Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CEBU CITY

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
represented by FOR. RAUL PASOC,
Complainant, NPS Docket No.:
VII-09-INV-16F-01249

- versus – FOR: Violation of R.A. 9147

NARDIOSA BAYOT CABISO,

Respondent.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Respondent through her undersigned

counsel, to this Honorable Office, most respectfully alleges,
that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

1. The subject matter of this Pleading is the Resolution,

dated August 11, 2016, of this Honorable Office.1

2. This pleading respectfully seeks the reconsideration and

reinvestigation of the instant case.

MATERIAL DATES

3. The undersigned counsel received a copy of the

questioned resolution on December 9, 2016.

4. Her 10th day to file her pleading is on Monday, December

19, 2016.
GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
Attached herein as Annex “1”.

1
 The questioned resolution indicted the herein
Respondent for the Felony under Republic Act no. 9147
(Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act).

The Honorable Office committed serious error in finding

that probable cause exists against the Respondents for
committing the crime under RA 9147. The respondent
remained onboard the vessel as owner of the boat and not as
owner of the cargoes.

DISCUSSION

With all due respect, respondent moves for a

reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution, it should be noted
that the latter said in her Counter-Affidavit that she is the
owner of the passenger vessel M/B Clevan and her extended
stay on the vessel does not entice a well-founded belief that
she has committed, he is committing or is about to commit a
felony.

The vessel is a common carrier capable of transporting

passengers from one destination to the other. In the ordinary
course of business, the passengers are allowed to transport
cargoes.

These unidentified men came on board without asking

permission, neither did they introduce themselves before they
pried open the cargo boxes of other passengers. They
proceeded to open the boxes despite the objection of the
respondent. The participation of the latter was limited only as
to closing the boxes, she did not consent to such ocular
inspection, and neither was the respondent informed of their
authority to inspect as well as to the reason of the inspection.

The constitutional right of privacy should always be

upheld. These enforcement officers should not disregard the
fundamental right of a person granted by the Constitution as
the Supreme Law of the land.

Despite such right granted by the Constitution, this was

blatantly disregarded and encroached upon by the DENR
Enforcement officers. The respondent was taken into custody
because they argued that she was allegedly caught in flagrante
delicto in possessing marine turtle’s meat. The arresting
officers failed to take note that the owner of the common

2
carrier cannot be presumed as the owner of any and all of the
cargoes loaded into the common carrier. There is no rhyme nor
reason in an argument wherein the complainant would
associate the owner of the vessel is also the owner of the
contraband loaded into the vessel when such vessel is a
common carrier. It would have been different if the vessel is
not a common carrier, then such logic may be considered.

The Honorable Prosecutor should not fail to consider the

inconsistency in the filing of the case. The respondent was
arrested on April 13, 2016 and was released on April 16, 2016
because there was no information filed against her. There is a
glaring inconsistency because the documentary report was
made on April 14, 2016 yet they did not file a case against the
respondent. It seems that the filing of the complain on June 6,
2016 was only an after thought so as to put the blame on
someone. It is an indication that respondent is placed into a
situation that she would be blamed for everything just for
these enforcement officers produce a positive report on their
operation, when in truth and in fact, they failed.
.

MISUNDERTANDING AND LACK OF EFFECTIVE

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE INFORMANT AND THE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

It is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act

indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the
view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute
probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. 2

The complainant was not able to establish whether or not

Respondent was the person identified in the tipped-off
information. The imputed crime to the respondent glaringly
does not exist. Most of the allegations in the complaint are
mere misapprehension of the facts with no specific allegations
in the wrongdoing of respondent. The complaint was filed was
merely to coerce and implicate the crime against Respondent
to yield a positive result on their operation.

THE DUTY OF THE

INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR TO
PROTECT AN INNOCENT
2
People vs. Laguio, Jr. , March 16, 2007

3
RESPONDENT FROM THE PAIN
COSTS, AND TEDIOUSNESS OF A
BASELESS CRIMINAL TRIAL

The Supreme Court said in the case of Melo, People v.

Tagudar [G.R. No. 130588. June 8, 2000], that was, decide
En Banc;
“All Trial Courts and the various Offices of the
Prosecutors under the Department of Justice should be
guided by the principle that it would be better to set free
ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged
than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not
commit.”

The Supreme Court further discussed this duty in the

case of JOSE BERNARDO vs. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, G.R.
No. L-37876, May 25, 1979, the Supreme Court held that
although “prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in
order that they may properly fulfill their assigned role in the
administration of justice x x x, (it) should be realized, however,
that when a man is haled to court on a criminal charge, it
brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for
his family as well” and that “therefore, it behooves a
prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to deliberate
thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before
filing the information in court”, otherwise, it, held that, it
“would be a dereliction of duty”.

The Supreme Court has been consistent in ruling this

issue. It was likewise ruled in the case of SUSANA B.
CABAHUG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
rd
SANDIGANBAYAN, 3  Division, and OFFICE OF THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, G.R. No. 132816, February 5,
2002
“We cannot overemphasize the admonition to
agencies tasked with the preliminary investigation and
prosecution of crimes that the very purpose of a
preliminary investigation is to shield the innocent from
precipitate, spiteful and burdensome prosecution. They are
duty-bound to avoid, unless absolutely necessary, open
and public accusation of crime not only to spare the
innocent the trouble, expense and torment of a public trial,
but also to prevent unnecessary expense on the part of the
State for useless and expensive trials. Thus, when at the
outset the evidence cannot sustain a prima facie case or

4
 that the existence of probable cause to form a sufficient
belief as to the guilt of the accused cannot be ascertained,
the prosecution must desist from inflicting on any person
the trauma of going through a trial.”3

Hence, A motion for reconsideration is still part of due

process in the preliminary investigation.

PRAYER

Thus, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office to

RECONSIDER its aforesaid Resolution dated August 11, 2016,
which was received by the undersigned counsel on December
9, 2016, indicting the respondent for violation of R.A. No. 9147
and instead SET ASIDE and DISMISS the instant complaint
for lack of probable cause.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances

are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Cebu City, Philippines. December 16, 2016.

CABRERA SIPALAY MAYOL & SALAS LAW OFFICES

Room 206, Aniceta Bldg.,
Osmeña Blvd., Capitol Site, Cebu City
Tel. No. (032) 255-7476 ; Fax No. (032)255-2872

By:

RODOLFO Y. CABRERA
Counsel for the Respondent
IBP No. 1014803; 1-05-16; Cebu City
PTR No. 10345975; 1-05-16; Cebu City
TIN 114-621-619

3
SUSANA B. CABAHUG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
rd
SANDIGANNBAYAN, 3  Division, and OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
G.R. No. 132816, February 5, 2002

5
 Roll NO. 19792
MCLE Certificate No. V-0021327; 5-4-16

Notice of Hearing

LICERIA S. LOFRANCO-RABILLAS
City Prosecutor
City Prosecutor’s Office
CEBU CITY

Greetings:

Please take note that the undersigned counsel of the

respondent is submitting the foregoing motion with this
Honorable Office on Friday, December 26, 2013 at 2:00 P.M.
without further oral arguments or appearance of counsel.

Thank you.

RODOLFO Y. CABRERA

Copy furnished by Registered Mail:

FOR. Raul Pasoc Received by:

CENR Officer Date:
Arellano Blvd. cor. V. Sotto St. Pier
3, Cebu City