Motion for Reconsideration (bail)

FacebookTumblrTwitterBlogger PostEmailGoogle GmailShare

RJ Bautista filed his “Motion for Reconsideration” in connection to the denial of his provisional liberty.



– versus –


CRIM. CASE NO. 11-1169
(For: Frustrated Murder)
CRIM. CASE NO. 11-1170 (For: Murder)

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

In the Interest of Substantial Justice

COMES NOW, the accused RAMON JOSEPH MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers the following:


At the out set, this Accused begs for the kind indulgence of this Honorable Court not to prejudge the instant motion as utterly devoid of merit, the same seeks to emphasize the arguments and discussion which justify the affirmative grant of bail to which herein accused is constitutionally entitled.

The relevance of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine as applied to the case at hand which focuses on the illegality of the arrest, resulting to the illegal detention and the justified continuing illegal detention of herein accused, with due respect to the Honorable Court, the elements of the offense being charged and tested by in the light of the prosecution evidence so far presented is to the mind of the accused gives him the benefit of the doubt. He posits the conclusion that the reality of the capital offense being charged, he should be entitled to bail.

The resolution of the issues should be fully clarified as the same could either reinforce established legal doctrines or reshape existing case law which may lay seeds of doubt as to what truly is the governing law.

Accused RAMON JOSEPH MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA, is left in a quandary of being jailed guiltless over such wicked accusation from unknown personalities who postured themselves as witnesses to a certain plot and/or conspiracy to take away the life of his very own elder brother Ramgen Magsaysay Bautista. Despite his situation, herein accused still has unbendable faith in our Justice System in dispensing justice.

Herein accused remain steadfast and with the firm resolve that the wheels of justice shall prevail to protect the innocent from the pain and agony of incarceration to which this petition to post bail seeks to allow said accused to breath the air of freedom in order for him to adequately prepare for his defense against lies and machinations so inhumanely done against the honor, name and reputation of the herein accused.

In all candidness and humilty, herein accused now cries out for Justice were his liberty curtailed. He seeks forth reconsideration over the plight of an innocent against the vicious warrantless arrest done. A young man as we were all once, with dreams to contribute to society should not be allowed to perish to disintegrate to which the accused do not seek only judicial and humane compassion but justice aswell. Hence, this motion is heretofore filed.

  1. On September 10, 2013 the undersigned counsel received copy of the Order of this Honorable Court dated September 4, 2013. Hence, this motion is timely filed;

  2. At first glance, the filing of said motion espouses the accused’s quest for substantial justice which prompted him to as the Court’s consideration to take a deeper look at his case, thereby prevent a potential miscarriage of justice;
  3. While procedural laws are no other than technicalities in their entirety, they were adopted not as ends themselves for the compliance with which courts have been organized and function but as a means conducive to the realization of the administration of law and justice;
  4. Technicalities, when they are not an aid to justice, deserve scant consideration from the courts. The Rules of Court should not be interpreted to sacrifice substantial rights of a litigant at the altar of technicalities to the consequent impairment of the principles of justice, nor should technicalities be resorted to the derogation of the intent and purpose of the rules.
  5. Time and again, the Supreme Court opined that rules should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed (Alberto v. Court of Appeals);
  6. Accused is now suffering in jail for almost two (2) years and to make things clearer, it is hereby most respectfully reiterated the following vital information:
    1. On that fateful night of October 31, 2011 while the accused was on board a motor vehicle together with his youngest sibling and elder sister coming out of their Patriarchial house in Bacoor, Cavite coming from the wake of his brother RAMGEN MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA, a group of men holding heavy firearms asked them to pull over. They asked herein accused: “Bryan, Brayan, ikaw ba si Bryan?” Herein accused answered in the negative and gave his name. Suddenly, the other men opened the car’s back door where his youngest sibling was seated and two men poked the heavy firearms to his sibling and asked the same question if accused younger sibling is “Bryan” and accused younger brother managed to say he is not the Bryan that the men were looking for;

