Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City

July 25, 2014

HON. CLARO A. ARELLANO
Prosecutor General
Kagawaran Ng Katarungan
Department of Justice
Padre Faura Street
Ermita, Manila

T h r u:

HON. PETER L. MEDALLE

OIC-Regional Prosecutor
Office of the Regional State Prosecutor
Region IX, Hall of Justice
7000 Zamboanga City

Re: Comment on the Petition of Zamboanga del Sur Police Officers Corps
With Attachments
Sir:

This is in compliance with the 1st Indorsement dated June 25, 2014, of Hon. Peter
L. Medalle, OIC-Regional Prosecutor, which is based on the 1st Indorsement dated May
23, 2014, of Hon. Claro A. Arellano, Prosecutor General, appending therein the
aforementioned Petition of Zamboanga del Sur Police Officers Corps with its
attachments against the undersigned, directing his immediate comment thereon. In this
connection, I hereby most respectfully state, by way of this verified Comment on the
aforementioned Petition, as follows: - That -

1. I received copies of all the foregoing only on July 14, 2014. I perused all the
contents thereof, especially on the Petition of Zamboanga del Sur Police Officers Corps
with its attachments against me. However, the said petition with all its attachments are
substantially and intrinsically defective, being only mere machine copies, neither
verified nor made under oath before any officer authorized to administer oaths. In fact,
it contains brazen lies, a blatant fabrication of falsehood, as well as a distortion of truth,
which I may amplify hereunder under the heading “refutation, etc.” Thus, as I went over
the same, I noticed the following defect:
1.1. It lacks a second page under the caption “CASES BROUGHT BEFORE FISCAL
LUCIO O. TAN”, which is chronologically numbered from one (1) to seven (7), because
number three (3) and four (4) thereof were missing;
1.2. The alleged Special Written Report (SWR) of the Pitogo Municipal Police
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 2 -
X ========/

Station, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur (relative to my alleged neglect of duty), which is a
machine copy attached as “Tab B”, among others, to the said petition, is likewise
incomplete for it lacks a second page;
1.3. A machine copy of the Affidavit of one Police Inspector (PINSP) RENANTE
BAYONA BENITEZ, OIC of the Dimataling Municipal Police Station, Dimataling,
Zamboanga del Sur, attached, among others, as “Tab E” to the said petition, is NOT
properly subscribed and not being sworn to, as well as not made under oath, before an
officer authorized to administer oath, both as to the jurat and certification portions of
the said affidavit;
1.4. The alleged affidavit/s of SPO3 Francisco Malalis Suarin Jr. and PO1 Herschel
Campomanes Lomocso denominated as “Tab E” was/were never attached to the said
petition;

1.5. While a machine copy of the Affidavit of one JAIME SILLO CUBILLA, OIC of
Lapuyan Municipal Police Station, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur, is also attached as “Tab
F” to the said petition, the same, however, is likewise NOT properly subscribed and not
being sworn to, as well as not made under oath, before an officer authorized to
administer oath, both as to the jurat and certification portions of the said affidavit;
1.6. All the rest of the attachments (machine copies only) to the said petition,
namely, Investigation Report from Aurora Municipal Police Station dated November 4,
2013 (“Tab C”), Special Written Report (SWR) from San Miguel Municipal Police Station
dated April 24, 2014 (“Tab D”) and Special Written Report (SWR) from Guipos Municipal
Police Station (“Tab H”), respectively, are NOT also properly subscribed and not being
sworn to, as well as not made under oath, before an officer authorized to administer
oath. On the other hand, the undersigned admits the authenticity and due execution of
his Resolution in “People vs. Omra Linga, docketed as I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00223, for
Violation of R.A. No. 9165”, attached as “Tab G” to the petition, the same will be
discussed in the succeeding paragraphs hereunder in the heading “refutation, etc”,
together with the alleged “neglect of duty or malfeasance” maliciously heaved against
me by the complaining PNP officers in their alleged Petition which is actually a Letter
from Zamboanga del Sur Police Officers Corps dated May 7, 2014, addressed to the
incumbent Provincial Governor of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, denominated as
“Tab A”;
2. With all the foregoing, it must be noted that I am also entitled to be so
informed of the true nature and cause of accusations against me, by reason of the
obviously undue indefiniteness in the narration of inculpatory facts and circumstances
against me; thus, inevitably I may avail of a bill of particulars under the prevailing rules
and jurisprudence, if need be, in order to satisfy both constitutional and procedural
requirements of due process. However, all those particular cases allegedly brought
before me, being the subject of the petition, are mentioned in the alleged Special
Written Report and Investigation Report of the respective complaining PNP members
concerned. It took for an extended period of time for me to have painstakingly gathered
the records of the pertinent cases and the procurement of other necessary documents,
as well as to cause the photocopies thereof, such that I could not immediately tender
my Comment on the instant petition with its attachments, as directed, which Comment
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 3 -
X ========/

also requires careful drafting and preparation.

Consequently, I will now prove false the charges against me one by one to unveil
the truth respecting the instant controversy brought out by the police against me. These
cases are the following:
2.1. I.S. No. IX-09-INV-13J-00504, entitled “People v. Alfredo L. Miñoza, for
Violation of R.A. 10591”. This case is the subject of Special Written Report (SWR-“Tab
B”) of the Pitogo Municipal Police Station, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur thru its officer-in-
charge (relative to my alleged neglect of duty); this SWR is without a second page. But
most probably this was signed by PI ROLANDO RETUYA HINUCTAN, the Pitogo PNP OIC;

2.2. I.S. No. IX-09-INQ-13J-00118, entitled “People v. Wilmer Deles y Gonzales, for
Violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165”; “People v. Wilmer Deles y Gonzales, for
Violation of Omnibus Election Code on Comelec Gun Ban”; and “People v. Wilmer Deles
y Gonzales, for Violation of R.A. 8294”. These cases are the subject of Investigation
Report of the Aurora Municipal Police Station dated November 4, 2013 (“Tab C”),
relative to the “malfeasance” allegedly committed by me; this investigation report was
signed by Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) JUNE AKIATE LAWINGAN;
2.3. I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00201, entitled “People v. Dominic I. Manghay, for
Violation of R.A. 10591”; and I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14B-00078, entitled “People v. Joel C.
Bugay, for Illegal Possession of Firearm & Ammunitions”. These cases are the subject of
the Special Written Report (SWR-“Tab D”) of the San Miguel Municipal Police Station
dated April 24, 2014, signed by its Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) RENE
HAILIL KUNNAIRI;

2.4. There is no specific case whatsoever mentioned in the unverified affidavit

(machine copy only) of one Police Inspector (PINSP) RENANTE BAYONA BENITEZ, OIC of
the Dimataling Municipal Police Station, Dimataling, Zamboanga del Sur, attached,
among others, as “Tab E” to the said petition; he merely mentioned therein that “since
there are (sic.) no personnel or inquest prosecutor that day, my investigator decided to
file the case immediately to the court for disposition of the case.” (underlining supplied
for emphasis). This will be amplified in my refutation hereunder.
2.5. I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00226, entitled “People v. Merlinda Mahinay
Amantiad, for Frustrated Murder”. This case is the subject of the unverified Affidavit
(machine copy only) of one JAIME SILLO CUBILLA dated April 24, 2014 (“Tab F”);
2.6. I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00223, entitled “People v. Omra A. Lingga, for
Violation of Republic Act No. 9165. This case is the subject of one of the attachments of
the instant petition under the heading “Cases Brought Before Fiscal Lucio O. Tan” in
paragraph No. 6 thereof, wherein on April 19, 2014, the Provincial Anti Illegal Drugs
Special Operation Task Force (PAIDSOTF) conducted a drug buy-bust operation against
Barangay Kagawad Omra A. Lingga of Barangay Bubual, San Pablo, Zamboanga del Sur.
Here, the police complains the dismissal of this case by the undersigned; the
undersigned’s Resolution dated May 6, 2014, in this case, is also one of the attachments
of the instant petition therein attached as “Tab G”; and
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 4 -
X ========/

2.7. I.S. No. IX-09-INQ-13J-00129, entitled “People v. Nursid Fermin y Ansang, for
Violation of R.A. 8294 and Comelec Gun Ban”. This case is the subject of the Special
Written Report (SWR – “Tab H”) of Guipos Municipal Police Station, Guipos, Zamboanga
del Sur dated November 3, 2013, signed by its Officer-In-Charge, Police Inspector (PI)
HARRY RATUNIL VELEZ.
REFUTATION OF THE CHARGES AGAINST ME

At this particular instance, I most respectfully beg for leave of the Honorable
Prosecutor General and Honorable OIC-Regional Prosecutor that all the foregoing be
adopted in toto and/or incorporated herein insofar as relevant, pertinent and applicable
under this heading.
3. Accordingly, becoming myself expressively resilient at this point, I vigorously
and strongly deny all the accusations and/or alleged wrongful acts imputed against me
by the signatories in the unverified petition of Zamboanga del Sur Police Officers
Corps with its Attachments (machine copies only), the same being downright lies, a
contraption of intellectual dishonesty, knowingly twisting facts and knowingly
fabricating falsehood of unprecedented character.

3.1. All the signatories therein, consisting of junior and high-ranking PNP officers
of Zamboanga del Sur, wrote a letter to Hon. Antonio H. Cerilles, the incumbent
Governor of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, purposely to course through him their
grievance against me. I have no trouble with the police in this part of our country. Sad to
say, the instant petition with its attachments, though unfounded and baseless, suddenly
and surprisingly surfaced as an action intended to communicate their feelings of
displeasure or discontentment on their perceived austerity towards me that I am very
strict to the police and that I am not approachable or open-minded to them the
moment inquest cases are filed with me in my capacity as inquest officer. The truth of
the matter is that, the police merely misunderstood me the way I treated them or the
way I handled their cases because I kept on suggesting to them that all inquest cases
should have its proper supporting documents and to see to it that the arrest of the
suspect/s should be within the bounce of the law to make it a valid warrantless arrest.
In other words, they refused to be lectured along this point on the assumption that they
are doing their job well. True, I have high respect for the police for the reason that
initiatory criminal process starts with the police. But on the legal aspect, however, I
want to strengthen their cases because I do not want the courts ultimately to come
across some loopholes or technicalities as grounds for the immediate dismissal of cases
that would greatly embarrass handling public prosecutors. Thus, the instant petition was
first channeled to the Honorable Governor of Zamboanga del Sur because somehow the
police heard a rumor that the Provincial Capitol does not strongly recommend me to
head the Provincial Prosecution Office with the retirement last year of Provincial
Prosecutor Victoriano B. Gonzaga. As a matter of fact, I have no interest to be
promoted at present due to my failing health and becoming old already at 62 years of
age come this November, and with my great respect for the most senior prosecutor in
our office, Honorable OIC-Provincial Prosecutor Dimapuno L. Magangcong, my
preferential choice is always for the latter, an insider and the most competent in whom
we have our utmost trust and confidence to head the Provincial Prosecution Office of
Zamboanga del Sur.
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 5 -
X ========/

In sum, the petition with its attachments are worded in a manner that is knowingly
twisting facts or fabricating a falsehood or of being premeditatedly untruthful – a
characteristic which made the signatories therein as unworthy of professionals and
gentlemen of the PNP. The strong words therein are uncalled for with intent to
malign, to disparage, and to degrade my character or reputation and my professional
standing. I therefore refute and prove false the accusations against me, relative to the
following cases, to wit:

I.S. No. IX-09-INV-13J-00504, entitled

“People v. Alfredo L. Miñoza,
for Violation of R.A. 10591”.

4. Contrary to the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and defective Special Written

Report (SWR-“Tab B”) of the Pitogo Municipal Police Station, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur,
through its officer-in-charge, this case was filed for inquest on October 28, 2013, at 5:30
P.M. which was a Monday and an Election day. This is evidenced by a certified machine
copy of the corresponding Investigation Data Form duly accomplished by Police Senior
Inspector (PSI) Gabriel Neil Maglangit, hereto attached as Annex “A”. Initially,
Prosecutor Mary Ann Wong Tugbang-Torres was the one who conducted the inquest
proceeding in the above-entitled case, and finding that the same was not proper for
inquest that needs a full blown preliminary investigation, she came up with her Inquest
Resolution dated 28 October 2013, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
Later, however, this case was DISMISSED for lack of probable cause in a Resolution
dated 26 December 2013, of Associate Provincial Prosecutor, Mary Ann Wong Tugbang-
Torres, duly approved by OIC-Provincial Prosecutor, Dimapuno L. Magangcong. A
certified machine copy of the Resolution is hereto attached as Annex “C”.

4.1. It must be noted that in one of the attachments of the instant petition
therein denominated as “Cases Brought Before Fiscal Lucio O. Tan” in paragraph No. 1
thereof, the PITOGO PNP under PI ROLANDO RETUYA HINUCTAN maliciously and falsely
went to say that on October 28, 2013 they could not locate me for the inquest of this
case and so they allegedly called me several times through the cell phone; that when I
finally answered, I allegedly told them that I could not entertain them because I was
allegedly out of town, and that I allegedly further instructed the police to have the
arrestee (sic.) sign a waiver. All the rest of the false assertions in the said attachment are
hereby quoted, as follows:

“As a result, the police officers resorted to referring the matter to

Fiscal Johnabel H. Tabunda who also refused because he is (sic.) not the
duty inquest prosecutor. He (Prosecutor Tabunda) further added that
Fiscal Tan had long been a problem to them because of these similar
actions and that the same (his actions) needed to be addressed already”.

4.2. Obviously, the Pitogo police chief has greatly twisted the truth by stating
actionable imputation to the undersigned of a problem that does not exist in our office
and which denigrates the undersigned in the eyes of his fellow prosecutors. To prove
these downright lies, attached as Annex “D” is a copy of the sworn Affidavit made under
oath of Prosecutor Johnabel H. Tabunda.
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 6 -
X ========/

I.S. No. IX-09-INQ-13J-00118, entitled “People v. Wilmer Deles

y Gonzales, for Violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165;
“People v. Wilmer Deles y Gonzales, for Violation of Omnibus
Election Code on Comelec Gun Ban”; and “People v. Wilmer
Deles y Gonzales, for Violation of R.A. 8294”

5. These cases, in a single docket, are the subject of Investigation Report of the
Aurora Municipal Police Station dated November 4, 2013 (“Tab C”), relative to the
“malfeasance” allegedly committed by me. This investigation report was signed by Chief
of Police, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) JUNE AKIATE LAWINGAN. According to him, on
October 13, 2013, at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, the Aurora PNP members
concerned went to the Provincial Prosecution Office at the Justice Hall, Pagadian City,
for the inquest of the above-entitled cases but they allegedly did not find me there and
that they were not able to contact me through my cell phone numbers posted at the
door of the Provincial Prosecution Office with their alleged worry that the detention of
the respondent in the above-entitled cases would expire on October 13, 2013, at 10:50
o’clock in the morning to be counted from his arrest on October 11, 2013, at about
10:50 in the evening; that I went to my office when they located me at my residence
and received the above-entitled cases only at about 11:05 in the morning of October 13,
2013, few minutes after the alleged expiration of the prescribed period; that while I was
conducting inquest proceeding, I allegedly told them why they did not kill the suspect in
these cases because I allegedly showed to them unwillingness to perform my duty and
that allegedly I challenged them to bet with my one month salary that the above-
entitled cases would be dismissed. These are another set of brazen lies and a fabrication
of falsehood of the highest order calculated to malign my name and to smear my
profession both as a lawyer and public prosecutor with the dirty tricks of the police. The
truth of the matter is that, being then the assigned Inquest Officer/OIC, I was ready all
the time on that particular day, October 13, 2013 (which was a Sunday) since I woke up
early to make available and opened my cell phone just in case the police would call me
and I would then be at their disposal for an inquest duty. Actually, as my cell phone was
opened and well functioning to its full usefulness and utility that day, there was no such
call made by the police between 6:00 o’clock in the morning and 11:00 o’clock in the
morning of same date (October 13, 2013) until finally five minutes thereafter my cell
phone rung from their end. It was not true that they went to my residence. If indeed
they did so, they could have gone to my residence in the early period at 8:00 o’clock in
the morning of October 13, 2013 when they allegedly arrived at the Justice Hall in
Pagadian City where I was not found by them. Why waited until past 11:00 o’clock in the
morning of same date to go to my house knowing on their part that the detention of the
suspect in the above-entitled cases would expire at 10:50 o’clock in the morning of
same date. Here, the police at Aurora appeared so ridiculous and highly incredible. As
the saying goes, even as the same is quoted in our jurisprudence, “not only is the mouth
of the person credible but that his story should likewise be credible”. This is in accord
with consistent logic and in unison with human experience. I honestly did my duty and
treated the police well, and I even reflected their actual arrival at my office on the
Investigation Data Form duly accomplished having been signed by SPO1 Ronelo M.
Dotdot, and in my inquest Resolution of the above-entitled cases, certified machine
copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes “E” and “F”, respectively. At any rate, as
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 7 -
X ========/

