Page 1 of 7

Republic of the Philippines

KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila

ANGELO BAÑES
Complainant, NPS Docket NO. XVI-INV-18H-00285
For: Serious Illegal Detention under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal
- versus Code, Robbery, Grave Coercion,
Grave Threats, Attempted Murder
Illegal Possession of Firearms
EDGAR OLARTE, Alias “JACK”,
ATTY. LEIGHTON SIAZON and
FOUR (4) JOHN DOES,
Respondents
x---------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The undersigned, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully moves for

reconsideration of its resolution dated April 30, 2019, and hereby avers:

A copy of the aforesaid resolution was received by the undersigned

last June 14, 2019, thus, he has still up to June 29, 2019 within which to
file this Motion for Reconsideration.

At the outset, upon thorough perusal of the assailed resolution it

could be easily noticed that with all the evidence adduced by private
complainants (Angelo Bañes, jr and his co-complaining witnesses)
ASP Arturo Roxas failed to take into consideration those material facts
re the incident in question, it appearing that he focused only on
matters pertaining to the complaint of Angelo Bañes, jr (Angelo for
brevity) and not on the persons who are also offended parties. With
due respect, the cardinal principles of investigation was not duly
observed in the conduct of the criminal investigation. It is all about
WHO committed a crime, WHAT crime was committed, WHERE was the
crime committed, WHEN was the crime committed, HOW the crime was
committed and to WHOM was crime committed. Like for instance,
somebody pulled out a gun from his waist and poked the same to
someone. Thus, from a somewhat single act executed by this person he
maybe made criminally liable for various crimes such as Threat,
Coercion, Illegal Possession of Firearms, as the case maybe.
 Page 2 of 7

Applying, therefore, the cardinal principles of investigation (1H

and 5 W’s) to the above mentioned scenario, the investigating state
prosecutor, ASP Roxas should have included the crimes committed
by respondent Edgar “Larry” Olarte and his cohorts against the
security guards of ONERCA Security Agency (Emmanuel A. Opimo,
Jesus D. Enriquez Jr., among others) who were then posted on
11 May 2018 at the entrance of One Burgundy Plaza Condominium
located at 307 Loyola Heights, Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City. Why,
the supposed inclusion and the filing of appropriate criminal cases
against same Edgar “Larry” Olarte and cohorts, simply because the
above-named security guards were illegally and an forcibly disarmed
of their validly issued firearms per security detail order, which for
ready reference said order is here to attached, marked as Annex
“1-MR”. What proof if any to support this contention? During the
filing of the instant complaints of Angelo Bañes Jr. before the
Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office, the said security guards also filed
their respective complaints and had the same subscribed and sworn
to before Assistant City Prosecutor Alessandro D. Jurado which
copies of the same are likewise attached hereto, respectively
marked as Annexes “2-MR” and “3-MR”. Is this not a criminal act
perpetrated by Edgar “Larry” Olarte and his cohorts, then all attired
in civilian clothes, when through force, coercion and intimidation
they deprived ONERCA Security Guards of their issued firearms? To
be more precise, is this not plain “Robbery” perpetrated boldly at
daytime or the most, could be well or properly designated as
“Robbery in Band”. However, ACP Arturo R. Roxas seemingly
ignored or disregarded such criminal acts of the culprits, which if
not properly addressed will be added to the list of criminal acts of
criminals who acted with impunity.

Meanwhile, it is worthy to state herein, that the office of the

Motion for Reconsideration is to correct the wrongs or mistakes
committed by those who are tasked to conduct an investigation or
arbitrate or resolve problems or conflicts brought before their
offices. Thus, again with due respect, it is strongly suggested that
ACP Arturo R. Roxas should be conscientious enough to exert more
efforts to do the undone and to correct and straighten out matters
involving this above-captioned case which need more modifications
and/or corrections. Thus, we reiterate for emphasis, criminal cases
for Grave Coercion, Grave Threats, Robbery and at most possibly
“Slight Illegal Detention” for causing illegal detention of security
guards Emmanuel A. Opimo, Jesus D. Enriquez jr., and several others
by way of detaining them guarded by three (3) armed persons in
civilian attires at a small space which is a lobby counter. Meantime,
before proceeding further, we deem it necessary to make it more
 Page 3 of 7

easy for ACP Arturo R. Roxas to understand why the crime of

Robbery among others was committed by Edgar “Larry” Olarte and
his cohorts that day of 11 May 2018. Firstly, there was forcible
taking of property owned by ONERCA Security Agency and it
occurred when Olarte’s group poked their guns towards the security
guards who were at the same time coerced and intimidated under
pain of death if they will resist, hence their issued firearms were
carted away by the same culprits, which firearms were carried by
them up to the administration office located at the 3rd floor of the
One Burgundy Plaza Condominium. The fact that the firearms
forcibly taken by Olarte’s group and were used to coerce, threaten
and intimidate the group of complainants Angelo Bañes jr. who
were then stationed inside the administration office. And what
proof if any to support such allegations? The video footage taken by
ONERCA’s lady guard Aliza Marie delos Reyes regarding the
menacing actuations displayed by Edgar “Larry” Olarte as they
approached the administration office, with Olarte carrying a firearm
of unknown caliber with the rest of his civilian attired companions
all brandishing high powered firearms, Olarte shouting at the top of
his voice then. Unfortunately, ACP Roxas, for reasons only known to
him, failed to give probative value to what he had seen in the video
footage. Further, also for reasons only know to him, the
Sinumpaang Salaysay of this lady guard Aliza Marie delos Reyes
which served as a back-up as to the fact how and why she took the
video footage that depict a clear picture regarding the aggressive
acts of Edgar “Larry” Olarte, which in one way or the other belie his
claim that he was alone when he went to the said administration
office. On this, we cite a portion of sub-paragraph 8.2. of his Kontra
Sinumpaang Salaysay, which reads: “Yung ibang nagreklamo naman
na nasa U3 palapag ng gusali, imposible pong sila ay madetena kase
po sinira na nila ang pintuan ng Admin Office. Imposible din po
kaseng sila ay madetena ko sa kadahilanang ako lang ay
mag-isang umakyat papunta sa Admin Office (highlighting ours).

