Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP)

BAMBANG MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION
Complainant,

-versus- NPS DOC NO. II-07-INQ-16J-02148

For : Violation of R.A. 10591

WALKER DELA CRUZ y BUMANGHAT,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW the undersigned respondent WALKER DELA
CRUZ y BUMANGHAT, through counsel, and before the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Vizcaya, most respectfully states:

1. The Honorable Office issued its Resolution dated 1 June 2017

finding probable cause against herein respondent for violation of
Section 28 (a) of R.A. No. 10591 and which was received on 28
June 2017;

2. The material facts of the case mentioned in the Counter- Affidavit

of the defendant were corroborated by the Joint Affidavit of
Witnesses;

3. Based on said facts, defendant was illegally arrested because his

arrest did not fall to any of the instances of valid warrantless arrest
provided by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure as the defendant was not committing a crime in flagrante
delicto when he was arrested. Therefore, the warrantless search is
also illegal being incidental to illegal warrantless arrest.

4. Stop and frisk searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches)

are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be
given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of
offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to
protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III,
Section 2 of the Constitution.

5. The balance lies in the concept of suspiciousness present in the

situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This
may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police
 officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience
dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should
have the ability to discern based on facts that they themselves
observe whether an individual is acting in a suspicious
manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer,
with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading
to the suspicion of an illicit act1. This doctrine cannot be applied in
this case because there were no suspicious circumstances as the act
of the defendant in starting the engine of his motorcycle is not
unlawful nor can lead the police officers to believe that he is acting
in a suspicious manner.

6. The Constitution provides that any evidence obtained in violation

of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Otherwise known
as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,
this constitutional provision originated from Stonehill v. Diokno.
This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage
law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained
through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because
it is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. It ensures
that the fundamental rights to ones person, houses, papers, and
effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld2.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Office that this motion be GRANTED and that the case be
DISMISSED outright.

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. 3 July 2017.

FIDEL G. SANTOS
Counsel for Respondent
156 Bonfal West, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Roll of Attorneys No. 48362
IBP OR No. 1028768; Dec. 1, 2016
PTR No. 1914695; dated Dec. 1, 2016
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
MCLE Compliance No. V-0010617 Sept. 17, 2015

1
The People of the Philippines vs. Victor Cogaed y Romana, GR No. 200334, July 30,
2014
2 Ibid.
Copy furnished:

The Chief of Police

Bambang Police Station
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya