1. Allegation is not proof.

Mere allegations, even if supported by pro forma and generalized affidavits, are not sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal of an employee1; 2. Accusation cannot take place of proof2; The accused need not prove his innocence because that is presumed3; 3. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspect. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt4 4. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected of taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime5; 5. Jurisprudence recognizes that victims of criminal violence have a penchant for seeing the faces and features of their attackers and remembering them6 6. Alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self serving evidence undeserving of weight in law7; 7. Alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted8; 8. Where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wound would be fatal if not medically attended to, the character of the wound is doubtful; hence, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused9; 9. It well-settled that a mere accusation is not synonymous with guilt10;
Mendoza vs NLRC, 109 SCAD 526 Austria vs NLRC,109 SCAD 19. 3 People vs Manambit, 271 SCRA 344. 4 Lyndon D. Boiser vs People, G.R. No. 180299, January 31, 2008 5 People vs Asis, 91 SCAD 481 6 People vs Dela Cruz, 111 SCAD 360 7 People vs Cawaling, 96 SCAD 687 8 People vs Dacoba, 93 SCAD 660 9 Epifanio vs People, 525 SCRA 552
1

10. The expression putang ina mo is common enough utterance in the dialect that is often employed not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure11; 11. The crime of Grave Coercion has three (3) elements: (a) that any person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his or her will, be it right or wrong, (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by material force of such display of it as would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended party, and (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so; in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law of in the exercise of any lawful right12 12. Contrary to the common notion, alibi is in fact a good defense, but to be valid for purposes of examination from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi must be such that it would have been physically impossible for the person charged with the crime to be at the locus criminis at the time of its commission, the reason being that no person can be in two places at the same time13. 13. Even though the defense of alibi is inherently weak, such defense nonetheless acquires commensurate strength where the accused are not positively identified 14. 14. Defense of alibi assumes significance and strength, when it has been amply corroborated by credible witnesses and the identification of the accused as the author of the crime is unclear and questionable15; 15. where a person is searched without a warrant, and under circumstances other than those justifying a warrantless arrest, upon a mere suspicion that he has embarked on some criminal activity, or for the purpose of discovering if indeed a crime has been committed by him, then the search made of such person as well as his arrest are deemed illegal, and the evidence which may have been obtained during such search,
People vs. Dramayo, 42 SCRA 59 Pader vs People, 35 SCRA 117 12 Prople vs Villamar, 100 SCAD 522 13 People vs Bracamonte, 257 SCAD 122 14 People vs Oposculo, Jr., 345 SCRA 167 15 People vs Aniscal, 288 SCRA 101
10 11

even if tending to confirm or actually conforming such initial suspicion, is absolutely inadmissible for any purpose and in any proceeding16; 16. Search or Arrest without a warrant merely on suspicion of felonious enterprise, any evidence taken, even if confirmatory of the initial suspicion, is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings17; 17. There are two essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants must be proven false; and (2) it must be proven that the defendant did not believe those statements to be true18; 18. Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. Litis pendentia requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as those representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on the same facts; and (3) identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases, such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case19; 19. In Arcenio v. Pagorogon, the Court defined misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."20 As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct "the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest."21 20. Mere allegation or claim is not proof22 21. It is indisputable that one of the purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation is to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to
People vs Cuizon, 256 SCRA 325 people vs Rodriguez, 232 SCRA 498 18 State v. Barkwell, 600 S.W.2d 497 (1979). 19 Lim vs. Vianzon, G.R. No. 137187, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 482, 494-495, citing Rudecon Management Corporation vs. Singson, G.R. No. 150798, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 612, 632- 633. 20 224 SCRA 246, 254, July 5, 1993, per curiam. 21 Landrito v. Civil Service Commission, 223 SCRA 564, 567, June 22, 1993, per Quiason, J.
16 17

22

Sadwani vs CA, 281 SCRA 75

protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial23. 22. The issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction by this Honorable Court would preserve and maintain such status quo the last actual, peaceable and

uncontested situation which precede a controversy24.

23. Preliminary investigation protects the state from the burden of the unnecessary expenses an effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless charges25 24. In a crime of falsification of public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of truth26 25. The presumption is that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the forger thereof27 26. If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, is taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. It is upon him to overcome the presumption.28 27. It is settled that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of, and who has used, a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification29 28. Falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts to be established, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; (d) the preservation of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person30
23 24

People vs. Poculan, 167 SCRA 176; Rodis vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA 618; Sausi vs. Querubin, 62 SCRA 155 Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals, 381 SCRA 171 25 People vs CA, 102 SCAD 375

Domangas vs Malana, 223 SCRA 359 Gamido vs CA, 251 SCRA 101 28 Office of Court Administrator vs Yambao, 221 SCRA 77
26 27
29

Sabiniano vs CA, 249 SCRA 24

30

Lecaroz vs Sandiganbayan, 105 SCAD 186

29. Under Article 172, Revised Penal Code, on the use of falsified document in a preceeding not judicial, the elements are: 1) that the offender knew that the document was falsified by another person; 2) that he used such document; and 3) that the use thereof cause damage to another, or at least was with intent to cause such damage 31 30. Well-settled is the rule that evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself. No better test has yet been found to measure the value of a witness than its conformity to the knowledge and common experience of mankind32 The gauge for constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to give up his employment under the prevailing circumstances. Constructive dismissal is defined as quitting when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely as the offer of employment involves a demotion in rank or diminution in pay.33

31. Preventive suspension is justified where the employees continued employment poses a

serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the employees coworkers. Without this kind of threat, preventive suspension is not proper.34 (Emphasis and underlining supplied)

32. The general goal of our criminal law and procedure is not to send people to the guilty but to do justice especially to the innocent35 33. Where the act of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and regardless of the fact, the perpetrator will be liable as principals36

People vs Mariano, 22150-CR, September 11, 1979 People v. Maspil, G.R. No. 85177, August 20, 1990; People v. Maribung, 149 SCRA 292, 297 [1987]) 33 New Ever Marketing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140555, July 14, 2005, 463 SCRA 284, 297 34 Jose P. Artificio vs. National Labor Relations Commission, RP Guardians Security Agency, Inc. Juan Victor K. Laurilla, Alberto Aguirre, and Antonio A. Andres, G.R. No. 172988, July 26, 2010 35 People vs De Guzman, 250 SCRA 118 36 People vs Gregorio, 255 SCRA 380
31 32

35. (t)he dismissal of a case during preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary investigation not being part of the trial 37 34. Eventhough motive is not essential element of a crime. It assumes relevance only when there is no positive evidence of an accuseds direct participation in the commission of a crime, meaning proof of motive becomes essential to a conviction only where the evidence of an accuseds guilt is circumstancial38 35. Contrary to Respondent, I need not present clear and convincing evidence to establish my case. As held in Webb vs. Hon. De Leon39: Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on establishing absolute certainty of guilt. (Emphasis supplied).

36. Moreover, in several Supreme Court cases, it was held The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man40 not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists.41 Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation.42
Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007, 539 SCRA 415, 424, citing Vincoy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156558, June 14, 2004, 432 SCRA 36, 40. 38 People vs Maderas, 350 SCRA 504 39 317 Phil. 758, 789 (1995 40 People v. Sy Juco, 64 Phil. 667 (1937). 41 La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Hon. Fernandez, etc., et al., 214 Phil. 332 (1984). 42 Central Bank of the Phils. v. Morfe, et al., 126 Phil. 885 (1967).
37

THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST THAT LED TO OUR UNLAWFUL ARREST IS NOT TRUE. IT IS A FARCE. IT IS BIZARRE. THE TESTIMONY OF THE POSEUR-BUYER IS CONTRARY TO HUMAN EXPERIENCE WHICH IS THE BEST TEST OF TRUTH.43 HENCE, IS SHOULD BE REJECTED.44
1. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, and it does not place the person against whom it is taken in jeopardy.45

37.

43

People v. Baquiran, 20 SCRA 451 People V. Almazan, 365 SCRA 373

44

Pedro Tandoc vs. Hon. Ricardo R. Resultan, supra, cited in Paderanga vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080. April 19, 1991, Domingo Reyes vs. Judge Camilon, 192 SCRA 445 (1990); see also Cinco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 92362-67 October 15, 1991 citing Trocio vs. Manta, 118 SCRA 241.
45