Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause RE Palayan Case

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THIRD JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 40, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus -

Criminal Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P

SATURNINO OCAMPO, ET AL., Accused.

x---------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE (WITH PRAYER TO DISMISS THE CASE OUTRIGHT) Accused SATURNINO C. OCAMPO, TEODORO A. CASIÑO, 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 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, 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, 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 to the established procedure may be public’s perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced. 1 1

Consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 172070-72 (Vicente ( Vicente Ladlad, et al. vs. Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco, et al. ), G.R. Nos. 172074-76 (Liza ( Liza Maza, et al.

Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause (People vs. Satur Ocampo, et al.) Crim. Case Nos. 1879-P & 1880-P -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.

2

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.”

4.

2

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 ( 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. Alano’s Handbook on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest & Remedies


1.

2

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.”

4.

2

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 ( 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. Alano’s Handbook on Preliminary Investigation and Inquest & Remedies


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


b)

4

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 year’s 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


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


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.”


5.4.3.

7

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.

5.5.1.

The adverse Joint Resolution contained very scant and token presentation and discussion of accused-movants’ evidence and defenses. 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 panel’s

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 panel’s lack of impartiality and prior


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 panel’s 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 panel’s 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


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 accused- movants 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

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. 4

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, 71 st 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.


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 People’s 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.


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 rebellion 6 which have been ordered dismissed 7 by the Supreme Court as earlier stated.

12.3.

Then came the filing of these murder cases (including another kidnapping with murder case 8 filed in Guimba, Nueva Ecija).

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.” 5 6


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 Resolution 10 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 Bayudang’s 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.”


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.

This constitutes political

harassment in the guise of legal/judicial action.

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:


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 Peralta’s 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 A 11

2006.

Paragraph 21, Sinumpaang Salaysay of Julie F. Sinohin dated November 22,


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


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 Sinohin’s 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. BAYUDANG 1) 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,


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 Bayudang’s killing appears to be a land dispute-related killing on account of his and his group’s (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 Vijandre’s.

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


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 Sinohin’s 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 Bayudang’s 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 Bayudang’s 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 Sinohin 12 listed the following persons: Ricardo Peralta, Danilo Felipe, Carlito Bayudang, Francisco Peralta, one Ka Ben and one Ka Ricky, to have been ordered killed by 12

Paragraph 14 of Sinohin’s 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.


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 Sinohin’s group was the one who prepared the placard that was placed on Felipe’s dead body, how can he explain the discrepancy?

21.

Significantly,

the testimonies

on accused-movant

MAZA’s

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 @ Joy’s house in Barangay Tugatog, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija. However, Cleotilde @ Joy Peralta stated in paragraph 23 of her


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 Joy’s 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 accused’s 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 accused’s 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.


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 WOMEN’S 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 former’s 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 Felipe’s 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 RP’s Public Enemy No. 1 and commanded a bounty of P1.2M on his head. Upon his


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 Casiño

a. ON THE ALLEGED MURDER OF JIMMY PERALTA (1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of Mayumi Peralta There is no mention of accused-movant Casiño or Bayan Muna in her sinumpaang salaysay, or any allegation that it was accused-movant Casiño or any Bayan Muna leader that ordered the killing of her husband.

(2) Affidavit of Cleotilde Peralta

Accused-movant Casiño 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 Casiño through her task of coordinating with CPP’s legal front organizations; that after 1987, she met accused-movant Casiño, Father Balweg and other CPP/NPA leaders on various meetings; that she saw accused-movant Casiño 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


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 Casiño and his co-accused-movants; that in 2004 she lied low in the Kilusan and went abroad but later came back and that’s when she heard that the alleged order to liquidate Carlito Bayudang was carried out.

This is an outright lie. Accused-movant Casiño 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.

Affiant’s 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 @ Joy’s 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.


His statement is an outright fabrication. To reiterate, accused-movant Casiño 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 Casiño, 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 Casiño or his fellow accused-movants. Even in Sinohin’s 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 Casiño or his fellow accused-movants.


At no time had accused-movant Casiño 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 Casiño. 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 husband’s 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


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. Casiño 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, 71 st 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:


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 one’s 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 Habang Barangay Sinipit, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija.

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 police’s 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


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 Carlito’s house after the gunshots were heard. Angel Ayson likewise specifically mentioned that he heard a man standing by the motorcycle outside Carlito’s house shout: “ tayo na KA

RON may dumarating,” That was all. A review of Sinohin’s 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 Sinohin’s 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.

Sinohin’s statement (No. 19) in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that they boarded the victim Danilo Felipe on the hand tractor and brought him to


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 Bayudang’s 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:

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 . 16.

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 Bayudang’s, 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


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 Ocampo’s 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, Casiño and Mariano attended an alleged meeting of the “top leaders of the CPP/NPA/NDF in Central Luzon and leaders of BAYAN


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 Casiño 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 “s inuri ” (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:


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, Casiño, 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, Casiño and Mariano have ordered the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to undertake the alleged liquidation?


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


surrendered in 2006 and 2005, respectively as per their affidavits, and Juliano claims he was arrested in April 2003 by the Alpha Coy, 71

st

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 Mariano’s 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.


The Affidavit of Julie Flores Sinohin:

55.

According to Sinohin’s web of lies, in August 2000, accused Rafael Mariano, together with his co-accused-movants Reps. Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza and Teodoro Casiño 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.”


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


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 Mariano’s 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 Mariano’s 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


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 prosecution’s 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 Sinohin’s testimony, who have openly campaigned against the progressive party-lists of herein accused. This fact is very much clear


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].


“But as is made clear by the Solicitor General in his “Manifestation in Lieu of Appellee’s Brief,” the matter of that confession’s competency need not be delved into as the issue of accusedappellant’s 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 Camota’s 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 man’s 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. Tena

15

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].


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


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 Sinohin’s sole extra judicial 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.


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].


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 latter’s 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.)

80.

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 court’s 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.

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 .


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 Casiño, 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 ordered dismissed by the Supreme Court. ------------------------------------------------------

83.

The Supreme Court in People vs. Hernandez ,25 had occasion to define the concept of a political crime, to wit:

In short, political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or motive. If a crime usually regarded as common like homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the allegiance "to the Government the territory of the Philippines Islands or any part thereof," then said offense becomes stripped of its "common" complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the crime of rebellion, the former acquires the political character of the latter. XXXX Thus, national, as well as international, laws and jurisprudence overwhelmingly favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as "common" offenses and assume the political complexion of the main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, 25

99 Phil. 515, 18 July 1956.


cannot be punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to justify the imposition of a graver penalty.

84.

Likewise, in the landmark case of People vs. Hernandez ,26 as reiterated in People v. Geronimo ,27 the Supreme Court enunciated the political offense doctrine of absorption stating that:

One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by "engaging in war against the forces of the government" and "committing serious violence" in the prosecution of said "war." These expressions imply everything that war connotes, namely; resort to arms, requisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that war leaves in its wake — except that, very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness seldom found in a contest between strangers. Being within the purview of "engaging in war" and "committing serious violence," said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but only one crime — that of rebellion plain and simple.” XXXX It is evident to us that the policy of our statutes on rebellion is to consider all acts committed in furtherance thereof — as specified in Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised: Penal Code — as constituting only one crime, punishable with one single penalty — namely, that prescribed in said Article 135.

85.

In short, it is possible to state the political offense doctrine of absorption in this manner: (1) one may not complex the crime of Rebellion with

common crimes, and (2) one may not treat and prosecute as common crimes those crimes committed as a necessary means to commit

Rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof and so

26 27

Supra . 100 Phil. 90.


as to facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose of rebellion . All the said acts constitute not two or more offenses, but one crime, that of rebellion plain and simple, punishable with one single penalty.

86.

More than thirty years (30) later, the High Court reaffirmed this doctrine in the case of Enrile v. Salazar ,28 saying:

The ruling remains good law, its substantive and logical bases have withstood all subsequent challenges and no new ones are presented here persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal. Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an intended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion.

87.

The decisive factual issue that can determine if the political offense doctrine of absorption enunciated in the landmark case of People vs. Hernandez ,29 that was subsequently affirmed in Enrile vs. Salazar 30 and Enrile vs. Amin ,31 will apply to this case is whether political motivations attended the alleged killing of Carlito Bayudang and Jimmy Peralta. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija itself submits ample proof that the alleged offenses of the accused are politically motivated. 32

88.

Based on the records that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija submitted, they made the following findings:

28 29 30

31

186 SCRA 217, 5 June 1990. Supra . Supra .

189 SCRA 573, 13 September 1990. Please see the Joint Resolution dated 11 April 2008 of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija through Assistant Provincial Prosecutors Antonio Lapus, Jr., Edison Rafanan and Eddie Gutierrez that Provincial Prosecutor Floro Florendo approved attached herewith as Annex “1.” 32


“Respondents Party List representatives are labeled by the (S)tate authorities as leftist organization(s) and are alleged as fronts of the CPP/NPA/NDFP. “Eugenia Magpantay, Vicente Cayetano, Delfin Pimentel and Emeterio Antalan are high(-)ranking officials of the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija provincial committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP. “Julie Flores Sinohin and the other eleven (11) respondents bearing aliases were the designated members of the liquidation squad and intelligence group tasked by the regional and provincial committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and the Party List representatives to liquidate Danilo Felipe, Ricardo Peralta and Carlito Bayudang. “On February 19, 2001 Danilo Felipe was murdered followed by the killing of Jimmy Peralta who was mistaken for Ricardo Peralta and on May 6, 2004 the killing of Carlito Bayudang. XXXX “That after the discussion Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Teddy Casiño and Rafael Mariano directed the leaders of the CPP/NPA in Central Luzon to liquidate former CPP/NPA members who will support the party list AKBAYAN. “Liza Maza suggested that members of GABRIELA be used in gathering intelligence among former CPP/NPA members who will support party list AKBAYAN. XXXX “There were many others whom they liquidated for being suspected as military spies and these liquidations were ordered by the Central and Regional Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.”

