Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION OFFICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
Caloocan City

PMAJ ERIC V. REVERENTE


PNP-PHPT Tarlac
PEMS BERNARD C. VALEN
PCMS JOHN M. IDIO
PCMS SIEGFRED N. FRAMIL
PSSG VICTOR RIO EUFRONIO ROBLES
and PSSG MANNY B. CAYANAN
PNP-Highway Patrol Group
Special Operations Division
NPS Docket No. XV-02-INQ-19D-01618-20
Camp Crame, Quezon City For: VIOL. OF R.A. 10883 (NEW ANTI
CARNAPPING LAW)
JOMAR PERGIS y LAXAMANA, PD 1612 (ANTI FENCING LAW)
Blk 30 Lot 16 Exodus Floodway, SWINDLING (ESTAFA) THROUGH
Cainta, Rizal FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS

IRMA PALUGO VOLANTE


116 Old Samson Road, Brgy. Aplonio,
Quezon City; and

JACKY REYES
116 Old Samson Road, Brgy. Aplonio,
Quezon City
Complainants,

- versus -

NANETH MENDOZA y MAGBUHAT


B16 L6 Camella Carson, Molino 3,
Daang Hari, Bacoor, Cavite
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------x

URGENT MOTION TO RELEASE


RESPONDENT WITH FORMAL
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

1
RESPONDENT, NANETH MENDOZA, through counsel and to this
Honorable Office most respectfully states THAT:
This very urgent motion is submitted in support of the undersigned
counsel’s verbal manifestation and recommendation issued by the assigned
inquest prosecutor, Hon. Ma. Victoria Luz A. Villarojo during the inquest
proceedings conducted yesterday, April 10, 2019 recommending the release
of Respondent (not proper for inquest) in connection with the instant cases;

“RESPONDENT NANETH M. MENDOZA


WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND HER
CONTINUOUS DETENTION IS ILLEGAL
ABSENT ANY PROBABLE CAUSE AND
WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUED BY THE
COURTS”

Without discussing the merits of the case, a perusal of the facts and
allegations contained in Joint Complaint Affidavit1, Pinagsamang Sinumpaang
Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo2, as well as the Joint Affidavit of Arrest3 executed by
Complainants dated April 10, 2019 would show that the alleged incident
subject of this case occurred sometime around March 14, and 15 2019 or
at least twenty-six (26) days prior to the arrest of Respondent on April 09,
2019;

First, the Joint Complaint Affidavit executed by Complainant Jomar


Laxamana Pergis and Suzette Clark y Rojo clearly states that the vehicle
subject of this case was rented to Respondent (RCBS Rent a Car Company
located at LAS PINAS CITY). As a matter of fact, during the inquest
proceedings, the said Complainants admitted that they granted extensions
in favor of Respondent and received payments for the same. Thus, with all
due respect, the subject vehicle was not taken without consent on April
09, 2019 or at the time of arrest within the meaning of carnapping under
the law. Paragraph 2 of the Joint Complaint Affidavit states:
1
Exhibit “A”
2
Exhibit “B”
3
Exhibit “C”

2
“2. That on March 14, 2019, one Toyota Innova color
thermalyte with plate number ABL 4623 was rented
from me (Mrs. Clark) by Ms. Naneth Mendoza y
Magbuhat, of legal age and a resident of B16 L6
Camella Carson Molino 3, Daang Hari, Bacoor, Cavite
City under an agreement that the former will return
the MV after three (3) days. However, after three (3)
days, Ms. Mendoza did not return the subject MV and
further requested for a rental extension and promised
to return the subject MV in due time.” (emphasis ours)

Second, the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo filed by


Complainants Irma Palugod Volante and one Jacky Reyes alleges that a
Chattel Mortgage4 was entered into by Respondent sometime in March 15,
2019 at QUEZON CITY copy of which attached in this case. Paragraph 1 of
the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagrereklamo states:

“1. Na noong March 15, 2019 ay ISINANLA sa amin ni


NANETH MAGBUHAT MENDOZA, nasa hustong
gulang, at nakatira sa B16 L6 Camella Carson Molino
3, Daang Hari, Bacoor City and nakasaad sa ilalim na
sasakyan…….” (emphasis ours)

Clearly, the instant case is not proper for inquest. Respondent was
not committing any crime or was caught in flagrante on April 09, 2019.

The warrantless arrest of Respondent is an open disregard of the


requirements under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Thus,
Respondent did not commit or attempted to commit any crime on April 09,
2018 in the presence of the Police Officers of PNP-HPG.

