Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
City of Manila
Branch ###

Republic of the Philippines

Plaintiff, CRIM CASE NO. ###########
FOR: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
-versus-

ANDREW ANG and BOB TAN

Accused.
x-----------------------------------------/

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

Accused, ANDREW ANG and BOB TAN, through the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most submit their
Memorandum pursuant to the Order of the Honorable Court.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 17, 2020, the accused herein were arrested by the

members of the Homicide Investigation Section of the Manila Police
District pursuant to the complaint of Charlie SY for Frustrated
Homicide as penalized under Article 249 in relation to Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code which served as the basis for the Information
filed before this Honorable Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In order that this Honorable Court may be enlightened and

guided in the judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited
hereunder, are the material, relevant and pertinent facts of the case,
to wit:

1. As presented by the Prosecution, Charlie Sy claimed that on

February 14, 2020, he and his friend (never identified in the course of
the proceeding) were drinking in front of his house in Manila when
they were allegedly approached by the herein accused.

2. Charlie Sy narrated that Andrew Ang asked him if he was

implicating the latter with his rift with Bob Tan. Accordingly, Charlie
responded in the negative explaining that his issues with Bob had
been amicably settled.
 3. He stated further that Bob Tan then drew a gun from his
waist and handed it over to Andrew Tan who then shot and hit him
once. He added that the duo immediately left while he was brought to
the hospital for treatment.

4. After 3 days, Andrew Ang and Bob Tan were arrested

without a warrant by the personnel of the Homicide Investigation
Section of the Manila Police District while they were hanging out in
the alley. They were later on subjected to medical examination at
Manila City Hospital, booked at the MPD for Frustrated Homicide and
were brought at the Prosecutor’s Office for Inquest Proceedings.
Information for Frustrated homicide was later filed before this
Honorable Court and he commitment order was issued.

ISSUES

First, Legality of the warrantless arrest effected by MPD Personnel

Second, Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused

DISCUSSION

On the First Issue

5. The right of liberty and the right against unreasonable search

and seizure are guaranteed by no less than the ultimate law of the
law, the 1987 Constitution. Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution
provides that the right of the people to be secure 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 complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized. The exceptions
when an arrest may be made even without a warrant are provided in
Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court which reads:
xxx
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he

has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it;
 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
xxx

6. It is clear that the instant case did not fall under letters a and
c of the above cited rule and that the prosecution considered the
arrest to be a valid hot pursuit under letter b. Such proposition is
misplaced.

7. In the case of Posadas vs Ombudsman, it was held that the

intended warrantless arrest by the NBI to Francis Carlo Taparan and
Raymundo Narag, officers/members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity,
as suspects in the killing of Venturina, member of the Sigma Rho
Fraternity 4 days after the incident was invalid.

8. In the case of People v. del Rosario, the Court held that the
requirement that an offense has just been committed means that
there must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the
offense was committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an
appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of
the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. The Court held that
the arrest of del Rosario did not comply with these requirements
because he was arrested only a day after the commission of the
crime and not immediately thereafter. Additionally, the arresting
officers were not present and were not actual eyewitnesses to the
crime. Hence, they had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested had committed the offense. They became
aware of del Rosario's identity as the driver of the getaway tricycle
only during the custodial investigation.

9. In the case of People v. Cendana, the accused was arrested

one (1) day after the killing of the victim and only on the basis of
information obtained from unnamed sources. The unlawful arrest was
held invalid.

10. Clearly, the arrest of the herein accused by the personnel

of Homicide Section of the MPD 3 days after the incident without a
warrant of arrest does not satisfy the substantive and procedural
requirements. The police do not have personnel knowledge of the
facts and circumstances when Charlie was allegedly shot by the
accused. There was also an appreciable lapse of time between the
arrest and the commission of the crime.
 On the Second Issue

11. To be guilty of frustrated homicide, Article 6 in relation to

Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the killing of a
person, not being parricide nor murder, as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator. The guilt must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

12. During the presentation of the prosecution’s case, no

testimonial evidence was presented other than that of Charlie Sy
himself. Not even the supposed friend of Charlie whom he claimed to
be with him drinking in front of his house during the incident was
presented. Charlie Sy’s uncorroborated testimony identifying the
herein accused as the culprit would not suffice to justify a conviction.
His testimony claiming that the rift between him and Bob had been
settled is inconsistent with his declaration that Bob himself drew the
gun and handed over to Andrew who later on shot him.

13. Finally, who in their right mind would shot a person,

leaving him alive and after just 3 days hang around in the same
locality as if nothing had happened? Should they not expect the law
to takes it course and cause their arrest if indeed they are indeed the
culprit of the crime.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered
ACQUITTING the accused Andrew Ang and Bob Tan of the crime of
Frustrated Homicide for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

MANILA CITY, PHILIPPINES, this 21st of May 2020.

CAESAR IAN CORDERO BINUCAL

IBP No. #### /01-01-202#
PTR No. #### /01-01-202#
Roll No. #### / MCLE Compliance No. #####

Cc:
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR (Personal Service)
Manila City