Another significant and very important matter of note is the

Sinumpaang Salaysay of one Angel Decomon of the Detecnet
Security Agency which he voluntarily gave to the police investigator
of the CIDU Quezon City Police District whereby he categorically
stated that from where was then posted, he saw Edgar “Larry”
Olarte and his civilian attired companions all of them carrying
various high powered caliber firearms when they approached the
administration office. What is surprising here is that SG Angel
Decomon is one the security guards employed by Detecnet Security
Agency which is hired by the employer of Edgar “Larry” Olarte. With
this, it could be safely deduced that the Sinumpaang Salaysay of
 Page 4 of 7

SG Angel Decomon carries weight and that he tells the truth, the
same being a declaration against interest. Again, for reasons only
known to ACP Arturo R. Roxas, he just ignored the significance
and/or importance of the same. Of note, a copy of SG Angel
Decomon’s Sinumpaang Salaysay given to the police investigator is
one of the documents utilized as an annex to the Rejoinder of
Antonio San Diego who was charged of Murder (2 counts) involving
the same incident which is already incorporated in the instant case.

Relatively, to prove further that Edgar “Larry” Olarte has

proclivity to regard himself as a tough guy or a “siga-siga” and
without any second thought, he is prone to be violent and disregard
the authority of law. Why, we said so, by way of confirmation he
admits that he is being charged for Resistance and Disobedience to
a Person in Authority. Thus, in paragraph 19.1 of his same Kontra
Sinumpaang Salaysay, we cite the following “Sa oras na yun, ako po
ay nakaiskedyul na mag-file ng kontra-sinumpaang salaysay kasama
si Atty. Rosette Gaerlan para sa kasong SPO4 Linga, et. al. vs. Olarte
(XV-03-INV-18C-02449 for Resistance and Disobedience to a Person
in Authority) sa harap ni SACP Fabinda Santos ng Office of the City
Prosecutor, Quezon City.

As regards the charge of Attempted Murder which was likewise

dismissed for lack of probable cause allegedly being wanting in
proof to support the allegations of Angelo Bañes Jr., the basis of ASP
Arturo Roxas in arriving at such decision is conjectural and a-mere
opinion which deserves scant consideration. Probably he is not
aware that numerous cases were held in favor of a
complaining-witness who testified alone. Noting the psychological
behaviour of Edgar “Larry” Olarte and possibly a congenital liar as
pictured a foregoing, being prone to commit physical harm on his
fellowman even to persons of authority, to commit an attempt to
kill or maim his intended victim is not remote. Thus, to deny herein
complainant Angelo Bañes Jr. to be given the opportunity to testify
that there was an attempt to kill him with the use of a firearm
aimed at his back but misfired possibly due to a dud ammunition
amounts to depriving him of the due process of law, hence, a full
blown trial should be held.

With respect to Atty. Leighton Siazon disclaimer that he had

nothing to do with the criminal acts committed by Edgar “Larry”
Olarte. We had submitted our consolidated reply-affidavit as well as
our Sur-Rejoinder which are already incorporated in the records of
the case, thus, we earnestly request ASP Arturo Roxas to review the
records of this case in its entirety for him to be able to arrive at an
 Page 5 of 7

intelligent and judicious disposition of the above-captioned case.

Thus, Judge Learned Hand once called conspiracy the darling of the
modern prosecutor’s nursery. There is conspiracy when two or
more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be proven
separately from and with the same quantum of proof as the crime
itself. Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence. After all,
secrecy and concealment are essential features of a successful
conspiracy. Conspiracies are clandestine in nature. It may be
inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after
the commission of the crime, showing that they had acted with a
common purpose and design. Paraphrasing the decision of the
English Court in Regina v. Murphy, conspiracy may be implied if it is
proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each
other, were, in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose.

In sum, we deem it wise to inscribe herein the meaning and/or

definition of “Probable Cause” for ASP Arturo R. Roxas to have a
serious review or second look of the same, for him to be able to
arrive at an honest to goodness kind of Resolution, thus:
Probable Cause - A finding of probable cause needs only to rest
on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been
committed by the suspects. It need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence of guilt, not an evidence establishing guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable
cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without
resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he has
no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is
determined is whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It
does not require an Inquiry as to whether there is sufficient
evidence to secure a conviction.(Reyes vs. Pearl Bank Securities, Inc.,
G.R. No 171435, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 518, Id. At 534-535).
 Page 6 of 7

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

that the Resolution dated April 30, 2019 of this Honorable Office is:

a) Reversed and/or set aside for being supported by the

evidence on record and for having been rendered sans consideration
of all evidence adduced by complainants.

Such other relief just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 26 June 2019

Angelo Bañes Jr.

Copy Furnished
Edgar “Larry” Olarte
U3 Floor, One Burgundy Plaza
307 Loyola Heights
Katipunan Avenue
Quezon City

Atty. Leighton Siazon

Unit 20-A One Burgundy Plaza
307 Loyola Heights
Katipunan Avenue
Quezon City
Page 7 of 7