REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 221 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ~ versus - Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148 to 72 Q-09-162216 to 31 Q-10-162652 to 66 Q-10-163766 ANDAL AMPATUAN, JR., Accused. MOTION TO QUASH FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Erroneously detained DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO (‘Movant Salibo"), respectfully files the present Motion to Quash based upon the following: Grounds I MOVANT DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO IS NOT ACCUSED BUTUKAN S$. MALANG OR THE LATTER'S ALIAS. DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO WENT TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR A PILGRIMAGE FROM NOVEMBER 7, 2009 UP TO DECEMBER 20, 2009. HENCE, DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO COULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE WHICH HAPPENED ON NOVEMBER 23, 2009 DUE TO LEGAL, PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL IMPOSSIBILITIES.THERE IS TOTALLY NO BASIS TO ADD OR PUT AN “A.K.A DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO” TO THE NAME OF ACCUSED BUTUKAN S. MALANG (IN THE RETURN OF THE WARRANT AND IN THE COMMITMENT ORDER) IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE NAME DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO IS THE ALIAS OF ACCUSED BUTUKAN S. MALANG. Vv MOTION TO QUASH IS THE PROPER REMEDY WHEN THE PERSON NAMED IN THE INFORMATION IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON FROM THE ONE WHO HAD BEEN MISTAKENLY DETAINED, AS IN THE CASE OF MOVANT DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO. Discussion (i) | Movant Datukan Malang Salibo is not Accused Butukan S. Malang or the latter's alias. 4. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice indicted a person named “Butukan S. Malang” who is listed as Accused No. 77 in the Amended DOJ Resolution dated February 5, 2010. 2, The Alias Warrant of Arrest in these cases dated April 21, 2010 also lists an Accused by the name of “BUTUKAN S. MALANG.” 3. The Amended Information in these cases dated February 22, 2010 also lists as Accused No. 177, the name of a certain “BUTUKAN S. MALANG ~ Datu Saudi Maquindanao. 4. The Movant in this case, Datukan Malang Salibo, however, is not Accused Butukan S. Malang. Datukan Malang Salibo is not an alias or an a.k.a of Accused Butukan S. Malang. Neither is the real name of Accused Butukan S. Malang the alias or a.k.a. of the Movant in this case, whose real name is Datukan Malang Salibo.evidence, either affidavit or otherwise from any police or individual showing that Movant Datukan Malang Salibo and Accused Butukan S. Malang are one (1) and the same person. Hence, there is totally no basis for the police to treat and detain Datukan Malang Salibo on the baseless assumption that he is Accused Butukan S. Malang. 6. To set the records straight, herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo was not arrested by the police. On the contrary, Movant Datukan Malang Salibo boldly went to the Datu Hofer Police station and presented himself to the police on August 3, 2010 to clear his name. 7. At the Datu Hofer Police Station, Movant Datukan Malang Salibo presented his Passport, BIR 1D, NBI Clearance, Saudi Arabian Airlines Tickets showing the details of his flight to Saudi Arabia and back to the Philippines, his Pictures while in Saudi Arabia and his |.D. from the Office of the Muslim Affairs, among his other public and private documents. These un-rebutted evidence and Datukan Malang Salibo's Certifications from the Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Bureau of Immigration, clearly show, that Datukan Malang Salibo (who went on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia together with other Filipino pilgrims and stayed in Saudi Arabia from November 7, 2009 up to December 20, 2009 is not Accused Butukan S. Malang who (latter) supposedly participated in the Maguindanao Massacre cases on November 23, 2009) (Nota Bene: Copies of the: Saudi Arabian Airlines Certification; airline ticket; Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration; Certification from Barangay Chairwoman BAl NADIA U ABDULKARIM; and Pilgrim Salibo's: ID issued by the Office of Muslim Affairs; Employment 1D; Community Tax Certificate; BIR ID; NBI Clearance and Passport mentioned above were attached as Annexes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, etc., to Datukan Malang Salibo’s Motion to Quash the Retum of the Warrant and Commitment Order dated May 9, 2011). 8 Due to legal, physical and spiritual impossibilities, therefore, Datukan Malang Salibo should not be treated as Accused Butukan S. Malang who supposedly participated in the Maguindanao Massacre on November 23, Pee eee eee eee eee ea ata9. More importantly, there is no: Complaint-Affidavit; Affidavit of any witness; or any other evidence for that matter, showing that-herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo and Accused Butukan S. Malang is one (1) and the same person. Neither is there any: Complaint-Affidavit; Affidavit of any witness; or any other evidence for that matter, showing that that the alias of Accused Butukan S, Malang is Datukan Malang Salibo and vice-versa. Such being the case, it was highly irregular for the police to have appended an a.k.a. Datukan Malang Salibo to the name of the Accused “Butukan S, Malang” in the Return of the Warrant for want of legal and factual bases. 