Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

9TH Judicial Region
BRANCH 20
Pagadian City
--oOo--

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 12176 – 2K15

Plaintiff,

-versus- - For –

PO1 GUILBERT MANO GRAVE COERCION, etc.

TUASTOMBAN,
Accused.
x----------------------------------x

MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION

AND/OR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
COMES NOW the accused, assisted by the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully avers;

1. That the accused was arrested on July 7, 2015; an Inquest Resolution was
then issued charging the accused of Grave Coercion in relation to Sections 28 and 29
of R.A. 10951 and which was then filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 20
Pagadian City;

2. The accused was never able to file his Counter–Affidavit during all of these
instances as he was never assisted by counsel from the time he was arrested and until
such time that he was able to post bail for his temporary liberty;

3. While Section 3, paragraph ( c ) and ( d ) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure provides;

“Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the
complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the
respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his
witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his
defense.”
-and -

“If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed,

does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day
period, the investigating office shall resolve the complaint based
on the evidence presented by the complainant.”

4. The Supreme has repeated time and again that;

“Let it be emphasized that the rules of

procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed
to facilitate the att ainment of justi ce . Their strict and
rigid applicati on, which would result in technicaliti es
that tend to frustrate rather than promote substanti al
justi ce, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of
Court refl ect this principle. The power to suspend or
 even disregard rules can be so per vasive and
compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself
has already declared to be fi nal, as we are now
constrained to do in the instant case.” ( Ginete v. Court
of Appeals, 357 Phil. 36 (1998)).

5. Also, in Fiel v. Kris Security Systems, Inc., 448 Phil.657,

662 (2003), the Supreme Court held that;

“Once again, we must stress that the technical rules of procedure should
be used to promote, not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swif
unclogging of court dockets is a laudable aim, the just resolution of cases
on their merits, however, cannot be sacrificed merely in order to achieve
that objective. Rules of procedure are tools designed not to thwart but
to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict and rigid
application may, for good and deserving reasons, have to give way to,
and be subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense substantial justice
in the normal course.”

6. Had the accused been able to file his Counter Affidavit, the said accused
would have been able to defend himself and the crime charged would not have been
GRAVE COERCION aggravated by Sections 28 and 29 of R.A. 10951;

7. Sections 28 and 29 of R.A. 10951 presupposes a situation wherein the culprit,

in the commission of a crime, uses or utilizes a loose firearm;

8. Section 3 of Article I of R.A. 10591 defines “loose firearm” as “an

unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, firearm which
has been lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered
firearms in the possession of an individual other than the licensee and
those with revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and
regulations;”

9. The accused is a Police Officer assigned at the Autonomous Region in Muslim

Mindanao (see Annex 1). The gun confiscated from him was issued by the Philippine
National Police (Annexes 2 and 3);

10. It is therefore clear that the confiscated firearm the accused allegedly drew
from his left waist, is not “loose” as defined by R.A. 10951;

11. Consequently, assuming for the sake of argument, that the accused really did
commit the crime of Grave Coercion, the same should not be aggravated by Sections
28 and 29 of R.A. 10951. As was previously stated earlier, the said firearm was issued
by the Philippine National Police (PNP) to the accused;

12. Based on the foregoing, the accused believes that if he will be given an
opportunity to answer the charges, the case filed against him could be different;

13. Thus, the accused most respectfully prays that a reinvestigation/preliminary

investigation of the instant case be conducted before the Office of the City
Prosecutor;

14. This motion is not intended for delay but solely for the above-mentioned
grounds.
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the interest of substantial
justice it is humbly prayed that the instant Motion be granted and the records of the
instant case be remanded to the Office of the City Prosecutor for reinvestigation and
or the conduct of Preliminary Investigation.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted, October 15, 2015, City of Pagadian.

ATTY. FELIX M. ESCALANTE, JR.

Counsel for Accused
Provincial Capitol Complex
Pagadian City
Attorney’s Roll No. 57655
IBP No. 963359 1/06/2015
Issued at Pagadian City
PTR No. 8536180, 1/7/15
Issued at Pagadian City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0014312
Issued on March 21, 2013
MCLE Compliance V (on process)
Email ad: pgochief@yahoo.com
0917-623-0775

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court, Branch 20
Pagadian City

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing motion for the kind consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court upon receipt hereof and schedule the
same for hearing on October 26, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.

ATTY. FELIX M. ESCALANTE, JR.

Copy furnished by personal service:

PROS. CLETO EDRALIN

Office of the City Prosecutor
Pagadian City