REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
MANDALUYONG CITY

AGENT ROSALIE G.
SARASUA
AGENT FREDERICK B.
ALLOSADA
AGENT JOSELITO L.
RAMOS,
Com NPS Doc No.
plainants,
XV-06-INQ-13L-
00876
-versus-
0

KRISTINE RAMOS Y ACATA

JAN MICHAEL LIMPOCO Y
AQUINO
ELVIN DANIEL OERETA Y DE
LEON,
Respondents.
X ------------------------------ X

URGENT MANIFESTATION WITH

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(On the Release of Motor Vehicle)
COMES NOW, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA, for brevity), through its Legal and Prosecution Service,
unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully asseverates that:

1) On December 26, 2013, PDEA, thru its Logistics and Management

Service received an Order dated December 9, 2103 issued by the
Honorable Office of City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong directing the
release of the motor vehicle described below which was seized by
PDEA in relation to the anti-illegal drugs operation which led to
the arrest of Respondents herein;

Make : HONDA CRV

 Body : Wagon
Model : 2007
Chassis No. : MRHRE 18307PO11956
Plate No. : ZLY-564
File No. : 1364-00000070186
Engine No. : R20A11802714

2) The said order to release was issued by the Honorable City

Prosecutors Office upon motion of a certain Edelisa Ramos,
married to the registered owner of the said vehicle, Felipe Ramos
Jr., for reasons contained in her motion and as pointed out in the
assailed order in support thereof;

3) The PDEA understands that the order of the Honorable City

Prosecutors directing the release of the motor vehicle presented
its ratiocination and as a result of the exercise of sound
discretion. However, PDEA, as the authority which seized the
motor vehicle and the actual custodian thereof, in connection
with a legitimate anti- narcotics operation, would like to most
respectfully plead for the reconsideration of the said Release
order and resolution both dated December 9, 2013, with all due
respect to the trial prosecutor based on the following
manifestations and arguments;

4) If the PDEA may further stress considering the apparent lack of

notice and opportunity to file on the said Motion to Release, on
the materiality as evidence the Court should have eventual
preservative control over, the subject motor vehicle need be
prudently witheld and placed in custodia legis for the material
consideration in the trial of the case The Honorable City
Prosecutors office had ultimately found probable cause for filing
the proper case(s) in Court;

5) The seizure of the motor vehicle was pursuant to

Section 20, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, to wit:

Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or

Instruments of the Unlawful Act, Including the Properties or Proceeds
Derived from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs and/or Precursors
and Essential Chemicals. - Every penalty imposed for the unlawful
importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution,
transportation or manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical, the cultivation or culture of plants which are
sources of dangerous drugs, and the possession of any equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs including other
laboratory equipment, shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in
favor of the government, of all the proceeds and properties derived from the
unlawful act, including, but not limited to, money and other assets obtained
 thereby, and the instruments or tools with which the particular unlawful act
was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the
unlawful act, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered
destroyed without delay pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of this Act.
[Emphasis Supplied]

After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the appropriate

criminal case filed, the Court shall immediately schedule a hearing for the
confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of the offense and all the
assets and properties of the accused either owned or held by him or in the
name of some other persons if the same shall be found to be manifestly out
of proportion to his/her lawful income: Provided, however, That if the
forfeited property is a vehicle, the same shall be auctioned off not later than
five (5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture. [Emphasis Supplied]
During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no
property, or income derived therefrom, which may be confiscated and
forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or transferred and the same shall be in
custodia legis and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the same.
[Emphasis Supplied]
xxx
xxx

6) Although the above provision provides for exemption from

forfeiture when the property seized is the property of a third
person not liable for the unlawful act, the Supreme Court has
already issued a clarificatory and interpretative ruling in the case
of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) vs.
Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph (G.R. No. 196390,
September 28, 2011);

7) In the above-cited case, the mother of Accused Brodett moved for

the release of the motor vehicle involved in the said case averring
that the same was the property of a third person (herself) who
was not liable of the offense;

8) As PDEAs defense in refusing to release the motor vehicle:

On its part, PDEA regards the decision of the CA to

be not in accord with applicable laws and the primordial
intent of the framers of R. A. No. 9165 and contends
that the car should not be released from the custody of
the law because it had been seized from accused
Brodett during a legitimate anti-illegal operation. It
argues that the Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidencedid
not intimate or allege that the car had belonged to a
third person; and that even if the car had belonged
to Ms. Brodett, a third person, her ownership did
not ipso facto authorize its release, because she
was under the obligation to prove to the RTC that
she had no knowledge of the commission of the
crime. It insists that the car is a property in
custodia legis and may not be released during the
pendency of the trial.[Emphasis Supplied]
9) The Supreme Court agreed with PDEA when it pronounced:

The status of the car (or any other article

confiscated in relation to the unlawful act) for the
duration of the trial in the RTC as being in custodia
legis is primarily intended to preserve it as evidence
and to ensure its avilability as such. To release it
before the judgment is rendered is to deprive the trial
court and the parties access to it as evidence.

The Regional Trial Courts shall comply strictly

with the provision of Section 20 of R.A 9165, and
should not release articles, whether drugs or non-
drugs, for the duration of the trial and before
rendition of judgment, even if owned by a third
person who is not liable for the unlawful act.

10) Since law and jurisprudence specifically state

that properties subject to confiscation and forfeiture shall
be in custodia legis and no bond shall be admitted for the
release of the said properties, it is the submission of the PDEA
that the motor vehicle subject of this present motion should not
be released;

12. Accordingly, the PDEA would like to appeal to this

Honorable City Prosecutors Offices exercise of soundest
discretion to reconsider and set aside its Resolution and order
both dated December 9, 2013in so far as release of the vehicle is
concerned;

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, MANIFESTATION AND PREMISES CONSIDERED,
it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable City Prosecutors
Office that the Resolution and order to release vehicle both dated
December 9, 2013 be Partially Reconsidered and set aside
respectively in so far as the Release of the motor Vehicle is
concerned only, for being contrary to law, thus the vehicle
be retained under custody of PDEA and Custodia Legis
subsequently of the Court.

Such other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, Philippines

December 27, 2013
 PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
LEGAL AND PROSECUTION SERVICE
PDEA National Headquarters
NIA Northside Road, National Government Center
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City
Tel. No.: (02)-920 3395
Email Address: LPS_PDEA@yahoo.com
By:

ATTY. PETER TYRONE V. CHAN, LLM.

Director II

ATTY. FRANCIS S. DEL VALLE

A/C, Legal Affairs & Assistance Division

VERIFIED UNDER OATH OF OFFICE

The undersigned under oath of office and in official capacity
in representation for Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
respectfully state on their personal knowledge to be true and
based on authentic records/documents all the
allegations/statements herein enunciated.

ATTY. PETER
TYRONE V. CHAN

ATTY. FRANCIS S. DEL

VALLE

NOTICE

SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE
Office of the City Prosecutor
Mandaluyong City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing pleading for immediate

consideration upon receipt hereof, without further arguments
sans appearance.
ATTY. PETER TYRONE V. CHAN