    2. After a while, it turned out that the men looking for a certain Bryan were police officers and their leader who accused later knew was Major Torred, managed to call over the phone to speak with the accused half brother Sen. Bong Revilla, who gave instruction for the police to get the accused be directed to Paranaque Police Station just for some questioning while the two other police seated at the back seat still carrying a large firearm. Herein accused was able to talk to his brother Sen. Bong Revilla on the same cellular phone that the police used and informed him that the police is asking him to go with them to their office for questioning of which Senator Bong Revilla, told the accused to follow the police, and in spite of a fever at that time, accused with his other siblings went directly on convoy to the Paranaque Police Headquarters;
    3. At the Paranaque City Police Headquarters, the Police officers sent the accused and siblings to an private air conditioned office and even bought medicine for the accused and Mc Donald’s burger at that time which the accused and siblings consumed while the Police Officers was happily conversing with them;
    4. It was only when the accused biological mother arrived that the Police officers particularly Major Torred informed all of us that they are apprehending the accused as suspect for the death of his brother RAMGEN MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA;
    5. Accused was not given the opportunity to meet face to face with the police witness who would identify his person and his rights under the Miranda Doctrine was likewise, not performed at the time of their so called “arrest”; without being a suspect, but the members of the Philippine National Police stationed Parañaque City. As far as he is concerned, there was no preliminary investigation charging him for a criminal act within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
    6. Therefore, same accused was in continued detention from his apprehension to the present and the petition for bail was filed where series of hearings were scheduled and prosecution evidence were introduced, as follows: Click here to see prosecution’s evidence.
    7. However, the above-enumerated prosecution evidence is not a justification for the continued detention of the accused otherwise illegal. Based on the foregoing recitals, this accused moves for reconsideration.
  7. The Revised Rules of Court provides: “Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
    1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

    2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
    3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who as escaped from penal establishment or place where he is service final judgement or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another;

    In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall proceed against in accordance with Section 7 of rule 112. (Section 5, Rule 113, emphasis added);

    Similarly, the Constitution provides:

    “The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized (Section 2, Article III, Constitution emphasis added);

  8. Clearly, the accused did not fall any under Section 5, Rule 113 above to warrant his arrest without the benefit of a warrant. Hence, this is a clear case of a warrant less arrest. Absent the warrant of arrest, it is incumbent upon the Honorable Court to inquire into the justifications of the arrest of the accused in order to justify his further detention. If not, the suspect should be immediately released as a matter of procedure because this is a case calling for the application of the doctrine of the proverbial “fruit of a poisonous tree” (People vs. Abe Valdez, G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000);
  9. The accused was detained as a consequence of an illegal arrest without a warrant hence, the ensuing detention is likewise illegal. As a general rule, the procurement of a search warrant is required before a law enforcer may validly search or seize the person, house, papers or effect of any individual. In this case, the policemen had ample opportunity to secure from the court a search warrant [or a warrant of arrest] (People vs. Alberto Pasudag, G.R. No. 128822, may 4, 2000, emphasis added);
  10. In Go vs Court of Appeals, et al. it was held:

    “Petitioner’s “arrest” took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The “arresting” officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the “arrest” effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected “when the shooting had in fact just been committed” within the meaning of Section 5(b). Moreover, none of the “arresting” officers had any “personal knowledge” of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged eyewitnesses to the shooting – one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged gunman’s car’s plate number which turned out to be registered in petitioner’s wife’s name. That information did not, however, constitute “personal knowledge.” (emphasis added)

  11. In People vs. Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto delos Reyes G.R. No. 125754, December 22, 1999, [emphasis added], it was held:

    “This case clearly illustrates how constitutional guarantees against illegal arrest and seizures can be violated by overzealous police officers in the arrest of suspected drug offenders. Thus, after a meticulous evaluation of the evidence at hand, this court finds itself with no other recource but to strike down the process adopted by the prosecution and acquit accused-appellants for insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt.

    The State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. The constitutional provision sheathes the private individual with an impenetrable armor against unreasonable searches and seizures. It protects the privacy and sanctity of restraint [Bernas, Joaquin G., the constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A commentary, 1987, first Ed., pp. 85-86], and prevents him from being irreversibly “cut off from domestic security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in some measure agreeable”. [Infringement and Violations of rights, enumerated by the Committee of Correspondence for the Town of Boston, 1772 (The first Assertion by an American Governmental Body of the People’s Right to be free from unreasonable Searches and Seizures), cited by Alfred H. Knight in “The Life of the Law”, Crown publishers, Inc., New York, 1996 Ed. P. 115″

  12. During the hearing on the Petition for Bail, the Prosecution made a vain attempt though to justify that the arrest done against the person of the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista, is one of a “hot pursuit”. Section 5, Rule 113 dictated how arrest without a warrant is lawful. Section 5 (a) is commonly referred to as the rule on in flagrante delicto arrests.  That the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. Thus, there are two elements that must concur:  (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

    Therefore, following then testimony of prosecution witness Janelle Ann Caren Manahan, the Police and/or help and/or rescue came forty five (45) minutes after the shooting incident transpired. Hence, by this testimony alone of the prosecution witness made under oath disqualifies the claim of the prosecution that the accused in the person of Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista was, apprehended by virtue of a “hot pursuit” because no one in the group of the apprehending officers who has direct personal knowledge of the shooting incident that transpired inside the Bautista residence in Paranaque City on that fateful night of October 28, 2011 and therefore, the arrest made upon the person of the accused Bautista is illegal and invalid and therefore needs to be corrected by this Honourable Court following the rule on Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution;

  13. The accused shall discuss in seriatim the prosecution’s evidence and why he believes the Court’s conclusion that the evidence of his guilt is strong is unsubstantiated;
  14. The first witness SPO4 Charlie Bayoca has admitted in his testimony that the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista, was NOT part of the group of co-accused Nartea and Tolisora, that the witness arrested. Hence, the witness cannot pin down the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista’s participation in the alleged crimes;
  15. At the time of arrest by SPO4 Bayoca said officer of the law was not armed with a warrant of arrest. As a matter of fact, there was no warrant ever issued by any court to arrest the herein accused. The prosecution did not bother to present any warrant of arrest obviously there was none. Why the arresting police officer was at the wake of Ramgen, nobody knows. The records of the case are bereft of any of the above-enumerated justifications for a warrant less arrest. The prosecution made a vain attempt though to justify the circumstances of arrest as “hot pursuit” citing the case of Umil, the highlights of which are as follows:

    “The arrest of person involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow that usual procedure of a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most assurely so in case of invasion, merely seizing their persons and detaining them while of these contingencies continues cannot be less justified. x x x”

    As discussed above, the justification relied upon by the prosecution has no application in the case on hand. Understandably, rebellion is a continuing offense which sets it apart from the alleged act charged against Ramon Joseph Bautista. In the pursuit of this position, the case of Garcia-Padilla, et al. vs. Enrile illustrates the following:

    “The crime of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.”

    In summary by process of elimination, herein accused is not an escapee from any detention facility, there was no eyewitness to the alleged murder or attempted murder and definitely the arresting officer cannot have any personal knowledge or be a witness to the crime. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification to make an arrest without warrant, thus illegal. Very clearly, the arrest herein accused as above-discussed is illegal and it follows that his ensuing detention is also illegal.

  16. The second witness Ruel Puzon, has been consistent in one aspect. That his propensity to discredit himself time and time again, when he testified that the herein accused was allegedly at the car driven by co-accused Ryan Pastera alias “Bryan”, all the witness said about herein accused was that he was at the front of the car, without saying or doing anything. According to this witness, the herein accused merely turned his head towards the back of the car. However, the witness was perfect in his utterances of contradictory statements that practically submerges his credibility to the bottom of the sea, so much so that the Court itself observed and commented to the said witness: “BAKA GAWA GAWA MO LANG ITONG KWENTO MO!”
  17. Despite this sweeping statement, the Court ignored its own comment and made a good conclusion that Puzon’s statements are enough to make a good case against accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista;
  18. The third witness Ronaldo Flores Ancajas, (who is the deceased RAMGEN MAGSAYSAY BAUTISTA’s personal bodyguard) testified that he allegedly saw the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista leaving the house deserves scant consideration, the small window that he claimed where he was at the time of the incident is too little for him to intelligibly see the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista leave the house towards the village gate as he cannot see the village gate from the vantage point of that small window that the witness is saying and this fact was recorded during the ocular inspection conducted by this Honorable Court. Not to mention further the fact that at the time the police officers apprehended the witness Ancajas as suspect for the shooting incident, he was brought down from the small room where he was staying, directly under the room of the victim Ramgen Bautista. The witness credibility was tainted considering that he was also a suspect at the time of the incident, but was freed by the police and now a made as a state witness;
  19. The fourth witness Janelle Ann Caren Manahan’s testimony offers no strong foundation to pin down the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista. All she claimed was that herein accused did not have the look of mourning. The accused asks himself “since when did not having a look of mourning make one guilty of any crime much less murder?” It is not sufficient that the suspect exhibits unusual or strange acts or simply appears suspicious. Further, the witness clearly admitted and confirmed under oath that majority of what she knows came from her lawyers and not through her personal direct knowledge;