regards the alleged prescribed period for the detention of the suspect in the above-
entitled cases, I wish to invite the kind attention of the police concerned to carefully
take note of the date and time of the conduct of inquest proceedings set forth in page
45, of the Revised Manual for Prosecutors, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), to
wit:
“Inquest proceedings may be conducted at any time of the week.
However, where an inquest falls on non-working day, Saturday, Sunday
and holiday, and a prosecutor is not available, the inquest proceedings
shall be conducted on the first office day following the arrest.” (id., cited
by the Supreme Court in the case of MEDINA VS. OROZCO, JR., 18 SCRA
1168; italics & underlining supplied for emphasis).

5.1. Consequently, the issue on the alleged prescriptive period persistently forced
by the police concerned is without legs to stand on, as to both factual and legal point of
view. It simply emanated from their sheer ignorance, if not lack of legal training. They
ought to seek first the advice of an independent and competent lawyer before they
would decide to harass, pester and hassle the undersigned with their old-sung police
nastiness. In fact, before they filed the instant petition against me, repeatedly I would
always quote and recite the above guidelines to them but they seemed callous to pay
attention to me;

5.2. Assuming arguendo for the sake of their own delight and enthusiasm, vis-à-
vis their unilateral interpretation of the law, if indeed prescriptive period under Art. 125
of the Revised Penal Code would set-in at the Office of the Public Prosecutor for all
inquest related cases during non-working days, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, then,
at all cost and by legal means, to avoid liability for arbitrary detention on the part of the
police, I would have simply advised them to release the prisoner-suspect immediately
and never proceed with any further inquest thereon but to set the case for proper or
full-blown preliminary investigation instead. Thus, what I did to the above-entitled cases
revealed the following:

5.3. Right after I came up with my Inquest Resolution aforementioned (Annex “F”
hereof), I immediately filed the corresponding Informations in the above-entitled cases
with the proper court and have the same hand carried by the police concerned to the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, as evidenced by certified
machine copies of the said Informations, hereto attached as Annexes “G”, “H” and
“I”, respectively. Besides, the accused having been arraigned, it appears that these cases
has already been set for preliminary conference and pre-trial, and are now due for initial
trial. A copy of the Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of that court on the
pendency of the above-entitled cases is hereto attached as Annex “J”. In fact, nowhere
in the record of these cases has the court ruled that the detention of the accused under
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code has already prescribed as of October 13, 2013, at
10:50 o’clock in the morning, following erroneous/mistaken or misplaced interpretation
of, having been misguidedly opined by, the PNP of Aurora. Otherwise, these cases
would not have been accepted by the Clerk of Court of that Court and would not have
set these cases for arraignment and further proceedings.
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 8 -
X ========/

I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00201, entitled “People v. Dominic I. Manghay,

for Violation of R.A. 10591”; and I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14B-00078, entitled
“People v. Joel C. Bugay, for Illegal Possession of Firearm & Ammunitions”

6. These cases are the subject of the Special Written Report (SWR-“Tab D”) of
the San Miguel Municipal Police Station dated April 24, 2014, signed by its Chief of
Police, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) RENE HAILIL KUNNAIRI who initially reported to the
Zamboanga del Sur Provincial PNP Director regarding the dismissal of the above-entitled
cases by the undersigned. They complained that the above-entitled cases never reached
the court believing that Public Prosecutors have no power to dismiss criminal complaint.
In seriatim, these cases will be discussed altogether with I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00223,
entitled “People v. Omra A. Lingga, for Violation of Republic Act No. 9165 wherein the
Provincial Anti Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (PAIDSOTF) also complained
about the dismissal of this case by the undersigned; the undersigned’s Resolution dated
May 6, 2014, in this case, is also one of the attachments of the instant petition therein
attached as “Tab G”.

6.1. Thus, to the mind of the undersigned, the police concerned failed to
comprehend the true import, meaning and significance of criminal justice system. For
their own information and to educate them, criminal justice system is an effective
process to attain the objectives of criminal law and procedure. Its purpose is to prevent
and control crime through an organized system which comprises the police and other
law enforcement agencies; the public prosecutors; the defense counsel; the courts; and
finally, the correctional agencies (see Tadiar, Critical Analysis of SC Decisions on Criminal
Procedure, 1990 ed., p. 3). Thus, different rules and functions are assigned to each one
of these components. The police investigates and gathers evidence of a crime; the
prosecutor evaluates or weighs up, or makes assessment and appraisal of, the evidence
thus gathered and determines whether it is sufficient to file charges against a suspect;
and the final decision finding the accused guilty or innocent of the crime charged is
entrusted to the judge alone (supra.; underlining supplied for emphasis). This is
designed to achieve division of their functions, like the checks and balances observed
from among the inherent powers of the government, namely, the legislative, executive
and judicial departments. Further, the objective is to prevent the dangers of
arbitrariness and despotism that arise from the concentration of powers in any one
official or agency. In fact, on the part of a public prosecutor as quasi-judicial officer, a
criminal complaint may be dismissed if he/she finds no ground to continue with the
investigation (see Section 3 (b), Rule 112, Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure), or
recommends the dismissal of a criminal complaint subject to the approval of the
Provincial or City Prosecutor, as the case may be (see Section 4, paragraphs 3 & 4, Rule
112, id.). In other words, the exclusive prerogative to determine probable cause in the
course of the conduct of either inquest or preliminary investigation proceedings, rest
solely on the Public Prosecutor. Simply put, a Public Prosecutor is not precluded from
conducting his/her own assessment of the evidence thus gathered by the police,
notwithstanding the fact that the latter believes so that they have established the case.
To hold otherwise would convert the Public Prosecutor to a mere rubber stamp of the
police and thereby destroy quasi-judicial discretion of a public prosecutor in arriving at a
just conclusion whether probable cause exists in the course of his/her conduct of either
inquest proceeding or preliminary investigation, as the case may be.
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 9 -
X ========/

6.2. In the above-entitled cases, each respondent signed a waiver under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code duly assisted by, and in the presence
of, their respective independent and competent counsel of their own choice because
they wanted to avail of their statutory right to a preliminary investigation such that they
submitted or secured evidence in their behalf. Certified machine copies of the said
waiver are hereto attached as Annexes “K” and “L”, respectively.

6.3. Consequently, the undersigned recommended the dismissal of the above-

entitled cases duly approved by the Hon. OIC-Provincial Prosecutor, Dimapuno L.
Magangcong, for reasons thus stated in the Resolutions of the undersigned, certified
machine copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes “M”, “N” and “O” respectively.

6.4. However, the entire records of the case, docketed as I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-
00223, entitled “People v. Omra A. Lingga, for Violation of Republic Act No. 9165 has
already been elevated to the Office of the Honorable Secretary of Justice, DOJ, Manila,
for automatic review of its resolution, pursuant to Department Circular No. 022 dated
February 12, 2013, per Registry Receipt No. 842 dated May, 9, 2014, duly recorded in
the Log Book for outgoing communications in our Office. An original triplicate copy of
the Indorsement dated May 7, 2014, of Mr. Van A. Vergara, Administrative Officer V,
Provincial Prosecution Office, Justice Hall, Pagadian City, is hereto attached as Annex
“P”. The waiver signed by Linga and his counter-affidavit are among the documents
found therein.

6.5. Considering that the PNP concerned showed aggression and/or defiance to
the said Resolutions, their plain, speedy and available remedy, except the latter case, is
to appeal, after consulting the matter with an independent and competent counsel of
their own choice, and NOT to unduly harass, or bother with unwarranted inconvenience
against, the undersigned through the instant petition with its attachments.

Unverified Affidavit (machine copy only) of one Police Inspector

(PINSP) RENANTE BAYONA BENITEZ, OIC of the Dimataling
Municipal Police Station Dimataling, Zamboanga del Sur,
attached, among others, as “Tab E” to the said Petition

7. There is no specific case whatsoever mentioned in the aforementioned

affidavit of PINSP Benitez when he stated therein that his unnamed investigator
allegedly went to our office for inquest case on April 16, 2014, which was a Wednesday.
He merely mentioned therein that “since there are (sic.) no personnel or inquest
prosecutor that day, my investigator decided to file the case immediately to the court
for disposition of the case.” (underlining supplied for emphasis). This is supposedly a
perjury committed by the affiant therein but he is just cunning and had showed the
sneakiness and wiliness of the style of the police by not having his said affidavit
executed under oath which is glaring upon its face, knowing that it would amount to a
false swearing. Not only is this affidavit of PINSP Benitez hearsay in character but
manifested his lack of candor, truthfulness and forthrightness as an officer of the PNP.
He made to appear in his bare/naked affidavit that there were no prosecutors, not even
a single individual of the personnel of the Provincial Prosecution Office, Justice Hall,
Pagadian City, ever present on a Wednesday of April 16, 2014, such that the PNP
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 10 -
X ========/

concerned decided to file “the case immediately to the court for disposition of the case”
(sic.). This is uncorroborated not being supported by any documentary evidence.

I.S. No. IX-09-INV-14D-00226, entitled “People v.

Merlinda Mahinay Amantiad, for Frustrated Murder”

8. This case is the subject of the unverified Affidavit (machine copy only - “Tab F”)
dated April 24, 2014, of JAIME SILLO CUBILLA, the Officer-In-Charge of Lapuyan
Municipal Police Station, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur. Contrary to the allegations of
JAIME SILLO CUBILLA, consisting of twisted facts and falsehood resorted to by him, in his
capacity as PNP member, this case was actually assigned to Associate Provincial
Prosecutor Johnabel H. Tabunda, then OIC/Inquest Officer on case. In this case,
respondent Merlinda Mahinay Amantiad signed a waiver under the provisions of Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code because she wanted to avail her right to a preliminary
investigation, as evidenced by a certified machine copy of the said waiver hereto
attached as Annex “Q”. Subsequently, on April 24, 2014, private complainant, Marilyn
Soriano Mahinay (a relative of the said respondent) through the PNP of Lapuyan,
Zamboanga del Sur submitted to Prosecutor Tabunda an affidavit of desistance for
reasons stated therein. (foregoing underlines supplied for emphasis). As a consequence
thereof, Prosecutor Tabunda, in his capacity as both OIC and Inquest Officer, ordered
the DISMISSAL of the above-entitled case in his Resolution dated April 24, 2014; a
certified machine copy of the said Resolution of Prosecutor Tabunda is hereto attached
as Annex “R”.

I.S. No. IX-09-INQ-13J-00129, entitled “People v. Nursid Fermin

y Ansang, for Violation of R.A. 8294 and Comelec Gun Ban”

9. This case is the subject of the Special Written Report (SWR – “Tab H”) dated
November 3, 2013, of Guipos Municipal Police Station, Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur,
signed by its Officer-In-Charge, Police Inspector (PI) HARRY RATUNIL VELEZ. Similarly,
what were alleged therein are also twisted facts and falsehood calculated to discredit
me and to bring into disrepute against my honor. The truth of the matter is that, on or
about 1:00 o’clock dawn of October 28, 2013 (Monday), PNP members of Guipos
Municipal Police Station, Guipos, Zamboanga del Sur, went to my residence at Pagadian
City, and called out loud my name, repeatedly saying: “Good evening Fiscal Tan we have
a case for inquest! Greatly upset, as I was very much disturbed by that loud noise from
my slumber, I went down stair, opened the main door of our house and saw outside our
gate, a patrol car parked along the road, almost besides our gate. After they introduced
themselves and informed me of the very purpose of their coming to our house, I
momentarily scolded them of the improper way they wanted a case submitted for an
inquest at such unconscionable hour. They quickly replied that the prescriptive period
for the detention of the suspect was fast approaching. Since it was Election Day, and
everybody has to cast one’s vote the whole day later wherein all and sundry was
anticipating that the voters would wait long in queue at the polling place, I advised the
police to go to our office the following day (October 29, 2013) at the Justice Hall for the
filing of such an inquest case, and I also informed the police of the legal implication that
the running of prescriptive period for the detention of the suspect would still be
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 11 -
X ========/

interrupted following decision of the Supreme Court and per guidelines set forth in our
Manual for Prosecutors. I also enlightened them in the assurance that no arbitrary
detention would happen against the suspect. But the police appeared apprehensive and
would not believe my advice; thus, at that juncture, I interviewed the suspect, Nursid
Fermin y Ansang and informed him of his statutory right to a preliminary investigation to
be assisted by a counsel, either from the Public Attorneys Office, or an independent and
competent counsel of his own choice. After having been informed that the said suspect
has to sign a waiver under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
pending such preliminary investigation which shall be terminated within fifteen (15)
days and if no resolution within that period is made, he is entitled to be released
immediately, he (Nursid Fermin y Ansang) readily agreed and was very much willing to
sign such waiver. So, on same date at about past 1:00 o’clock dawn, I advised the police
to go to the office of the PAO at Pagadian City between 8:00 o’clock A.M. to 12:00 noon
of same date (October 28, 2013), and if they had done so, to go back to me the
following day for the issuance of a subpoena for the suspect to submit his countervailing
evidence. After the police with the said suspect left our house, I went back to my bed
with a little bit of dizziness I felt due to my diabetic condition. The following day,
at 8:00 o’clock in the morning, I reported for duty to my office but then Provincial
Prosecutor Gonzaga arrived earlier ahead of me in his office where he already
entertained the Guipos PNP members, and following standard operating procedure
(SOP) in our office that all prosecutors during weekdays (Monday to Friday) are inquest
officers, he conducted inquest proceeding on the above-entitled case, as may be shown
by his Resolution and the filing of the corresponding Informations in court, copies of
which are hereto attached as Annexes “S”, “T” and “U”, respectively. Thus, It was not
true that in their said report, PNP members of Guipos went to see Atty. Xerxes Regala at
his house in Guipos, Zamboanga de Sur, in order to ask the latter for legal assistance on
the constitutional rights of the suspect before signing a waiver. Attached hereto as
Annex “V” is the Affidavit of Atty. Xerxes R. Regala.

10. Prescinding from the above, it would seem to appear that not all signatories
in the instant petition against the undersigned are real parties-in-interest. Suffice it to
say, that their primary purpose is to defeat my current application for the position of
Provincial Prosecutor of Zamboanga del Sur. They may be successful in their concerted
efforts to frustrate my said application having already tainted my honor and put to
doubt my moral integrity. But I just won’t mind it! To God be the Glory forever! As I said
earlier for reasons already alluded to, I do not wish anymore to pursue my said
application with the DOJ. But I always implore the aid of the Divine Authority that our
office will soon be headed rather by our most senior Public Prosecutor at present in
accordance with the Civil Service Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

11. I further reserve the right to expound my refutation of the foregoing,

including the alleged affidavit/s of SPO3 Francisco Malalis Suarin Jr. and PO1 Herschel
Campomanes Lomocso denominated as “Tab E” that was/were never attached to the
instant petition; otherwise, they will remain a suppressed evidence that if produced
would be unfavorable to the affiants therein. I may also avail of such other reliefs and
remedies available in my favor which are consistent with the majesty of the law and
procedure.
COMMENT
Continue…… - PAGE 12 -
X ========/

Respectfully submitted, and I will always beg leave to remain

Very truly yours,

LUCIO ORIO TAN, JR.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Zamboanga del Sur

NOTED BY:

DIMAPUNO L. MAGANGCONG
OIC-Provincial Prosecutor

Encl.: As stated

Copy furnished:

1. PSI HEIDEL B. TE-ELAN, ET. AL.

COP, Aurora Municipal Police Station
Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur
By Registered Mail

2. Zamboanga del Sur Police Officers Corps –c/o:

ATTY. SOFRONIO P. ECALDRE
PSUPT, Provincial Director
Zamboanga del Sur Sur Provincial Police Office
By Registered Mail

3. FILE