89.

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija, in fact, proceeds from the State’s presumption that BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA and ANAKPAWIS Party-Lists, the organizations of accused-movants, namely Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza, Teodoro Casiño and Rafael Mariano are mere fronts of the CPP/NPA/NDFP.


90.

It further states that the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija Provincial Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP along with accused party-list representatives designated the alleged intelligence and liquidation team of a certain Mr. Julie Flores Sinohin to kill Ricardo Peralta and Carlito Bayudang.

91.

The alleged victims were either military spies, members of the dreaded Red Vigilante Group (RVG) or supporters of the AKBAYAN Party-List that is the purported rival and thorn in the side of BAYAN MUNA, GABRIELA and ANAKPAWIS.

92.

The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija states that the entire hierarchy of the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija Provincial Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP and the herein accused are working in tandem so as to further their goals of eliminating all opposition to their ultimate objective of overthrowing the government.

93.

Clearly, therefore, the prosecution itself pegs the motive for the separate killings as political and, hence, naturally for furthering the purpose of rebellion. The men killed were certainly not portrayed as eliminated out of a whim or random selection but because their deaths served to achieve revolutionary ends.

94.

In fact, the indictment of the so-called officers of the Central Luzon Regional and Nueva Ecija Provincial Committee of the CPP/NPA/NDFP, namely, Eugenia Magpantay, Vicente Cayetano, Delfin Pimentel and Emeterio Antalan as the co-conspirators of the accused party-list


representatives makes sense only when viewed under the framework of a rebellion and not merely killing in isolation.

95.

On the other hand, a careful reading of the 12-page Information in Criminal Case No. 06-944 of the Makati Regional Trial Court, the said case for rebellion against Saturnino Ocampo, Teodoro Casiño, Liza Maza, Rafael Mariano, among others accused therein, would clearly show that the broad allegations therein encompass all the supposed criminal acts and activities of the CPP/NPA/NDFP from the time of their founding thirtyeight years ago on 26 December 1969 up to the filing of that rebellion case on 12 May 2006. 33

96.

Although the “multiple” murders in Nueva Ecija were not explicitly mentioned in the information for rebellion in Criminal Case No. 06-944, the following matters would show that the purported killings that are the subject matters of the instant criminal cases are included in the indictment in afore-cited rebellion case:

97.

The period and places mentioned in the Information, in relation to the enumeration of the twelve categories of alleged acts of rebellion, covers the entire existence of the CPP/NPA/NDF from their founding thirty-eight years ago up to the filing of the rebellion case with the Makati Regional Trial Court.

These illegal acts were allegedly committed in the entire

territory of the Philippines.

33

Please see the Information appended to the record of the Criminal Case No. 06944 filed at the Makati Regional Trial Court attached herewith as Annex “4.”


98.

The first paragraph of the information explicitly alleges murder as a “means to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.”

99.

The enumeration of the acts of rebellion in paragraph 1 of the Information for rebellion clearly includes “removal of disloyal members of the CPP/NPA/NDF.”

100.

The list of alleged atrocities in paragraph 2 of the same Information expressly mentions the “wanton acts of murder x x x of other persons as alleged payment of political debts and/or in furtherance of their (respondents’)

objective

of

the

CPP/NPA/NDF

to

overthrow

the

government.”

101.

Paragraph 4 of thereof likewise alleged that “in furtherance of (said) rebellion, the accused implemented the different policies of the CPP/NPA/NDF including, but not limited to x x x .”

102.

The only possible conclusion then is that it is but proper to deem the instant case as absorbed in the rebellion case docketed as Criminal Case No. 06-944 filed before the Makati Regional Trial Court, following the political offense doctrine of absorption since the crimes the accused partylist representatives ostensibly committed were allegedly done in pursuit of revolutionary ends. Considering that the rebellion case has been ordered dismissed by the Supreme Court on 1 June 2007, 34 the present criminal

34

Please see the Supreme Court decision in G.R Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76 & 175013 promulgated on 1 June 2007, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “5.”

Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause RE Palayan Case

Recommend Documents