    After the illegal arrest and the ensuing detention of herein accused, the prosecution filed the 2nd Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 11-1170 charging a crime for Murder in the following tenor:

    “That on or about the 28th day of October 2011, in he City of Paranaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another with intent to ill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, shot with an unlicensed firearm and stab with a bladed weapon one RAMGEN JOSE BAUTISTA y MAGSAYSAY, hitting him on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him serious physical injuries which direct caused his death, the said killing having been attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation, committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise, and abuse of superior strength and the attendant ordinary aggravating circumstances of a crime committed in a dwelling during nighttime and employment of disguise which qualify such killing to Murder.

    To quote portions of the questioned Order in reference to the testimony of prosecution witness Janelle Manahan, while she, Ramona and Ramgen were inside the room, as follows:

    “After shower, Ramgen sat on the bed and used his phone. She was also texting her mom about her La Union travel. Someone then knocked at the door. She opened it and it was Ramona. Someone then knocked at the door. She opened it and it was Ramona. Ramona went inside. Ramgen stood up to meet her. Ramona was asking for the video Ramgen did for Ramram. Ramona insisted to send the video via Bluetooth. Janelle was then still sitting on the chair facing the dresser about three feet from the two siblings. She then felt something heavy on her right shoulder. When she looked at her left, she saw a man wearing Halloween mask, about 5’8 in height, medium build, and wearing a corduroy jacket colored army green. The man was holding a gun and shooting her on the face. She was shocked. The gun had a silencer. It was Mara who said that she was shot. Ramgen got mad. He stood up and went after the gunman saying, “gago ka, sino ka, gago ka, sino ka?” Ramgen and the gunman were struggling each other right at the bedroom door. She was still seated on the chair and Ramona approached her. She told Ramona she was shot on the fact and feeling dizzy. She then slid herself slowly to the pillow on the floor. Mara kept on saying, “Oh my God, ang daming dugo.” After a while, Mara stood up and shouted to the gunman, “tama na, tama na.” Ramgen after a while, went back inside the room and pushed the door with all his force and told Mara to lock the door. When she and Ramgen were both lying on the floor beside the door, Mara was standing and calling Ramgen’s name but the latter was not responding.

    From the account of prosecution witness Janelle Manahan, it would appear that she was the target of the killer. As a matter of fact, she was shot on the face with a gun equipped with a silencer. The intent to commit murder needs no explanation when a gun equipped with a silencer is used.

    There were three (3) persons in the room. From the ocular inspection, the dresser where Janelle was sitting, is an arm’s length on the left side as you enter the door to the room. As the killer appeared on the door, he had to turn to his left to shoot Janelle. The bed where Ramgen was, as the killer appeared on the door, is perfectly in the line of fire of the killer which offers a perfect straight shot at Ramgen. According to Janelle as she was shot when the killer appeared, the killer had to turn to his left to pump a couple of shots at her. She was the target without a doubt. Ramgen was not the objective.

    When Ramgen reacted angrily standing up (must be from the bed) and went after the gunman, this act was clearly in retaliation for the gunman’s unlawful aggression against Janelle. Then there was a struggle. Shortly thereafter, Ramgen, went back inside the room and pushed the door with all his might. It can be logically inferred that Ramgen was wounded because he went after the killer and there was a struggle. There was no premeditation or conceive plan to inflict injuries on him. The clear reason for him getting wounded was due to his actuation in going after the “shooter” saying “sino ka, gago ka.

    Janelle and Ramgen were both lying on the floor and Mara was calling Ramgen’s name but the latter was not responding presumably because of the mortal wounds he sustained when he pursued the killer. Up to this point there is no telling if Ramgen, who was not responding to Mama’s stirring, was still alive but barely or already dead. Therefore, Ramgen’s death can only be considered a Homicide which is a bailable offense for purposes of this petition for bail.

