Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
Pasay City
MICHELLE PABLO,
Complainant,
- versus

NPS Docket No.: NC-6172

For: Murder (Under Art. 248
No. 5 of the Revised Penal
Code)

GENALD VALONES,
Respondent,
x--------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The respondent, GERALD VALONES was charged of MURDER in
a complaint filed by MICHELLE PABLO.
In support of her complaint, the herein complainant attached the
following documents:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

Complaint-Affidavit by Michelle Pablo;

Affidavit of Cherrylyn Caliwan;
Affidavit of Arjay Puyot;
Death Certificate of Ryan Ng;
Autopsy Report of Ryan Ng;
Anatomical Sketch of Ryan Ng;
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Complainant herein, MICHELLE PABLO, alleges that on August

24, 2016, she attended a district meeting of Bristol-Myers Squibb (Phil.),
Inc./Mead Johnson territory managers at Jollibee Pasay Rotonda Branch.
That after the meeting, at around 5:00 pm, she along with a few friends, and
her boyfriend, RYAN NG, left the area to have dinner at SM Mall of Asia.
Thereafter they returned to Jollibee Pasay Rotonda Branch and there she saw
the car of her ex-boyfriend GENALD VALONES parked beside her car.
That when she saw her ex-boyfriends car, she asked her boyfriend to
continue driving and just retrieve her car later so as not to run into

VALONES. That when they passed by the fast food chain, VALONES
noticed and followed them before eventually slamming her boyfriends car
twice. That due to the collision, NG, PABLO and VALONES all alighted
from the vehicles they were in. That NG went to VALONES to confront him
but VALONES pulled out a gun, shot NG twice while muttering hayop ka
patay ka na ngayon.. That one shot hit NGs head while the other hit his
left side right under his collarbone. That NG was brought to the Philippine
General Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.
In the affidavit of witness CHERRYLYN CALIWAN, she stated that
she was at the time of the alleged incident, in the car of the victim, RYAN
NG, and that she personally witnessed that GENALD VALONES shot the
victim twice; That after shooting NG, VALONES drove away and she and
PABLO brought NG to the Philippine General Hospital where NG was
pronounced dead on arrival.
Meanwhile, in the affidavit of the then security guard on duty,
ARJAY PUYOT, he stated that VALONES never left the car contrary to
what he claimed that he went to Jollibee Pasay Rotonda to get dinner.
As for the respondent, GENALD VALONES claims that during that
fateful day of August 24, 2016, although he was at Jollibee Pasay Rotonda,
the events that transpired following the incident was because of self defense
and that the gun shots sustained by RYAN NG was due to the struggle that
ensued in herein respondents aim to defend himself.
FINDINGS
In light of the documents and pieces of evidence submitted to this
Honorable Court, there is reasonable ground to believe that herein
respondent, GENALD VALONES, probably committed the crime of
Murder as penalized by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code in killing
RYAN NG.
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended specifically states:
Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
XXX
5. With evident premeditation.
XXX
Accordingly, the crime of Murder has the following elements:

1. That a person was killed.

2. That the accused killed him.
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The facts of the case before us fall squarely under the crime of Murder.
The killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation as shown by the actuations of GENALD VALONES. The
essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment.1 For evident premeditation to be considered, the following must
be established: (1) the time when the accused determined (conceived) to
commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his
determination to commit the crime (kill his victim); and (3) a sufficient lapse
of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof
to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act.2
VALONES was conveniently at the time in the area where
MICHELLEs Car was parked. Nevertheless, he merely parked in the area
but never left his car and upon seeing the Black Montero owned by NG
followed it. He also had in his possession a gun which he drew when he got
close to NG after hitting NGs car which caused the latter to alight from his
vehicle. VALONES also wilfully and without hesitation shot the victim
RYAN NG. Two shots were fired, one hitting NGs collarbone and other
hitting his head, the latter proving fatal as it eventually caused NGs demise.
VALONES admitted to killing NG but claims that he did so in
defense of himself. However, it is basic that once an accused in a
prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal
injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear,
satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance that would
avoid his criminal liability.3 In order for self-defense to be appreciated, he
had to prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself.4
1 People vs. Ventura, G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004, 433
2 People v. Herida, G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 201, 353 SCRA 650.
3 Cabuslay v. People, G.R. No. 129875, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 241, 256-257.
4 Article 11 (1), Revised Penal Code.

VALONES failed to persuade the Investigating Prosecutor that the

killing was indeed done in self-defense. There are conflicting contentions for
both parties as who was the aggressor.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
recommended that an Information for the crime of Murder as penalized
under the Revised Penal Code be issued by this Honorable Office against
respondent GENALD VALONES.
Pasay City, Philippines. August 25, 2016.
Kathleen C. Galano
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

APPROVED BY:

Fergie Arnaldo
CITY PROSECUTOR
Copy Furnished:

Michelle Pablo
Unit 18G, 18th floor, The Columns Tower I,
6821 Ayala Avenue, Brgy. Bel Air, Makati
Genald Valones
2105 Viverde Tower Pasay City