REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL

Third Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
BRANCH 37
Baloc Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Complainant )
Complainant, ) Crim. Cases Np SD(22)-6909
For: Murder
- versus -

JERRY BARTOLOME y PASCUAL,

LANILYN PORNUEVO y MANGADA
ROGELIO DOMINGO y SACLOLO and
PELACIO FACUNLA y VIGILIA ALIAS
“KUYA PILA”
Accused
x-----------------------------------------------------
-x

COMMENT TO THE CONSOLIDATED

OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO QUASH
With all due respect to the Honorable Court, Accused JERRY P.
BARTOLOME, through counsel, most respectfully submits his Comment to
the Consolidated Opposition to the Motions to Quash in the above-entitled
case dated June 30, 2022, copy of which was received through counsel on
July 19, 2022, in so far as the private prosecutor argued and prayed unto this
Honorable Court to deny the accused respective Motions to Quash.

The portion of the prayer of said opposition reads:

xxx

“PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENT CONSIDERED, it is most

respectfully prayed unto the Honorable Court to DENY the accused
respective Motions to Quash and to PRONONCE that the facts charged in
the information have sufficiently alleged and recited all the elemnts
constituting the felony of murder.”

1
 xxx

GROUNDS

Accused Bartolome submits that the distinguished private prosecutor,

misapprehended the facts, and therefore in its conclusions of law:

A. In arguing that the arrest was made in accordance with the conditions
laid down in a “hot pursuit” as there was no personal knowledge of
facts in the arrest, an apparent non obeisance to the mandates of their
office as it was made without warrant as to what the distinguished
private prosecutor seems to believe;

B. In arguing that that there was no custodial investigation yet on the part
of the Talavera Police Officers when they deprived the accused Jerry
Bartolome of freedom of action in any significant manner;

C. In arguing that the accused verbally admitted having committed the

offense, more so, when upon review by accused, it appeared that the
uncounseled extra-judicial confession in violation of the Philippine
Constitution is being swayed;

D. In arguing that the accused Jerry P. Bartolome had been lawfully

taken into police custody and whose person was validly brought to the
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court as the alleged confessions was not
in accord with constitutional precepts and that the Honorable Court
has no Jurisdiction yet over his person as there was no Arraignment
yet;

E. In arguing that the res-inter alios acta alter nocere non debet rule
established under the Rules on Evidence because while exception to
the rule is the admission by conspirator, he misconstrued it because
there is an exception to the exemption, because granting arguendo that
the declaration of Bartolome(not yet proven by independent evidence)
the declaration was made long after the conspiracy was over. The
arrest of the declarant is often found to terminate the declarant’s
participation in the conspiracy so that the declarants post arrest
statements do not qualify as admissible co-conspirator’s statement .

F. And in therefore arguing that there are rich pieces of information

under the custody of the PNP forensics as not even a single piece of it
was attached to the complaint to support the information, rendering
the arrest of co-accused Rogelio S. Domingo, Pelagio V. Facunla and
Lanilyn M. Pornuevo invalid.

2
 Further, new pieces of evidence that came to light only of late, if duly
appreciated, would demonstrate more clearly the foregoing facts, or would
have otherwise by themselves materially apprise and delight the Honorable
Court.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

In its argument, the distinguished private prosecutor opined that

Bartolome and his co-accused is guilty of murder because accordingly, the
police team of Talavera observed and recounted the event that transpired
immediately before the victim Mananghaya and Rodrigo T. Nicolas was way
laid, he was the last person who had a telephone conversation with the
victim. The police officers were under surveillance at that time and they
never entertained any other room for suspicion or motives of the killing
other than sticking to accused Jerry Bartolome.

The distinguished private prosecutor opined that Jerry P. Bartolome

arrived home and went straight to meet the police team and he casually
confessed to them the crime committed for he was bothered by his consent
therefore confirming the regularity and validity of the arrest. Accordingly,
these events are the reasons why the arrest was valid but these events are
merely sweeping statements from the police officers who tend to make some
accomplishments but incredible accusation unsupported by concrete
evidence, note that sweeping statement cannot be the basis of a complaint
(lack of first hand knowledge) since it is unsupported by any documentary
proofs or any under oath testimony to that effect, if only they were given the
proper preliminary investigation. Such event is discriminatory against the
accused considering that there was no personal knowledge on the part of the
police team rendering the questioned “hot pursuit” operation to be not in
order.

Further, the distinguished private prosecutor opined that the operation

was in hot pursuit misconstruing the lacking element of personal knowledge.
While it’s true that in hot pursuit, law enforcers need not personally witness
the commission of the crime, however, they must have personal knowledge
of facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested
committed it. Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause
which means an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion.

May it please the Honorable Court that it’s not because the accused
Bartolome was the last person who has phone conversation with the victim
automatically gives them (the police team) the impression that he was the
culprit, as the police team should have exerted earnest effort to open room
for suspicions and motives considering that the accused was not the only
person who has other dealings and communication with the victim. They
based their suspicion merely on surmises and stick into it. The ground of
suspicion are unreasonable, lack of actual belief and not based on actual

3
facts and unsupported by circumstances which are supposed to be
sufficiently strong in themselves to create probable cause of guilt. Because a
reasonable suspicion must be founded on probable cause, and is supposed to
be coupled with good faith on the part of the Talavera Police
Officers(Abelita V. Doria et al.,GR No 170672 August 14, 2009).