    The right to bail is constitutionally guaranteed as afore-quoted where the felony is not punishable with a capital punishment. The penalty attached to frustrated murder and homicide does not involve capital punishment and this accused should be granted bail.

  20. In an en banc case of Malacat v. Court of Appeals, the Court, through Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., held that the fact that the appellant’s eyes were “moving very fast”   and   looking   at   every approaching person were not sufficient to suspect him of “attempting to commit a crime,” much less to justify his arrest and subsequent search without a warrant. The Court said that “there was nothing in [Malacat’s] behaviour or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even mere suspicion” that he was armed with a deadly weapon.  In other words, there was no overt physical act on the part of the suspect, positively indicating that he had just committed a crime or was committing or attempting to commit one.  There was, therefore, no valid reason for the police officers to arrest or search him;
  21. The same was true in People v. Mengote, where the arresting police tried to justify the warrantless arrest of the appellant on the ground that he appeared suspicious.  The “suspicious” acts consisted of his darting eyes and the fact that his hand was over his abdomen.  The Court, rejecting such justification, stated:  “By no stretch of the imagination could it have been inferred from these acts that an offense had just been committed, or was actually being committed, or was at least being attempted in their presence.”
  22. This doctrine found strength in People v. Aminnudin and again in People v. Encinada.  In both cases, the appellants were arrested while disembarking from a ship, on account of a tip received from an informant that they were carrying prohibited drugs.  The Court invalidated their warrantless arrests, explaining that at the moment of their arrests, the appellants were simply descending the gangplank, without manifesting any suspicious behaviour that would reasonably invite the attention of the police.  To all appearances, they were not committing a crime; nor was it shown that they were about to do so or had just done so.  There was, therefore, no valid reason for their arrests.
  23. In other words, the behaviour or conduct of the person to be arrested must be clearly indicative of a criminal act.  If there is no outward indication at all that calls for an arrest, the suspect cannot be validly apprehended under this paragraph, notwithstanding a tip from an informant that he would at the time be undertaking a felonious enterprise;
  24. The fifth witness Dr. Dominic L. Aguda, has no personal knowledge in the incident and could offer no adverse testimony against the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista. On the side note, the multiple sustained by Ramgen made the forensic expert to opine that there were atleast two assailants who committed the crime, clearly debunking the version of the witness Janelle that there were only one malefactor;
  25. The sixth witness Sheridan Embat completely did not mention the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista. Therefore, there is nothing to pin down herein accused;
  26. The seventh and last prosecution witness Nino Tabada claimed to have seen herein accused leave the subdivision. However, he made a fatal mistake of insisting that he conducted roving activities during the date of the incident. When he was asked to explain the inconsistency of his statement, he admitted that he really did not do any roving activities. Therefore, for being inconsistent of a very material matter, his testimony was discredited by said glaring error and fell flat on trustworthiness, reliability and integrity when he insisted he conducted his roving duties. Thus, when the witness admitted that he was not telling the truth when he earlier made a statement that he did not conduct roving duties in the subdivision, he proverbially “shot himself in the foot.”
  27. In the first place, herein accused lives in that same house and same subdivision, what would greatly qualify him to be made an accused in this case when the personal body guard Ancajas, was freed and made prosecution witness? And even the house help who were also present in the said house was not apprehended and tagged as either masterminds or co-conspirators?
  28. What this Honorable Court failed to mention with all due respect, is the fact that all of the prosecution witnesses except for SPO4 Charlie Bayoca and Dr. Dominic L. Aguda admitted under oath to having received a substantial amount of monies from the police which was released by Senator Bong Revilla. This is the main reason why herein accused was languishing in jail.
  29. These witnesses further admitted and confirmed under oath that they were to receive additional substantial amount of monies in exchange for their testimonies;
  30. In the case of the other witness and Janelle Ann Caren Manahan, she admitted that it was Senator Bong Revilla and family who paid for her hospitalization at the Asian Hospital in the amount of P600,000.00 plus xxx;
  31. Likewise, with all due respects again to this Honorable Court, it failed to consider those under oath testimonies of the majority of the prosecution witnesses that they identified accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista, through the television and the drivers license and pictures provided for the honourable members of the Philippine national Police at the time their sworn statement were being prepared after the P500,000.00 reward money has been announced on a nationwide television;
  32. All told, what has the prosecution proven in its effort to deny bail to the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista? – The accused humbly asserts “NOTHING!”
  33. The Supreme Court in Paras v. Baldado cites:

    “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, honor or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws”.

