Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 98
Quezon City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Criminal Case No. RQZN-15-11359-CR

ALEXANDRO VARGA
For: VIOL. OF SEC. 9(F)
a.k.a Gabriel, John, 24 years old,
OF RA 8484
Male, single, Romanian National
And temporary billeted at
Marriot Hotel
MILAH KARMILAH
a.k.a Milah Karnah, 25 years old,
female, single Indonesian National
and temporary billeted at
Marriot Hotel
Accused.
x------------------------------------------------x

PETITION TO CITE PSUPT. PEDRO T. SANCHEZ

AND OTHER POLICE OFFICERS OF THE
QUEZON CITY POLICE DISTRICT STATION 10
KAMUNING IN CONTEMPT OF COURT
ACCUSED, through counsel, and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers:
1. That Based on Police Records, the accused
were arrested and detained since December 13,
2015 at QCPD Kamuning Police station 10 and the
cases were referred to the Honorable City
Prosecutor on December 14, 2015.
2. Thereafter, the case was docketed for inquest
with reference XV-03-INO and the Office of the
City
Prosecutor
rendered
a
resolution
recommending the filing of the said charges and
1

setting the amount of Bail for their provisional

liberty.
3. That on December 15, 2015 an information
was filed before this Honorable Court charging
both accused of violation of Section 9 (F) of RA
8484 otherwise known as the Access Device
Law.
4. That it is respectfully submitted before this
Honorable Court that the application for Bail was
filed before and issued by Honorable Executive
Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr. of Regional Trial Court
Quezon City Branch 78 due to the unavailability of
Judges during the said date.
5. Thus, On December 29, 2015 the accused
was allowed to post Bail for their temporary
release pending the hearing of this Case and an
Order of Release was issued by the Honorable
Executive Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr. of Regional
Trial Court Quezon City Branch 78. Copy of the
said Order is herein attached as Annex A.
PSUPT. PEDRO T. SANCHEZ AND
OTHER POLICE OFFICERS OF QCPD
STATION
10
ARE
LIABLE
FOR
INDIRECT
CONTEMPT
UNDER
SECTION 3(b), RULE 71 OF THE
RULES OF COURT
6. That despite such Order of Release, which
was served the same day at around 3:00 PM, The
Police Officers acting under the direct instruction
from the Station Commander PSUPT. Pedro T.
Sanchez of Quezon City Police District (QCPD)
Station 10 at Kamuning, EDSA, Quezon City
refused to release the accused.
7. That instead of complying with the said Order
and absent any directives from the Honorable
Court for any lawful causes to continuously detain
the accused, the Police Officers turned over the
persons of the accused before the Bureau of
Immigration Detention Center Camp Bagong Diwa,
Bicutan, Taguig City at around 7:00 PM. Copy of
2

the Police Report regarding the turn over of the

accused is herein attached as Annex B.
8. That the said transfer of custody, was made
pursuant to a faxed copy of a Commitment
Order which was received by the Police Station at
around 6:00 PM from the Bureau of Immigration
dated December 29, 2015 and signed by the Chief
of the Legal Division. Copy of the said
Commitment Order and Charge Sheet is herein
attached as Annexes C and D for reference.
9. As such, it is respectfully submitted that the
belated transfer of custody despite an earlier
Order of Release is contrary to law and a blatant
disregard of the lawful orders of the Honorable
Court.
10. That Contempt of court has been defined as
a willful disregard or disobedience of a public
authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a
disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or
orders of a legislative or judicial body or an
interruption of its proceedings by disorderly
behavior or insolent language in its presence or so
near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to
impair the respect due to such a body. In its
restricted and more usual sense, contempt
comprehends a despising of the authority, justice,
or dignity of a court. There are two (2) kinds of
contempt of court, namely: direct and indirect.
Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that
which is committed out of the presence of the
court. A person who is guilty of disobedience or of
resistance to a lawful order of a court or who
commits any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice may be punished for
indirect contempt.1
11. Section 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
provides:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished
after charge and hearing. After a charge in
1

CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION INC. (CASCONA) V. DOMINGUEZ,

et al. GR NO. 189949, MARCH 25, 2015

writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to

the respondent to comment thereon within such
period as may be fixed by the court and to be
heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any
of the following acts may be punished for indirect
contempt;
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of
a court, including the act of a person who,
after being dispossessed or ejected from
any real property by the judgment or
process of any court of competent
jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces
another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing
acts of ownership or possession, or in any
manner disturbs the possession given to
the person adjudged to be entitled
thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference
with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section
1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of
a court, and acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a
person or property in the custody of an officer
by virtue of an order or process of a court held
by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as
to prevent the court from issuing process to bring
the respondent into court, or from holding him in

custody pending such proceedings. (Emphasis

supplied)
12. That in the present case, it is submitted that
the Order of Release was issued at around 12:47
PM December 29, 2015 and was served 3:00 PM
the same day before the Police Station,
nevertheless, the Police Officers with evident bad
faith blatantly disregarded the said Order and
instead had the undersigned with the accused
waited until around 6:00 PM to receive the faxed
copy of the Commitment Order from the Bureau of
Immigration.
13. It is also worthy to mention that the intent to
disregard such Order of Release is manifested by
the fact that the Police Officers, under the
instruction of the Station Commander never
informed, neither served a copy of the said
Commitment Order before this Honorable Court
despite knowledge of the fact that herein accused
have posted bail for their temporary release.
14. That despite knowledge of the fact that the
case was already filed and thus the jurisdiction
and custody of the accused is now vested with the
Honorable Court, the Police Officers in disrespect
of the Order of Release turned over the custody of
the accused without due process.
15. That Section 25, Rule 114 of the Rules of
Court provides that the court shall exercise
supervision over all persons in custody for the
purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention.
(emphasis supplied). Thus, in connection with the
accused application for temporary release on bail,
it should have been the duty of the said Police
Officers to refer the Commitment Order for
consideration before the Honorable Court before
turning over the custody with the Bureau of
Immigration.
THE COMMITMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE BID IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH
SBM2014-046 AND THE SAME
SHOULD NOT HAVE DIVESTED
5

THE
COURT
OF
ITS
JURISDICTION
OVER
THE
CUSTODY OF THE ACCUSED
16. With respect to the issuance of the said
Commitment Order which was used as the basis
of the Police Officers for turning the custody of the
accused before the Bureau of Immigration, it is
respectfully submitted that the same is not in
accordance with BID Operations Order No. SBM2014-046 dated September 25, 2014 otherwise
known as the Manual of Operation for Processing
Arrested/Intercepted Foreigners. Copy of the said
Operations Order is herein attached as Annex E.
17. Proceeding unto the validity of the
Commitment Order, Section 9 of OOSBM-2014046 provides:
Section 9. Turn-over to the BI Wardens
Facility- After the conduct of the inquest
investigation and the Special Prosecutor deems
the necessity of filing a Charge Sheet or after
requesting for a regular preliminary investigation,
the CSU shall turn-over the foreigners custody to
the Warden, BI Wardens Facility (BIWF). The Chief,
LD shall issue the Commitment Order.
18. Thus, prior to the turn over of a foreigners
custody before the Bureau of Immigration
Wardens
Facility
(BIWF),
an
inquest
investigation or preliminary investigation
followed by the filing of a Charge Sheet should
have transpired before the issuance of the
Commitment Order.
19. It is also important to take note that before
conducting
any
inquest
or
preliminary
investigation for the purpose of implementing
OOSBM-2014-046, a Mission Order under Section 1
must be validly issued to acquire jurisdiction over
the persons of the accused. The pertinent
provision provides:
Section 1. Issuance of a Mission Order Upon
a
well-founded
and
reasonable
6

determination based on available and verifiable

civilian, immigration, law enforcement, or military
intelligence report that a foreigner has committed,
is actually committing or is about to commit a
violation of immigration laws, or any of the
Philippine laws, rules and regulations, which may
constitute
grounds
for
deportation,
the
Commissioner, or in his absence, the Acting
Commissioner, in the interest of national security,
public health, public safety and/or national
interests, may issue a Mission Order directing
appropriate officers of the Bureau of
Immigration (BI) to conduct verification and
investigation
operations
against
the
foreigner concerned, and if probable cause
exists, to effect a warrantless arrest of such
foreigner in accordance with Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, if found
in flagrante violating Philippine Immigration laws.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Commissioner may issue a Mission Order
motu propio or upon written request of other law
enforcement agencies.
20. Surprisingly, no Mission Order was attached
to the Commitment Order or was served before
this Honorable Court whose jurisdiction over the
custody of the accused was vested by virtue of the
pending criminal cases filed neither was there any
coordination before the Police Officers during the
arrest of the accused.
21. A scrutiny of OOSBM-2014-046 would show
that several procedures should be followed before
the issuance of a Commitment Order.
22. First, since both accused were not arrested or
intercepted in flagrante, a Mission Order should
have been issued directing appropriate officers of
the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to conduct
verification and investigation operations against
the foreigner (accused) concerned. In the
7