The distinguished private prosecutor then opined that there was no

custodial investigation yet when accused Bartolome steadfastly admitted
the crime, again misconstruing the fact that when the police team focused
suspicion on him and ask particular questions from him (the suspect,
Bartolome) to elicit admissions or information on the commission of an
offense. The rights of a suspect during custodial investigation attach as
soon as he is invited  to be investigated in connection with an offense he
is suspected to have committed. The practice of issuing an invitation to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to
have committed is part of custodial investigation, as such, the rights of a
person under Section 12, Article III of the Philippine Constitution. Such
rights were trampled, to wit:

The right to be informed of his rights, the reading of the Miranda

Doctrine or custodial rights by police during his arrest. This carries the
correlative obligation on the part of the investigator to explain and
contemplates effective communication which results in the subject
understanding what is conveyed. The right to remain silent and to be
reminded that anything he says can and will be used against him. This
refers not only to verbal confessions but also to acts. The right to an
attorney or to counsel, preferably of his own choice; if not, one will be
provided for him. This right is absolute, the right is more particularly the
right to independent and competent An independent counsel is one not
hampered with any conflicts of interest, and a competent counsel is one
who is vigilant in protecting the rights of an accused, a counsel of his own
choice and not the PAO lawyer from an out of town Municipality, Guimba
Nueva Ecija. The right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation
or any other means which vitiate the free will of the person and the right
against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention.

That accordingly, accused verbally admitted the commission of the

offense. With all due respect, accused begs to disagree with said statements.
Accused actuations during police investigation and custodial investigation
can be intensified by the very persons, the barangay officials who were
invited to witness the same(affidavits attached). On the contrary, the actions
by the police team were not in accord with the Constitutional precepts.

Verily, a review of all the documents obtaining in this case would

show that in fact, the admissions is uncounseled and against the rule that
“uncounseled custodial investigation is inadmissible” and must be urgently
and initially disregarded by the court.

4
 More importantly, the distinguished private prosecutor would also
show that accused had been lawfully taken into police custody and whose
person was validly brought to the jurisdiction of the Honorable court.
Rather, since there was a violation of the abovementioned Constitutional
Rights, accused has not been lawfully taken into custody and the police team
actually acted without caution and circumspection considering and owing to
the complexity and sensitivity of what they are investigating. The
distinguished prosecutor opined that accused has already been placed at the
Jurisdiction of the Court, verily, it must be recalled that the highest tribunal
has been consistent that any objection involving the procedure for the
acquisition by the court of the jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be made before he enters his plea, hence the motion to quash.

On the other hand, arguing that the res-inter alios acta alter nocere
non debet rule established under the Rules on Evidence, because while
exception to the rule is the admission by conspirator, he misconstrued it
because there is an exception to the exemption, even granting arguendo that
the declaration of Bartolome(not yet proven by independent evidence), such
declaration was made long after the conspiracy was over. The arrest of the
declarant is often found to terminate the declarant’s participation in the
conspiracy so that the declarants post arrest statements do not qualify as
admissible co-conspirator’s statement. Note that Sec 30, Rule 130 states that
the declaration or act made or done during the existence of the conspiracy
and the conspiracy must be shown by evidence other than the declaration or
act.(4 Wigmore, Sec.1080a, Citing Evidence by Willard Riano)

To reiterate, not even a single piece of it was attached to the complaint

to support the information, rendering the arrest of co-accused Rogelio S.
Domingo, Pelagio V. Facunla and Lanilyn M. Pornuevo invalid. Now in
this instance, given the gravity of the offense being charged, these pieces of
evidence must be attached in the salaysays of the Arresting Police Officers,
but it was not. Technicality, the police officers did not intensify this in their
sinumpaang salaysays which is with with very questionable veracity,
considering the seriousness of the allegations. It is thus clear that what
prompted them to make their salaysays is their urge for accomplishment on
that day instead of entertaining other motives of the killing.

In fine, accused seeks as a testament to their commitment to the

rule of law, therefore asks this Honorable Court to take a second look and
reflect deeply on the strength of their arguments in there motions to quash
for dismissal. It is essential to look back again on the motions to quash of the
accused as it is crucial and decisive in a total dismissal of the complaint,
otherwise, it would lead innocent persons to be deprived of their most
precious and protected right, the right to liberty as “it is better to let the
crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the
innocent.”

5
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, all premises duly considered, accused prays that

Honorable Court grant an order granting the motion to quash the information
dated March 7, 2022 for patent lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused and for the arrest being illegal and that the charge does not
constitute an offense. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

La Union, Philippines, for Sto. Domingo Nueva Ecija this 22 day of

July 2022.

JERRY BARTOLOME y PASCUAL

Accused

Assisted by:

CARAMTO LAW OFFICE

(Collaborating Counsel)
B Building Poblacion East Pugo La Union

BY:
ATTY. CARLO STEPHEN D. CARAMTO
Counsel
ROLL #: 74176
IBP # 124657 (7/8/2020)
PTR # 170298118 (17029118) 2021 San Fernando City La
Union
MCLE Compliance: VII-0004202 7/21/2021

Copy Furnished:
•Atty. Renato A. Villaroman, Jr
Calle Putol corner, Maharlika Highway,
Purok Sampaguita, Mayapyap, Cabanatuan City

•Atty. Louise B. Madriaga-Longalong

Real Streer Brgy. Malaya. Sto Domingo Nueva Ecija

•Atty. Thristan Escudero

T. Delos Santos Street, Corner Isla Street
Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija

•Pros. Lord Jayson B. Nagano

DOJ, Science City of Munoz
Nueva Ecija

6
 EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Comment to the Consolidated Opposition To

the Motion to quash is filed in court and served to the other parties by
registered mail and/or accredited private courier because of the distance and
the lack of funds and messenger to effect personal service.

CARLO STEPHEN D. CARAMTO