Thus, mere suspicion and reliable information are not justification for a
warrantless arrest. The rule requires that Respondents must perform some
overt act in the presence of Police Officers that would indicate they have
indeed committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an
offense;

4
Exhibit “D”

3
Further, the arrest of Respondent on April 09, 2019 is in clear violation
of Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (hot pursuit exception). The
reason is that the PNP-HPG lacked personal knowledge of the incident
which happened twenty-six (26) days ago or on March 14, 2019. The PNP-
HPG has no personal knowledge of the rental agreement between the
Complainants and Respondent and should have advised them to file
their respective complaints for investigation before the Prosecutor’s
Office instead of immediately arresting the Respondent;

In Posadas v. Ombudsman,5 the killing of Dennis Venturina happened


on December 8, 1994. It was only on December 11, 1994 that Chancellor
Posadas requested the NBI's assistance. On the basis of the supposed
identification of two (2) witnesses, the NBI attempted to arrest Francis
Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag three (3) days after the commission
of the crime. With this set of facts, it cannot be said that the officers have
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the persons sought to be
arrested committed the crime. Hence, the Court invalidated the warrantless
arrest;

In People v. del Rosario,6 the Court held that the requirement that an
offense has just been committed means that there must be a large measure
of immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of
the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest
and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.

The Court held that the arrest of del Rosario did not comply with
these requirements because he was arrested only a day after the
commission of the crime and not immediately thereafter. Additionally,
the arresting officers were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses to
the crime. Hence, they had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested had committed the offense. They became aware of
5
G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 388.
6
365 Phil. 292, 312 (1999)

4
del Rosario's identity as the driver of the getaway tricycle only during the
custodial investigation;

In People v. Cendana,7 the accused was arrested one (1) day after the
killing of the victim and only on the basis of information obtained from
unnamed sources. The unlawful arrest was held invalid.

In Rolito Go v. CA,8 the arrest of the accused six (6) days after the
commission of the crime was held invalid because the crime had not just
been committed. Moreover, the "arresting" officers had no "personal
knowledge" of facts indicating that the accused was the gunman who had
shot the victim. The information upon which the police acted came from
statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting; one stated that
the accused was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged
gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered in the name
of the accused's wife. That the information did not constitute "personal
knowledge.";

Based on the numerous pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the


arrest and continuous detention of Respondent by PNP-HPG is illegal and
violates her basic constitutional rights to due process as well as the right
against unreasonable arrest, search and seizure. Corollary, all the evidence
seized from Respondent such as the vehicle recovered cannot be used in
any legal proceedings as a fruit of unlawful arrest;

BY WAY OF SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Lastly, the undersigned respectfully enters his appearance as counsel


for Respondent NANETH M. MENDOZA. Please cause the sending of
pleadings, notices, motions, and documents to the undersigned’s address
herein-below indicated:

7
268 Phil. 571, 576 (1990) ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO
8
RUBIO
G.R. No. 101837, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 138, 150. LAW OFFICE
3 Floor. Joy Nostalg Center,
rd

5 ADB Avenue., Ortigas Center,


Pasig City, Metro Manila 1600
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most respectfully


prayed of this Honorable Office that Respondent NANETH MENDOZA
be RELEASED IMMEDIATELY and that the inquest proceedings held on
April 10, 2019 be declared NULL and VOID and to DIMISS the complaint
outright and EXCLUDE all the evidence illegally seized and presented on
account of the ILLEGAL ARREST;

Other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for under the premises.

Respectfully submitted.

Pasig City, Philippines this 11th ay of April 2019

RUBIO LAW OFFICE


3rd Flr. Joy Nostalg Center,
ADB Ave., Ortigas Center
Pasig City, Metro Manila 1600
jairusbaldemorrubio@gmail.com
Tel No. 9584884/09053463310

By:

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO


Counsel for the Respondent
Roll No. 64701
PTR No. 059386; 01/07/19; QC
IBP No. 087453; 01/07/19; QC
MCLE Compliance No. V-0022377

COPY FURNISHED WITH EXPLANATION

6
PMAJ ERIC V. REVERENTE
PNP-PHPT Tarlac
PEMS BERNARD C. VALEN
PCMS JOHN M. IDIO
PCMS SIEGFRED N. FRAMIL
PSSG VICTOR RIO EUFRONIO ROBLES
and PSSG MANNY B. CAYANAN
PNP-Highway Patrol Group
Special Operations Division
Camp Crame, Quezon City

JOMAR PERGIS y LAXAMANA,


Blk 30 Lot 16 Exodus Floodway, Cainta, Rizal

IRMA PALUGO VOLANTE


JACKY REYES
116 Old Samson Road, Brgy. Aplonio,
Quezon City
Complainants,

A copy of this Motion was served to the other parties by means of


registered mail with return receipt due to distance and lack of personnel to
effect personal service thereof.

ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO


Counsel for Respondent