (SOG) composed of the Intel Group and Liquidation Group were
formed on the same date to implement the order that the herein
accused have supposedly issued. Sinohin was allegedly tasked as the
head of the Liquidation Group.
56.
The testimony of this perjured witness Julie Sinohin is totally
different from the official reports of the Philippine National
Police as to the death of Ricardo Peralta. While prosecution
witness Julie Sinohin is claiming that he intentionally bumped the
motorcycle of Ricardo Peralta, to quote:
21. x x x Noong gabi ng araw na iyon ay naabutan namin ang motor
ni RICARDO PERALTA sa National Highway sa Barangay Sinipit,
Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. Habang Tumatakbo ang nasabing motorsiklo ay
binangga namin ito sa likuran. Nakita ko na tumilapon ang sakay
nito sa kalsada at ng bumagsak siya ay sinagasaan naman ng kotse na
sinasakyan namin. Subalit sa hindi inaasahang pangyayari, ang
napatay pala namin ay ang kapatid ni RICARDO na si JIMMY
PERALTA.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 37 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57.
The official reports proved otherwise. The official report dated
September 18, 2004 of the Chief of Police of Bangabon, Nueva Ecija,
to the PNP Provincial Director of Nueva Ecija, which was attached
to the complaint, says otherwise, to quote:
2. Initial investigation reveals that the herein victim was then
on board on his motorcycle when a pedestrian accidentally bumped
from behind causing to lost (sic) control and subsequently hit by a
rushing vehicle from opposite direction upon falling down, thereby
said victim was fatally hit on the spot. 58. Moreover, the Police
Report dated December 24, 2004 signed by PC/Insp. Aquino, which was
likewise attached to the complaint as an annex, declared that while
the victim, Jimmy Peralta was driving his motorcycle, it hit a
certain Marilou Basnicod. The report states that the death of Jimmy
Peralta was also due to an accident, to quote:
x x x hit a certain Marilou Basnicod of Brgy. Palomaria causing
to fall down the said motorcycle as well as Jimmy Peralta thereby
accidentally run over by a speeding vehicle coming from the
opposite direction. (emphasis supplied) 59. On the other hand,
Isabelita Bayudang ADMITTED during the
investigation that the reason for the killing of her husband was
connected with the land dispute in their locality. In fact, during
the investigation, she readily pinpointed to Domingo de la Cruz as
the Mastermind. She testified also that the group of Carlito
Bayudang (her husband) received death threats from another group of
farmers identified with the owner of the land, the Vijandro family.
Both Isabelita Bayudang and her deceased husband were members of
the dreaded Red Vigilante Group (RVG). Those who were allegedly
killed for being Akbayan supporters were actually members of the
Red Vigilante Group (RVG). Please refer to the PNP Provincial
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 38 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEPPO report dated May 19, 2005, that P/CInsp. Whelmer Carillo
signed, which was attached to the record of the case.
60.
In sum, the testimony of Sinohin is perjured and not worthy of
trust. In addition, the supposed participation of the party-list
representatives, accused-movant Mariano among them, to the supposed
murders is based on purely on hearsay as discussed below.
The Affidavits of Alvaro Juliano y Laureano and Cleotilde
Aguilar Peralta.
61.
The affidavits of the above-named persons provide nothing on
accusedmovant Marianos supposed participation on the alleged murder
of Jimmy Peralta, Carlito Bayudang and Danilo Felipe. They merely
state his alleged membership with the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP) and the New Peoples Army (NPA). However, mere
membership in the said organization is not considered a crime after
the repeal of the AntiSubversion Law. He does not admit, however,
that he was ever a member of the CPP-NPA.
Accused-movant Marianos Supposed Participation To The Murder Of
The Victims Is Based On Hearsay Evidence. 62. According to Julie
Sinohin, several months after the supposed meeting, he received an
order from @ Sendong to kill Ricardo Peralta, Carlito Bayudang and
Danilo Felipe. He alleges that the accused party-list
representatives were the ones who allegedly gave the said order to
@ Sendong. This only shows that Julie Sinohin based his conclusion
that the accused party-list representatives ordered the killing of
the said
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 39 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
persons based on the information that @ Sendong relayed to him.
Clearly, it is hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.
63.
This likewise shows that the witness has not personally and
directly received any order from accused-movant Mariano to
supposedly kill the said persons. If at all, the State should
prosecute @ Sendong and Julie Sinohin not the accused herein. @
Sendong is the principal by inducement while Sinohin is the
principal by direct participation.
64.
Upon scrutiny, it is respectfully submitted, that the pieces of
evidence that the prosecution submitted conflict and contradict
each other, and have not met the mandated standard. The pieces of
evidence presented falls on their own weight as they have not shown
that the herein accused were ever aware of and consented to any
criminal act or violation of the law.
65.
The prosecutions reliance on the perjured testimony of Julie
Sinohin must come to naught. His testimony is nothing but an
admission of his having a criminal mind and character, as shown in
his Sinumpaang Salaysay confessing to the heinous crimes he
committed against the husbands of the private complainants.
66.