10. _ This finds more significance especially so that the Joint Resolution of the DOJ which was issued in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre cases and the Affidavits of witnesses upon which said DOJ Resolution was based, do not even mention the name of the pilgrim, herein Movant “Datukan Malang Salibo” as one (1) of the perpetrators of said heinous crimes. Thus, the warrantless arrest effected against the pilgrim Datukan Malang Salibo and his subsequent detention from August 3, 2010 up to the present without any formal and proper charges is clearly illegal. 11. This was aptly discussed by the Regional Trial Court of Taguig City, Branch 153 which conducted a hearing and decided Datukan Malang Salibo's Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to the directive of the Honorable Court of Appeals in its Decision dated October 29, 2010 (Please see, Annex 2, Salibo’s Motion to Quash Return of the Warrant, etc.), in the following wise: “Evidence established during the hearing show that Petitioner (Datukan Malang Salibo) was not judicially charged. The Joint DOJ Resolution, Information and Amended Information in the criminal cases pending before RTC Branch 221 of Quezon City in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre do not contain the name DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO. Neither does the Warrant of Arrest and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued thereafter. On the other hand, a certain person by the name of BUTUKAN S. MALANG — Datu Saudi, Maguindanao, is listed as one of the accused, No. 177, in the Amended Information. He was also the(Emphasis supplied) 12, More importantly, Datukan Malang Salibo has no pending criminal cases before any court or tribunal. Hence, there is no legal or factual basis for his continued incarceration since then up to the present. This was aptly observed by the RTC of Taguig in its October 29, 2010 Decision, when it held that the name of the Accused as appearing in the Amended Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre cases, is “Butukan S. Malang” (at p. 5) and not the pilgrim, herein Movant “Datukan Malang Salibo”. Res ipsa Loquitor. 43. As borne by the evidence on record, the true name of the Pilgrim Movant in this case who is an entirely different person from Accused Butukan S. Malang, is “Datukan Malang Salibo.” [Cf Salibo's Passport, ID with the BIR, NBI Clearance, Flight Manifest from the Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Certification from the Bureau of Immigration, among Salibo’s other documents which he attached to his Motion to Quash Return of the Warrant, ete]. Such being the case, the quashal of all orders and processes against Datukan Malang Salibo and his immediate release from illegal detention is warranted. 14, That Datukan Malang Salibo has not been duly charged and has no pending criminal cases with the RTC, MTC or the Office of the City Prosecutor since then to date cannot be denied. This is shown by the Certifications from the Office of the Clerks of Court of the RTC and MTC and by the Certification from the Office of the City Prosecutor which Datukan Malang Salibo attached to his Motion to Quash Return of the Warrant and Commitment Order (Cf. Annexes 15, 16 and 17 thereof). This is further supported by the Decision of the RTC of Taguig City dated October 29, 2010 (Annex 2, Salibo’s Motion to Quash Return of Warrant, etc.) which explicitly states that: “As shown by the NBI Clearance, Petitioner (Datukan Malang Salibo) was without criminal records as of the date of issue. The significance of the NBI Clearance cannot just be taken for granted in the resolution of the instant petition, as it shows Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not been charged with any crime, especially Pa eee Perr eee tee et15. record, Datukan Malang Salibo and the Accused Butukan S. Malang are two (2) different persons. The person indicted in the Amended Information of the DO4, duly charged in the Information and duly named in the Alias Warrant of Arrest is the Accused Butukan S. Malang. On the other hand, the person erroneously arrested and illegally detained is the pilgrim, herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo, who is neither Accused Butukan S. Malang nor the latter's alias. Inasmuch as the pilgrim, Movant Datukan Malang Salibo is not the Accused Butukan S. Malang, it cannot, therefore, be said that Datukan Malang Salibo had been duly charged in court (using the Information and Warrant of Arrest which the Honorable Court issued against an entirely different person, Accused As explained above and shown by the un-rebuttéd evidence on Butukan S. Malang) 16. a ai) 1) To set the records straight: Movant Datukan Malang Salibo was not arrested by the police; Movant Datukan Malang Salibo personally went to the Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao to clear his name where he presented his Government IDs, Passport, NBI Clearance, Saudi