present
case
no
verification
and
investigation was conducted since there was
even no prior coordination between the
Police Officers and BI as to the arrest of the
accused. Section 2 of OOSBM-2014-046 provides:
Section 2. Submission of Written Request
from Other Law Enforcement Agencies - Law
enforcement agencies seeking assistance for a
joint-operation with the BI may file a written
request containing the following: (i) purpose of the
joint-operation; (ii) the place and time of the jointoperation; (iii) other relevant information about
the operation.
Without prior coordination, the BI shall not
accept the turn-over of foreigners from other
law enforcement agencies except when the
foreigners (i) pose a clear and present
danger to public safety; or (ii) are fugitives.
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Thus, without prior coordination as
provided under Section 2 of OOSBM-2014046, the BI should have refused to accept
the turn-over of the accused.
24. Second, under OOSBM-2014-046, prior to the
issuance of a Commitment Order, proper
execution of the Mission Order, submission of a
Post Mission Report and the endorsement to the
Civil Service Unit should have been followed. In
the present case, the subject Commitment
Order was issued without any Mission Order
and without Officers from the BI serving the
same before this Honorable Court or at the
Police Station during the turn-over the
custody of the accused.
25. Third, during the said turn over, the
undersigned personally accompanied the accused
before the Bureau of Immigration Detention Center
at Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City and
served a copy of the Release Order from the
Honorable Court informing the Warden that an
Order of Release was already issued for the
8

temporary release of the accused but the latter

together with other personnel from the said
facility refused to receive a copy of the
Order of Release and insisted that it should
have been served before the BI Central
Office.
26. Section 10 of OOSBM-2014-046 provides for
the duties of the Bureau of Immigration Wardens
Facility, to wit:
Section 10. Duties of the BIWF- Prior to
receiving custody of the arrested foreigners, the
Warden, or his duly authorized agent, shall register
the following entries in its official logbook:
a.
Complete names of all the BI personnel who
turned-over the foreigners;
b.
Personal
foreigners;

circumstances

of

the

arrested

c.
Copy of the Mission Order and Affidavit of
arrest;
d.

Original copy of the Commitment Order;

e.
Complete inventory of the foreigners
properties things and papers that will be turned
over to the Warden.
27. That the BIWF accepted and took over the
custody the accused despite knowledge of the
existence an Order of Release issued by the
Honorable Court and their refusal to recognize and
receive a copy of the same also constitutes a
violation and should constitute contempt of Court.
Furthermore, no proper accountability as to the
turn over of the accused was made since the
undersigned never received the entries as
mandated under Section 10. Mere copies, much
less Xerox copies of the faxed Commitment
Order together with the Charge Sheet was only
furnished.

28. Thus, based on the following, the continued

detention of the accused despite the existence of
an Order of Release constitutes a patent violation
of the accused constitutional right to bail and to be
temporarily released pending the resolution of the
case before the Honorable Court.
29. More importantly, the refusal of the herein
Police Officers to release the accused on
December 29, 2015 despite the existence of the
Order of Release is a deliberate disrespect of the
lawful orders of the Court and thus, they should be
cited for contempt.
30. That for expedient resolution of the issues
raised herein, early resolution of the instant
petition has become glaringly exigent.
31. That this petition is intended for for the
purposes alluded thereto.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is
most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the
instant petition be granted and DIRECT the Station
Commander of QCPD Station 10 PSUPT. Pedro T. Sanchez
including Police Officers SPO3 Jorge Villanueva, PO2
Juvencio Battung, PO1 Leonard Valiente and PO1 Jimbeam
Fernandez who turned over the custody of the accused
before the Bureau of Immigration Detention Center Camp
Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City to SHOW CAUSE why
they should not be cited for contempt and thereafter if
evidence warrants, to declare them GUILTY OF CONTEMPT
of Court.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed
under the premises.
Quezon City, Philippines this 5th day of January 2016
Respectfully submitted.
ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO
Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 64701 4/29/15
IBP No. 1006546
MCLE Exempt
10

Lot 4 Blk 4 Crestwood

Subdivision,
Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo, Rizal
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Honorable Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court Branch 78
ALESSANDRO D. JURADO
Assistant City Prosecutor
Department of Justice
Quezon City
PSUPT. PEDRO T. SANCHEZ
Station Commander
Quezon City Police District
Police Station 10
EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City
ARVIN CESAR G. SANTOS
Chief, Legal Division
Bureau of Immigration
Magallanes Drive, Intramuros
1002 Manila
Greetings!
Please take notice that on ________________ at 8:30
oclock in the morning, undersigned counsel will submit the
foregoing Petition to the Honorable Court for its
consideration and approval. Accordingly, the Branch Clerk of
Court is respectfully requested to include said motion in the
calendar of the Court for that day. Thank you.
ATTY. JAIRUS B. RUBIO
Counsel for the Accused

Copy furnished with explanation

ALESSANDRO D. JURADO
Assistant City Prosecutor
11

Department of Justice
Quezon City
PSUPT. PEDRO T. SANCHEZ
Station Commander
Quezon City Police District
Police Station 10
EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City
ARVIN CESAR G. SANTOS
Chief, Legal Division
Bureau of Immigration
Magallanes Drive, Intramuros
1002 Manila
Your Honor, copy of this Petition is sent to the other party
through registered mail due to distance and lack of
personnel to effect personal service. Thank you.
ATTY.

JAIRUS

B.

RUBIO
Counsel for
the Accused

12