It is so perplexing that despite his admissions and confessions
to the said killings, the authorities just kept their eyes blind
and never indicted Julie Sinohin as the principal accused for
multiple murders, as he is the most guilty of the crimes committed.
The military and/or police handlers
designed Julie Sinohins testimony, who have openly campaigned
against the progressive party-lists of herein accused. This fact is
very much clear
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 40 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in his Sinumpaang Salaysay which was administered before P/Supt.
Ferdinand M. Vero, and that men from the military/PNP
witnessed.
The documents attached on record are nothing but hearsay,
irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. They would not establish
the complicity of the accused party-list representatives to the
death of the supposed victims. 67. Most, if not all, of the
voluminous documents that the prosecution submitted are printed
materials which are irrelevant and immaterial, hearsay, spurious,
unauthenticated and inadmissible in evidence that either belong to
the anti-insurgency section of the military archive or long
consigned to the PNP/AFP shredding machine.
The findings of probable cause by the Provincial Prosecutor of
Nueva Ecija against the respondents are based on inadmissible
evidence in violation of the res inter alios acta rule.
-----------------------------------------------------68. Section
28, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which enshrines in the
Philippine jurisdiction the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri
nocere debet ordains that an act, declaration or omission of
another person cannot prejudice the rights of any party, and that,
therefore, an extrajudicial confession or admission is binding only
upon the confessant and not against others. In the case of People
v. Tena,14 the Honorable Supreme Court said:
Not unexpectedly, therefore, it is this extrajudicial confession
on which Solita Sena centers his attack in the present appellate
proceedings, assigning as errors on the part of the lower court the
admission in evidence of the extrajudicial confession of Adelberto
Camota and his conviction on the sole basis thereof.
14
215 SCRA 43 [1992].
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 41 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But as is made clear by the Solicitor General in his
Manifestation in Lieu of Appellees Brief, the matter of that
confessions competency need not be delved into as the issue of
accusedappellants guilt or innocence may be resolved by application
of the doctrine res inter alios acta alteri nocere debet. Actually,
the issue is not so much the admissibility in evidence of the
extrajudicial confession, but rather, even conceding its
admissibility, its use against persons other than the confessant,
e.g., herein accusedappellant. Use of Camotas extrajudicial
confession is precluded by Section 25 (now Section 28) of Rule 130
of the Rules of Court, viz: Section 28. Admission by third party.
The rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration,
or omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. The reason
for the rule is that: On a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a mans own acts are binding upon himself, and are
evidence against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it
would not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust,
that a man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the acts of
strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be used as evidence
against him. 69. While the res inter alios acta rule admits of
certain exceptions, one of which is found in Section 30, Rule 130
of the Rules of Court on admission regarding co-conspirators, such
exception does not apply in the present case. As held in People v.
Tena15
and reiterated in People v.
Surigawan,16 the prosecution must meet the following criteria
before the exception under Section 30 can apply: (1) proof of the
conspiracy through evidence other than the admission itself; (2)
the admission relates to the common object; and (3) the admission
was made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the
conspiracy.
70.
In People v. Surigawan (supra), the Court said: The error of the
trial court is compounded by the use of similar uncounselled
confessions made by the other accused to convict
15 16
Supra. 228 SCRA 458, 464-465 [1993].
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 42 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
accused-appellant Surigawan. Cited by the trial court to bolster
its ruling is Section 30 of Rule 130 which provides: The act or
declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during
its existence, may be given in evidence against the coconspirator
after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. Again, the inapplicability of this provision is plain
to the eye. For this provision to apply, the following requisites
must be satisfied: a. that the conspiracy be first proved by
evidence other than the admission itself.; b. that the admission
relates to the common object; and, c. that it has been made while
the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. In the
case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the accused was not
priorly established by separate and independent evidence. Nor was
it shown that the extrajudicial confessions of the other accused
(Exhibits B, F and J) were made while they were engaged in carrying
out the conspiracy. In truth, the confessions were made after the
conspiracy has ended and after the consummation of the crime. These
confessions cannot be used against the accusedappellant without
doing violence against his constitutional right to be confronted
with the witnesses against him and to cross-examine them. Without
the uncounselled confession of the accused-appellant and the
extrajudicial confessions of the other accused, no shred of
evidence remains to establish the guilt of accused-appellant
Surigawan beyond reasonable doubt.
71.
In view of the foregoing, it is perfectly clear that the
extrajudicial confessions of witnesses Julie Flores Sinohin and
Alvaro JulianoLaureano and Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita
Bayudang y Nanip are inadmissible in evidence under the doctrine of
res inter alios acta alteri nocere debet embodied in Rule 130,
Section 28 of the Rules of Court.
72.
The public prosecutors categorically stated in their Resolution
dated 11 April 2008 that the testimony of Julie Flores Sinohin is
an absolute
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 43 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
necessity xxxx if we are to successfully prosecute these
cases.
17
However, the prosecution has not proven the supposed conspiracy
through any other evidence other than Julie Flores Sinohins sole
extrajudicial confession dated 22 November 2006. Nor were his
declarations made during the existence of the alleged
conspiracy.
73.
The provincial prosecutors wrongly construe that Section 30,
Rule 130 does not circumscribe the testimonies of Alvaro
Juliano-Laureano, and Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita
Bayudang since they are allegedly not co-conspirators. In any case,
whether they are conspirators or not, the general prohibition
itself provided in Section 28, Rule 130 applies squarely to them
since their so-called admissions do not qualify as the exception
thus rendering their confessions inadmissible in evidence.
74.
Undoubtedly, the case for the prosecution rests solely on the
testimonies of Julie Flores Sinohin and Alvaro Juliano-Laureano and
Cleotilde AguilarPeralta and Isabelita Bayudang. Without their
testimonies, the case for the prosecution will have no leg to stand
on.
75.
Contrary to the requirement that the prosecution must first
prove the conspiracy through evidence other than the admission
itself, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the alleged
conspiracy between accused-movants and Julie Flores Sinohin who
claims that he is the actual perpetrator of the killings.
17
Please see the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija dated 11 April 2008 attached as Annex 1
herein at page 10.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 44 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
76.
Excluding the inadmissible confessions and admissions of Julie
Flores Sinohin and Alvaro Juliano-Laureano, and Cleotilde
Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita Bayudang, the other affidavits and
the entire records are utterly bereft of any shred of evidence that
would separately and independently prove conspiracy between the
herein accused and these witnesses.
77.
The Honorable Supreme Court has consistently held that: The same
degree of proof required for establishing the crime is likewise
required to support a finding of conspiracy. In other words,
conspiracy must be shown to exist as convincingly as the commission
of the offense itself in order to uphold the fundamental principle
that no one shall be found guilty of a crime except upon proof
beyond reasonable doubt.18 Conspiracy must be real and not
presumptive,19 and must be proved as the crime itself independent
from the confession.20
78.
In People v. Ortiz,21 the Supreme Court emphasized that:
(P)roofs, not mere conjectures or assumptions should be
proffered by the prosecution which would show that the accused had
taken part in the planning, preparation and participation in the
alleged conspiracy to kill the victim. Otherwise a careless use of
the conspiracy theory (can) sweep into jail even innocent persons
who may only have been made unwitting tools by the criminal minds
really responsible for the crime. 79. In similar cases, the High
Court reversed the conviction of an accused alleged as principal by
inducement or mastermind that the lower court wrongfully convicted
based on an extra-judicial confession. In People vs. Plaza,22 the
Supreme Court held that: Independent evidence of conspiracy must
first be given before the admission of a conspirator may be
received against his co18 19 20 21 22
Pecho v. People, 262 SCRA 518, 27 September 1996. U.S. v.
Figueras, 2 Phil 491. People v. Chaw Yaw Shun, 23 SCRA 127, 144.
G.R. No. 111723, 27 January 1997. 140 SCRA 277 [1985].
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 45 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conspirator. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence
adduced by the prosecution to establish conspiracy among Plaza and
the Napal brothers in the killing of Jose Luna, Sr. other than the
latters statements. It is submitted, therefore, that while the
confessions/admissions of the Napal brothers may be received
against them, they are not, however, admissible against their
codefendant Plaza as to whom said statements are hearsay evidence
for he (Plaza) had no opportunity to cross-examine them (the Napal
brothers). In short, the extra-judicial confessions/statements of
the Napal brothers are inadmissible against Plaza first, because as
earlier stated they lack the indispensable requisite of
corroboration by other evidence and, second, because during the
trial the Napal brothers not only denied that their co-accused
Plaza participated in the killing of Luna but went on to repudiate
their statements as having been extracted from them through the use
of force, violation [N.B. should be violence] and intimidation.
(Brief, pp. 43-47.) In the subsequent case of People vs. Pamon,23
the High Court emphatically reiterated the ruling in People vs.
Plaza 24 thus, We cannot sustain the trial courts reasoning that if
the confession is not admissible against the accused, it will not
also be admissible against those who had been implicated therein.
But, if it is admissible against the former, then it will also be
admissible against the latter. This simply ignores the doctrine:
RES INTER ALIOS ACTA ALTERI NOCERI NON DEBET. 81. It is also a
matter of note that the four witnesses executed their confessions
and admissions only in 2006, or more than two to five years after
the crimes were committed and when they were no longer engaged in
the alleged conspiracy. No one of these four witnesses gave any
explanation why they decided to make these confessions and
admissions only now.
80.
82.
It is therefore only reasonable to conclude that the alleged
sworn statements of Julie Flores Sinohin and Alvaro
Juliano-Laureano, and Cleotilde Aguilar-Peralta and Isabelita
Bayudang on which the prosecution
23 24
217 SCRA 501 [1993]. Supra.
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause 46 (People
vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
relies on for the establishment of its case are inadmissible in
evidence pursuant to the doctrine of res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet as set forth in Section 28, Rule 130 of the Rules
of Court on the Rules on the Admissibility of Evidence.
Following the political offense doctrine of absorption of
crimes, the instant criminal cases against accused Saturnino
Ocampo, Teodoro Casio, Liza Maza and Rafael Mariano are already
absorbed in the rebellion case docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944
previously filed against them in the Regional Trial Court of the
Makati which has been ord