  34. Herein accused has long been suffering from the deprivation of his freedom due to malicious and baseless accusations of the prosecution witnesses that can directly pinpoint the participation of the accused.
  35. In People v. Gallarde G.R. 133025, February 2000, 325 SCRA 836, the supreme Court held that:

    “xxx (a) that by direct evidence, through an eye witness to the very commission of the act; and (b) that by circumstantial evidence, such as where the accused is last seen with the victim immediately before or after the crime xxx”.

  36. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved”.
  37. In People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 283. The Supreme court held:

    The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the presumption prevails and the accused be necessarily acquitted.

  38. In this instant case, there is failure of the prosecution to directly pinpoint that herein accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista, is one that directly committed the crime or participated in the commission of the crime;
  39. The alleged planning can be easily concocted or invented unless there is direct evidence that proves a fact in dispute without aid of any interference or presumption that can be shown by the prosecution that herein accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista planned the killing of his very own brother Ramgen Bautista;
  40. All the testimonies of the witnesses including the evidence presented by the prosecution to this Honorable Court cannot directly pinpoint that Ramon Joseph Magsaysay bautista, is probably guilty or his guilt of committing the crime of killing his own brother is so strong that the application for bail should be denied. Let us all NOT forget, that based on the onw testimony of prosecution witness Janelle Ann Caren Manahan, she stated under oath that it was her who was FIRST SHOT by the alleged killer; IT WAS SHE who was shot TWICE by the same alleged killer; and such alleged killer NEVER bothered to ENTER the room where Ramgen and Ramona is conversing near the foot and/or edge of the bed, if only Ramona did not see that Janelle Manahan was shot, as Janelle Manahan testified the gun was with a silencer, Ramgen could have chosen not to go out of his room to confront the gunman of prosecution witness Janelle Manahan. If Ramgen, did not played Superman in defending the life of prosecution witness Janelle Manahan, he could still be alive here with us today and herein accused should have never languished in jail for a crime that was never committed;
  41. In People v. Abarquez, G.R. No. 150762, 20 January, 2006, 479 SCRA 225, 239 the Supreme Court held:

    “We apply the pro reo principle and the equipoise rule in this case. Where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the accused”.

  42. The Supreme Court ruled in People v. Mamalias, 385 Phil. 499, 513-514 (2000):

    We emphasize that the great goal of our criminal law and procedure is not to send people to the goal but to do justice. The prosecution’s job is to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Thus, when the evidence of the prosecution is not enough to sustain a conviction, it must be rejected and the accused absolved and released at once.

  43. The Constitution guarantees the accused’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Section 14 (2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

    Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, which produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainly is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

  44. The Court relied on the thesis of Regalado that asserted that when the prima facie evidence unexplained and uncontroverted is sufficient to maintain the proposition affirmed. With due respect always maintained, herein accused disagrees with the conclusion reached by the Court when it surmised that since the defense has not presented rebuttal evidence, then the prosecution’s evidence standing alone would merit the continued denial of bail;
  45. Such prosecution is downright unfair, unjust and unwarranted considering that the evidence so far presented by the prosecution against the accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista is so weak that his continued confinement would be a denial of his basic right guaranteed under the Constitution to be entitled to bail even for a capital offense when the evidence could not warrant further denial of bail;
  46. There was no clear testimony by any of the prosecution’s witnesses that accused Ramon Joseph Magsaysay Bautista, conspired with any of his co-accused to plan and execute the murder of his very own brother Ramgen;
  47. When a crime is committed, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the crime has been established. In this case, the weapon that was used to kill Ramgen like that of the gun and the knife has not been recovered; no paraffin tests conducted to the suspects; the identity of the gunman was never identified;
  48. What is clear here is that those witnesses who were supposed to suspects are the ones scot-free and the innocent is languishing in jail;


WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of truth, substantial justice, fair play and equity accused humbly pray unto this Honorable Court to reconsider its Order dated September 4, 2013 by issuing a new Order granting bail to herein Accused.

Such other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed.

September 24, 2013, Manila for Paranaque City.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *