REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 55
HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
-oo0oo-

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 20-4531 TO 20-4533-MB

Complainant,

-versus- For:

HERME JUN ABALAJON y Gayoba Violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of RA 9165

x------------------------x

MOTION FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

AND/OR MOTION FOR REINVESTATION

ACCUSED JOEBEL SIAOTONG y Saquilon, by undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court,
most respectfully moves for the re-determination of probable cause and/or motion for reinvestigation
based on the following ground:

The inquest prosecutor failed to appreciate the fact that the affidavits of the apprehending witnesses
and their other supporting documentary evidence attached to the criminal complaint warrants no probable
cause. Records show that the affidavits as well as the other evidence failed to meet the requirements laid
down in drug cases. To highlight, hereto detailed below are the inconsistencies and non-compliance made
by the authorities, viz:

1. The pre-operational report to the PDEA disclosed, that according to the poseur-buyer PAT
Gimotea in this case they will utilize/use their trusted asset in the conduct of the alleged buy-
bust. It turned out however based on the affidavits submitted that the said trusted asset was not
utilized in the proceedings.

2. It is improbable to believe that the authorities failed to coordinate or even verified the
occupancy of their target personalities in the pension house knowing that the same is owned
by the Municipality of Binalbagan. The fact that it was a pension house with security personnel
on duty and other hotel guests/or occupants, it should have been taken into consideration but
the same was not even detailed in the affidavits.

3. The affidavits of the poseur-buyer and the arresting officers framed a “TOO GENERALIZED”
narration of facts that failed to adhere to the rigorous requirement of strict compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended and other applicable jurisprudence on drug cases. First the
affidavits did not even detailed how and where they have actually found the other seized items
aside from the buy-bust drug and marked money. What was stated was the fact that a search
incidental to a lawful arrest on the persons of the accused and that the other items was
recovered from their “constructive possession.” An indication that indeed none/nothing was
 found in the persons of the accused but the items were found inside the room. But the exact
location and how they were recovered was not detailed. This creates doubt as to the fact that
there were really items inside the room. Second, no presence of the representative from the
National Prosecution Service. It was not even indication nor properly detailed why there was
no representative. What was merely stated is the fact that they were requested but no
representative was available. There was no indication that the authorities exerted efforts to
have the presence of any representative from said office. Furthermore, no narration what so
ever as to how they maintained the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items seized
despite the fact that no NPS representative was present. Third, the manner of the markings, the
inventory and the photograph were not even disclosed in the affidavits. Worthy to mention is
the fact that, the photograph of the items seized does not clearly indicate the markings made
by the authority who conducted the inventory. Not even a photo of the actual inventory
showing that the inventory was made in the presence of the accused and the witnesses required
by the law was presented. What was shown was merely a photograph of a lady signing a
document. Furthermore, the Inventory Sheet for Jorame Ferrer y Fuentes alias “Ber-Ber”
shows that an item (buy-bust money with a marking “HA-BB” that was in the possession of
Herme Jun Abalajon alias “James” was included. Finally, the custody of the items seized
especially the alleged dangerous drugs, from the time the inventory happened was not
indicated. It was not disclosed who was in possession of the after the inventory, during the
time that they were in transit going to the police station, at the police station and up to the
delivery of the same in NOPPO. These circumstances once again create doubt as to the sanctity
of the alleged buy-bust.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully of this Honorable Court, that a re-determination of probable

cause and/or a reinvestigation be made based on the following grounds above-mentioned.

Accused further prays for such other reliefs and remedies which maybe proper and equitable in the
premises.
Hinigaran for Himamaylan City. January 17, 2020.

ROMYLEN A. GERMINAL
Counsel for Accused Joebel Siaotong y Saquilon
IBP No. 108735 1-9-2020 – Pasig City
PTR No. 1916378 1-3-2020 – Hinigaran
MCLE No. VI – 0002265 untl 4-14-2022
Roll of Attorney No. 60634
Brgy. Tagda, Hinigaran, Neg. Occ
eresromylen@gmail.com
09091393899
The Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 55
Himamaylan City

Greetings!

Please set the forgoing motion for reconsideration of this Honorable Court on January 30, 2020 at
8:30 A.M., or soon thereafter as counsel maybe heard.

ROMYLEN A. GERMINAL

EXPLANATION

The filing in court and the service to the Office of the Provincial City of the motion by personal
service was resorted to because of the practicability to effect the same.

ROMYLEN A. GERMINAL

Copy furnished:

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

Hall of Justice
Himamaylan City