Arabian Tickets, and other documents showing that Datukan Malang Salibo (who went to Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage), is not the Accused Butukan S. Malang (who is another person wanted by the police in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre); Apart from the Two Hundred Thousand-Peso (P250,000.00) bounty for the airest of any Accused in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre, there was NO: — witness; Complaint-Affidavit; Affidavit of any witness; DOJ Resolution; Amended DOJ Resolution; — Information; ‘Amended Information; Warrant of Arrest; Alias Warrant of Arrest; or any other evidence which served as basis for the(iv) As there was and still NO: witness; Complaint-Affidavit; Affidavit of any witness; DOJ Resolution; Amended DOJ Resolution; Information; Amended Information; Warrant of Arrest; Alias Warrant of Arrest; or any other evidence to show that the pilgrim, Datukan Malang Salibo is the same as Accused Butukan S. Malang or that the supposed alias of Accused Butukan S, Malang is Datukan Malang Salibo and vice-versa, there is totally no basis, therefore, for herein Datukan Malang Salibo's illegal incarceration “pending trial of the cases filed against” the Accused Butukan S Malang 17. As shown by the un-rebutted evidence on record, Movant Datukan Malang Salibo could not have participated in the Maguindanao Massacre which happened on November 23, 2009 or long after Datukan Malang Salibo had gone to Saudi Arabia for his pilgrimage. Hence, all orders and other processes issued against Datukan Malang Salibo in connection with these cases should be quashed and Datukan Malang Salibo should be immediately released from illegal detention as law, justice and equity mandate (ii) Datukan Malang Salibo went to Saudi Arabia for a pilgrimage from November 7, 2009 Up To December 20, 2009. Hence, Datukan Malang Salibo could not have participated in the Maguindanao Massacre which happened on November 23, 2009 due to legal, physical and spiritual impossi 18, There is no question that illegally detained Datukan Malang Salibo joined other Filipinos for a pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia from November 7, 2009 to December 19, 2009. This is evidenced by the |.D. of Datukan Malang Salibo which was issued by the Office on Musiim Affairs showing that Pilgrim Datukan Malang Salibo is a delegate of the Philippines for “Hajj 2009” in Saudi Arabia ieee ee ee eee ae ee ea19. The Pilgrim, herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo stayed in ‘Saudi Arabia for the Hajj 2009 from November 7, 2009 until his return to the country on December 20, 2009. This undeniable fact is likewise shown by the Certification and Flight Manifest of the Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Certification from the Bureau of Immigration which Datukan Malang Salibo attached as Annexes 3 and 4 to his Motion to Quash Return of the Warrant ete. 20. The fact that the Pilgrim, herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo went out of the country on November 7, 2009 and returned to the country ‘only on December 20, 2009 is likewise shown by: (i) the confirmed ticket of Salibo with the Saudi Arabian Airlines under Ticket No. 06521131; (ii) Salibo’s Boarding Passes; (iii) Salibo’s passport and other related documents showing that Salibo belonged to Service Group Number (99) of the Phil Delegation who stayed in Saudi Arabia from November 7, 2009 until December 19, 2009 (Cf. Annexes 4, 11 and 12, Salibo’s Motion to Quash Return of the Warrant, etc.). pine 24. While in Saudi Arat Salibo, visited and prayed in the cities of Medina, Mecca, Arpa, Mina and Jeddah. This is shown by the pictures of Datukan Malang Salibo in Saudi Arabia which Salibo attached as Annexes 14 to 14-A to this Motion to Quash Return of the Warrant, etc. the Pilgrim, herein Movant Datukan Malang 22. As shown by the un-tebutted evidence on record, the Pilgrim, herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo could not have participated in the Maguindanao Massacre cases due to legal, moral, spiritual and physical impossibilities. Hence, law, justice and equity mandate that all orders and processes which were issued against Datukan Malang Salibo in connection with these cases should be quashed in due course. 23. To this end, the Honorable Court of Appeals through the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 153, promulgated an exhaustive Decision dated October 29, 2010 (Annex i 2, Salibo’s Motion To Quash Return of the Warrant, etc.) BCH eee ee eee eee ee eee“Petitioner Datukan Malang Salibo was not in the country when the Maguindanao Massacre took place on November 23, 2009. It was established from the evidence adduced during the hearing on October 1, 2010, that Petitioner was out of the country from November 7, 2009 to join other Filipinos for a pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. He stayed in Saudi Arabia until his return to the Philippines on December 20, 2009. Petitioner took the Saudi Airlines in going to ‘Saudi Arabia and back to the Philippines. The Saudi Arabian Airlines issued a Certification which reads: “This is to certify that passenger Datukan Malang Salibo departed on board flight SV869/07/Nov2009 JED-MNL as per attached copy of Manifest. ‘The Certification is being issued for the purpose of — confirming the arrivalideparture of the aforementioned passenger. Thank you.” ‘The Certification is supported with the Flight Manifest consisting of three (3) pages and the airline ticket itself. That Petitioner indeed left the Philippines on November 7, 2009 and returned ‘only on December 20, 2009 is likewise evident from the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration. The Barangay Chairwoman BAl NADIA U. ABDULKARIM of Barangay Kabingi, Datu Saudi Ampatuan, Maguindanao, also issued a Certification on August 6, 2010 certifying that DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO is of legal age, Filipino, married and a bona fide resident of Barangay Kabingi, was out of the country during the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre. Petitioner was also able to satisfactorily establish his personal identity through exhibits “—” — ID issued in his favor by the Office of Muslim Affairs; “E-1”- employment ID issued by the Municipality of Datu Saudi Uy Ampatuan, Maguindana “€-2” - his Community Tax Certificate; and “E-3” — his BIR ID. Other documents establishing his identity are NBI Clearance dated August 27, 2010 and Passport.cannot just be taken for granted in the resolution of the instant petition, as it shows Petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not been charged with any crime, especially that in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre. XXX XXX XXX The Maguindanao Massacre happened on November 23, 2009 and herein Petitioner, who was not even in the country at the time the massacre took place, could not have committed the crime in the presence of the police who were not even at the scene of the crime at that time too. Xxx 20% 2%x WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Urgent Petition for Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. The Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, BJMP Building, Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, is ordered to RELEASE immediately DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO from detention. SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis supplied) 24. Moreover, the Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Bureau of Immigration will not issue the aforesaid Certifications and Flight Manifest in connection with the highly publicized and gruesome Maguindanao Massacre unless they bear the truth (about the fact of departure from the Philippines of the pilgrim, herein Datukan Malang Salibo on November 7, 2009 and his date of arrival in the country only on December 20, 2009). Otherwise, the persons who issued said Certifications and Flight Manifest should be prosecuted for Perjury and condemned to the high heavens for making a mockery of our judicial system and the souls of innocent victims of the Maguindanao Massacre 25. In view of the foregoing considerations, the quashal of all orders and other processes which were issued against Movant Datukan Malang Salibo and his consequent release from illegal detention is in order.(ii) Thore is totally no basis to add or put an “aka Datukan Malang Salibo” to the name of Accused Butukan S. Malang (in the Return of the Warrant and in the Commitment Order) in view of the absence of any evidence showing that Datukan Malang Salibo is the alias of Accused Butukan S. Malang and vice-versa. 26. As shown by the records, Movant ‘DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO” is not the “BUTUKAN S. MALANG” who is the Accused in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre and who (Malang) is the person named in the DOv's Joint Resolution and in the Honorable Court's Amended Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest. This is the reason why herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo boldly went to the Datu Hofer Police Station on August 3, 2010 to clear his name relative to any crime. 27. While at Datu Hofer Police Station, Movant Datukan Malang Salibo presented his NBI Clearance, his ID with the BIR, his Passport, his Flight Manifest, Plane Tickets, Pictures, ID from the Office of the Muslim Affairs for his Hajj 2009, among other documents, showing that Datukan Malang Salibo's name is ‘Datukan Malang Salibo” and that Datukan Malang Salibo is not the Accused “Butukan S, Malang” whom the police are trying to apprehend in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre cases 28. Despite this, however, and probably because of the Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00) bounty for the incarceration of every person suspected to have been involved in the Maguindanao Massacre, the innocent Datukan Malang Salibo was surprisingly detained and suddenly re-baptized by the police as Butukan S. Malang “a.k.a. Datukan Malang Salibo" in their void Return of the Warrant, : 29. Unfortunately, this null Return of Warrant by the Police and their highly irregular procedure of arresting an innocent person became the basis of the equally null Commitment Order which the Honorable Court was misled into issuing against Datukan Malang Salibo. And this happened even if there is not a29. The Return of the Warrant by the police which illegally added some alias not found in any evidence, document or any Affidavit of any witness (or in the Amended Information or in the Warrant of Arrest) should be struck down as void. The same holds true in respect of the null Commitment Order of the Honorable Court which, with all due respect, merely copied the erroneous and misleading name and alias in the void Return of the Warrant which the police baselessly inserted. These downright illegal and null processes of committing innocent individuals to prison without any basis at all and without them being particularly identified by witnesses, send a very chilling effect to the citizens of this Republic. 30. This finds more significance especially so that the Joint Resolution of the DOJ, the Amended Information and the Alias Warrant of Arrest of the court all point to an Accused named Butukan S. Malang and not to a person named Datukan Malang Salibo who (latter) was out of the country when the Maguindanao Massacre happened on November 23, 2009. 31. If this happened to Datukan Malang Salibo who is evidently not the Accused Butukan S. Malang named in the Amended Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest, what would prevent the police from arresting any Tom, Dick and Harry even if they are not the persons named in the Information and Warrant of Arrest and once under detention already, intimidate them to confess that their real names aro the supposed aliases of “Butukan S. Malang”? This is a very dangerous precedent which should be immediately stopped by this Honorable Court. Otherwise, it will give the police, powers roving commission, not canalized within banks to prevent them from overflowing. 32, As shown by the un-rebutted evidence above, Datukan Malang Salibo is not the Accused Butukan S. Malang who (latter is named in the Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest). Neither is Datukan Malang Salibo the alias of the Accused Butukan S. Malang. Hence, the Return of the Warrant, Commitment Order and other subsequent orders or processes issued i the Honorable Court against Movant Datukan Malang Salibo in connectionauthority given it by the Honorable Court of Appeals) (Annex 2, Salibo’s Motion to Quash Return of Warrant, ete.,), which ineluctably states, that: “The correct identity of the person of the accused or any person in criminal cases is very vital. Judges are called upon and mandated strictly to see to it that the datafentries in the Return of the Warrant are consistent with the description of the person named as accused in the DOJ Resolution, Information and Amended Information with the aim in view that no person be just arrested or incarcerated for whimsical reason. 200K XXX x0 Petitioner, through counsel, argued during the hearing that he, not being charged and mentioned in the DOJ Joint Resolution, Information and Amended Information and even in the Warrant of Arrest and Alias Warrant of Arrest, in addition to the fact that he, Datukan Malang Salibo and Butukan S, Malang is the alias of Butukan S, Malang, what then could be the basis of Judge Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes in issuing the Commitment Order against him in Criminal Case Nos. Q-09-162148-72, Q-09-16221631 and Q-10- 1462652-66? That was the highlight, if not the defining moment for the lawyers of the public respondent to explain to the satisfaction of the Court, to the correctness of the court action. ‘The Court is saddened that, except for invoking Section 4, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court, no such valid and convincing justification was made by the lawyers of the public respondent. As cited earlier, the intrinsic right of the State to prosecute and detain perceived transgressors of the law must be balanced with its duty to protect the innate value of the individual liberty. Such degree or standard required is unavailing in the instant case.” (Emphasis supplied) 33, With all due respect, the Honorable Court should not allow itself to be bound by what the police recommends, states or misstates in the Return of the Warrant as regards the supposed identity or alias of the Accused vis-2-vis, in. datained On the other hand. the Honorabledetaining a person not named in the Information or Warrant of Arrest and/or what is their basis in inserting an alias to the name of the Accused. 34. Otherwise, the police can easily pick up just anyone at their whims and caprices even in the absence of any evidence or affidavit of any witness which would verify the real identify of the arrested person. Should this be allowed unchecked, what would prevent the police from putting in the Return of the Warrant that the name of the person whom they illegally arrested without warrant, is the supposed alias of Accused Butukan S. Malang? Thus, any name can be the alias of Accused Butukan S. Malang. And this can be easily done by the police through the simple expedient of affixing an alias to the name of an entirely different person even when he is not the Accused named in the Information or Warrant of Arrest. This practice is very dangerous and must be abhorred in due course. 36. More than anything else, the Honorable Court should see to it that the entries made by the police in the Return of the Warrant are consistent with the description and identity of the Accused as provided for in the Complaint-Affidavit, Affidavit of Witnesses, Information and Warrant of Arrest. Otherwise stated, the Honorable Court should ask the police to present evidence, witnesses or affidavits and/or justify why the police suddenly added or inserted some alias in the name of the Accused in the Warrant of Arrest or Information even when such has not been supported by any Complaint-Affidavit, Affidavit of any witness, DOJ Resolution or any other evidence for that matter. 36. Prudence dictates that the police should not deduct anything or add anything to the name or descriptio personae of the Accused in the Information or Warrant without proper authority from the Honorable Court, Othenwise, it would be the police already and not the Honorable Court anymore who would determine the existence of probable cause. With this unorthodox practice of placing the cart before the horse, the police could arbitrarily determine who to arrest or not to arrest depending on the supposed alias which the police want to associate to any person whom they want to detain (including the pilgrims and the innocent, just Ike what happened to Movant Datukan Malang Salibo). This37. As held by the Supreme Court in Posadas et al., vs. The Honorable Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000: “To allow the arrest which the NBI intended to make without warrant would in effect allow them to supplant the courts. The determination of the existence of probable cause that the persons to be arrested committed the crime was for the judge to make. The law authorizes a police officer or even an ordinary citizen to arrest criminal offenders only if the latter are committing or just have committed a crime. Otherwise, we cannot leave to the police officers the determination of whom to apprehend if we are to protect our civil liberties, This is evident from a consideration of the requirements before a judge can order the arrest of suspects under Article Ill, Section 2 of the Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) 38. In this case, the police placed Datukan Malang Salibo in illegal custody, intimidated and interrogated him no end until such time that the supposed alias of Accused “Butukan S. Malang” became the Pilgrim-Movant's name, “Datukan Malang Salibo.” This happened even when Datukan Malang Salibo merely went to the Datu Hofer Police Station to clear his name of any crime. This happened even when Datukan Malang Salibo disclosed his real identity by presenting his Passport, NBI Clearance, ID with the BIR, Flight Ticket, Boarding Passes and other documents with the police showing that he is not the Accused Butukan S. Malang whom the police are looking for in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre. Worst, this happened even when Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia from November 7, 2009 until December 20, 2009 and was, therefore, out of the country when the Maguindanao Massacre happened on November 23, 2009. 39. Just the same, the police whimsically affixed some supposed alias (a.k.a. Datukan Malang Salibo) to the name of Accused Butukan S. Malang in their Return of the Warrant even if said “a.k.a, Datukan Malang Salibo” was not found or was not based in any: Complaint-Affidavit; Affidavit of any Witness; DOJ Resolution; Information or Warrant of Arrest or any other evidence for thatproduct of imagination, interrogation and hunger for the Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Peso (P250,000.00) bounty (multiplied by 197 accused) by some enterprising individuals. 40. As the Return of the Warrant by the police which whimsically added an alias (a.k.a. Datukan Malang Salibo) is baseless and void, it necessarily follows that the Commitment Order [which was subsequently issued by the Honorable Court on the basis of the null Return of the Warrant and without the Honorable Court first making any independent assessment and finding as regards the real identity of the innocent person arrested], and all other orders or processes issued thereafter, are also void. This is so because, just like the Return of the Warrant of the Police, there is. also: NO Complaint-Affidavit; NO Affidavit of any person; NO DOJ Resolution; NO Amended DOJ Resolution; NO Information; NO Amended Information; NO Warrant of Arrest; NO Alias Warrant of Arrest; or Other Evidence for that matter which would disclose, even remotely, that the Accused Butukan S. Malang’s supposed alias is Datukan Malang Salibo and vice-versa. To this end, the ‘Supreme Court held in People of the Philippines vs. Jose Monda, Jr., et al., GR Nos. 105000-01, November 22, 1993, that: “It is true that appellants’ warrantless arrest is not in issue in this case. Nevertheless, we deem it necessary to dwell on that fact to further show the unreliability and incredibilty of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Appellants’ warrantless arrest only magnifies the fact that the prosecution witnesses were not at all that certain as to theconstitutionally guaranteed right against illegal arrest. We do not here, for lack of clear showing, wish to categorically impute bad faith on the part of the authorities involved for the evidential gaucherie in this case. It may well be possible that the prosecution witnesses were misled by physical resemblances or were emotionally inclined to draw improvident conclusions in their resentment over the loss of their comrades. We nonetheless take this opportunity to condemn the practice of law enforcers who, failing in their mission to identify and apprehend the real malefactors, are not beyond picking on innocent parties as helpless scapegoats for their inefficiency and incompetence. The annals of criminal prosecutions in this and foreign jurisdictions are replete with miscarriages of justice due to erroneous identification of suspected offenders. It is the nadir of injustice where such miscarriage was not a product of honest error but of downright negligence or deliberate intent.” (Emphasis supplied) 41, “The presumption juris tantum of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself prevail against the constitutionally protected right of an individual’ (People v. Cruz, 231 SCRA 759 [1994)). “Although public welfare is the foundation of the power to search and seize, such power must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens (Rodriquez v, Evangelista, 65 Phil. 230). As the Supreme Court aptly puts it in Bagahilog vs. Femandez, 198 SCRA 614 (1991), "[zJeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors." 42. _ In view thereof, the nullification of the Return of the Warrant of the Police, Commitment Order (based on the unauthorized insertions and highly erroneous entries of the police in the Return of the Warrant) and other orders and processes against Movant Datukan Malang Salibo, is warranted.(iv) Motion to Quash is the proper remedy when the person named in the Information is an entirely different person than the one who had been mistakenly detained, as in the case of herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo. 43. As shown by the un-rebutted evidence on record, herein Movant Datukan Malang Salibo (who went on a pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia from November 7, 2009 up to December 20, 2009), is not the Accused Butukan S. Malang who (latter) is the person named in the Amended Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest in these cases. Hence, the quashal of the Information, Return or Warrant, Commitment Order and other orders or processes issued against the clearly innocent Datukan Malang Salibo on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, is in order. 44. As aptly held by the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines vs. Martinez et al., G.R. No. 105376-77, August 5, 1994: “Furthermore, appellant was arraigned under the name of Alexander Martinez and when arraigned under said name he entered his plea of “not guilty” Appellant should have raised the question of his identity either at the time of arraignment or by filing a demurrer based on the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person, inasmuch as he was then considered as Alexander Martinez alias Abelardo Martinez, Having failed to do so, he is estopped from later raising the same question (People vs. Narvaes, 59 Phil. 738 [1934)). His identity had been sufficiently established. (Emphasis supplied) 45, Corollary thereto, the Supreme Court likewise held in People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Padica et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993, that, “40. ID.; ID.; MOTION TO QUASH; ERROR AS TO IDENTITY PROPERLY RAISED IN MOTION TO QUASH ON GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER ACCUSED'S PERSON; CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE TO RAISE QUESTION OF IDENTITY. — In the case at bar. there is no dispute that appellant was.46. the principle that it would be better to set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one (1) innocent man for a crime he did not commit. As held by the Supreme Court in People vs. Angus. Jr. filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person, in line with the doctrine explained in People vs. Narvaes laid down as early as 1934. But, as aforestated, appellant did not do so but instead voluntarily appeared at the arraignment and pleaded not guilty thereat, albeit under the different name. Consequently, the trial court acquired jurisdiction over his person and it could have rendered a valid judgment of conviction based on the original information even without need of an amendatory information to correct appellant's name. What we stated in Narvaes is worth repeating: "x x x (w)hen the appellant was arraigned under the name of Pedro Narvaes, which is the name appearing in the information, he merely entered his plea of ‘not guilty’ under the said name. {t was on that occasion that he should have for the first time raised the question of his identity, by filing a demurrer based on the court's lack of jurisdiction over his person, inasmuch as he was then considered as Pedro Narvaes, not Primo Narvaes. Not having filed the said demurrer, it must necessarily be understood that he renounced it and therefore he is now estopped from raising, or insisting to raise, the same question, not only in this appeal but even at the trial.” More than anything else, the Honorable Court should be guided by GR. No, 178778, August 3, 2010: “And, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one (1) of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. That which is favorable to the accused should be considered. After all, mas vale que queden sin castigar diez reos presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one (1) innocent man for a crime he did not commit.” (Emphasis supplied)48. Warrants of Arrest which were duly issued in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre Cases do not name “Datukan Malang Salibo” as one (1) of the Accused or wanted persons who should be held without bail for the gruesome On the other hand, what the Amended Information and the Alias Warrant specifically name and particularly describe to Maguindanao Massacre cases. “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. (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the Amended Information duly filed and the Alias be arrested by the police is a certain “Butukan S. Malang.” Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to proceed against Datukan Malang Salibo due, among others, to violation of his constitutional rights. This is consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Judge Tac-an, et al, G.R. No 148000, February 27, 2003, where it held that: “The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic’ constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State's right to due process raises a serious jurisdiction issue (Gumabon vs. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, L-300026, 37 SCRA 420 [Jan. 30, 1971]) which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will Where the denial .of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction (Aducayen vs. Flores, L-30370, [May 25, 1973] 51 SCRA 78; Shell Co. vs. Enage, L-30111-12, 49 SCRA 416 [Feb 27, 1973]). Any judgment or decision rendered notwithstanding such violation may be regarded as a ‘lawless thing, which can be treated as an(Emphasis supplied) In view of any or all of the foregoing, the quashal of the Information, Return of the Warrant, Commitment Order and other related orders and processes issued against Movant Datukan Malang Satibo (who, as shown by the un-rebutted evidence on record, is neither Accused Butukan S. Malang nor the latter’s alias), is warranted. RELIEF WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that: () the Amended Informations, Return of the Warrant, Commitment Order and other related orders and processes issued against Movant Datukan Malang Salibo (who, as shown by the un-rebutted evidence ‘on record, is neither Accused Butukan S. Malang nor the latter's alias), be quashed; and (i) Datukan Malang Sallbo's immediate release from illegal detention be ordered by the Honorable Court. Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Quezon City, May 19, 2011 REAL BROTARLO & REAL Law Firm Counsel for Erroneouisly Detained Datukan Malang Sallbo ‘4" Floor Cityland 10 Tower |, 156 H.V. Dela Costa Street Ayala Avenue North, Makati City, Philippines Tel. Nos. 893-3399; 753-1374; 408-3618; Telefax No. 893-3399 ‘Website: wwwrbrfirm.com, Email: rblawfirm@gmail.comBy: e_ PARIS G. REAL Roll of Attorneys No. 42574 MCLE Compliance No. liI-0006704, December 21, 2008 PTR # 2642928, 1-04-2011: City of Makati \BP #844647, 1-05-2011; Makati City Chapter Email: parisgreal@gmall.com, - a, / Aipltel EMMANUEL S. BROTARLO Rol of Attomeys No. 42282 MCLE Compliance No. II-00085887, December 21, 2009 TR # 2642030; 1-04-2011, Makati City Chapter TaP # 844645; 1-05-2011; tloio City Chapter Ema: esbrotarlo@gmail.com SHERWIN G. REAL Roll of Attofneys No. 46964 MCLE Compliance No. II-0006705; December 21, 2009 PTR # 2642929, 1-04-2011; City of Makati 18P #844646, 1-05-2011; Makati City Chapter Email: sherwingreal@gmail.com Service By Registered Mail Except for the copies intended for this Honorable Court and the DOJ, other copies of this pleading are being served upon the other concerned parties by registered mail because the Firm momentarily lacks manpower to do so. NOTICE OF HEARING AND COPY FURNISHED T! Honorable Branch Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court Quezon City, Branch 221 Panel of Prosecutors Office of Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Ma. Emilia L. Victorio (By Personal Service) Department of Justice Padre Faura, Manila Danie & Butuvan Law OfficesAtty. Nena A. Santos/ Atty. Ma, Gemma J. Oquendo ACEPAL Building, Mabini Extension Koronadal City Atty. Prima Jesusa B. Quinsayas No. 2560 Leon Guinto Street Malate, Manila 1004 Atty. Rachel F. Pastores Public Interest Law Center Af Kaila Bldg., 7836 Makati Avenue cor. Valdez Street, Makati City Atty. Pete Principe Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption Unit 2005, Astoria Plaza 45 Escriva Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Atty. Carlos Isagani Zarate 2” Floor, Valdevieso Building Ecoland Subdivision Matina, Davao City Greetings: Please be informed that the foregoing motion shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court on May 23, 2011 at 8:20 A. M. or such other time and date most convenient to this Honorable Court. he Paris G. Real ‘Salibo-Quash (Info) 335-102