PANAL CASE Omnibus Motion Draft

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 106
QUEZON CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO: 19-16751-53
-versus- For: Violation of Art. 266-A(1)(a),
Art. 266-A(2) and Art. 336
JOSELITO PANAL Y HINDANG,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------x
OMNIBUS MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION WITH MOTION TO

SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS, AND TO SUSPEND THE ISSUANCE
OR RECALL OF THE WARRANT OF ARREST, AND/OR FOR
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WITH
PRAYER FOR OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
The Accused, through undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully alleges that:
1. Accused Joselito Panal is charged with the crime of Rape,

Sexual Assault, and Acts of Lasciviousness in an Information
dated 30 October 2019 filed by former Assistant City
Prosecutor Nanette M. Austria of Quezon City, now Judge of
RTC Branch 170 in San Pedro, Laguna;
2. The Accused was able to obtain a copy of the Resolution of

the abovementioned Assistant City Prosecutor only on 24
October 2019;
3. Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Office of

City Prosecutor in Quezon City for finding probable cause
notwithstanding the non-appearance of the Private
Complainant during scheduled hearings after she filed her
supplemental affidavit despite due notice;
4. Verily, the investigating prosecutor failed to personally

examine the complainant and witnesses as required by
Section 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which states that:
“Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its
review. — xxx He shall certify under oath in the
information that he, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer, has personally examined the
complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable
ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof; xxx Otherwise,
he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.”
5. More so, it can be inferred that the Private Complainant is not

anymore interested in pursuing the Complaint she filed. The
disinterest of the Private Complainant herself shows that the
instant case should not be given any merit at all.
6. The accused most respectfully prays that a Reinvestigation of

the instant cases be conducted before the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor;
7. Should the need arise, pursuant to Department Circular No.

70 of the Department of Justice (DOJ), accused will file an
appeal with the Secretary of Justice for the denial of the
motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation if one has been
filed within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed
resolution;
8. Pursuant to Section 9 of Department Circular No. 70, the

implementation of the warrant of arrest against Accused
Panal should be suspended and/or recalled pending
resolution of the said petition for review.
9. One of the requirements in the rules of the Department of

Justice on appeals of this nature is that the accused must
move for a suspension of the proceedings before the courts,
otherwise the appeal will be denied due course;
10. This Motion is being done in compliance with the

abovementioned rules, and intended to give the appellate
authority to rule on the merits of the appeal and not to unduly
delay the proceedings before this Honorable Court;
11. In addition, Dio vs. Court of Appeals1, citing Co vs.
Republic2, provides that:
“x x x a judge is not bound by the resolution of the public

prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation
and must himself ascertain from the latter’s findings and
supporting documents whether probable cause exists for
the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest. This prerogative
is granted by no less than the Constitution which provides
that "no 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 that Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a judge may
immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause.
12. In this regard, the accused respectfully prays for the outright
dismissal of the case on the following grounds:
12.1. Mere written statements cannot be the sole basis to find

that there is a probability that a crime was committed,
especially when the offense charged is grave.
12.2. In the case of People vs. Amarela3, it was held that:
“More often than not, where the alleged victim

survives to tell her story of sexual· depredation, rape
cases are solely decided based on the credibility of
the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so,
we have hinged on the impression that no young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she
has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for
it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However,
this misconception, particularly in this day and age,
not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage,
but creates a travesty of justice. x x x And while the
factual setting back then would have been appropriate
to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in
disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot
be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure
1
G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013
2
G.R. No. 168811, November 28, 2007
3 G.R. No. 225642-43, January 17, 2018
and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away
from such mindset and accept the realities of a
woman's dynamic role in society today; she who has
over the years transformed into a strong and
confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to
fight for her rights. In this way, we can evaluate the
testimony of a private complainant of rape without
gender bias or cultural misconception. It is important
to weed out these unnecessary notions because an
accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of
the victim, provided of course, that the testimony is
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with
human nature and the normal course of things.”
12.3. Further, in People v. Ng,4 the Court ruled that:
“A charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of

the one who complains of rape should be regarded
with utmost caution and that the person charged with
the offense should not be convicted unless the
complainant's testimony is impeccable and rings true
throughout.”
12.4. In this case, the complaint was based only with the written
statements of the complainant. Those cold written words
of a mere statement cannot be the ultimate basis of
finding probable cause especially when the criminal case
charges a serious offense of rape, where the liberty of the
respondent is at stake.
12.5. Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule that while the precise

date of the commission of the offense need not be stated
with particularity nor is time an essential ingredient of
rape, it must be stated as near to the actual date as the
information will permit. This statutory dictum is designed
for no other purpose than to afford the defendant an
opportunity to prepare an intelligent defense and avoid
surprise and substantial prejudice to the defense.
Otherwise, it will deprive accused-appellant of his
constitutionally enshrined right to be informed of the
accusation against him. It is to place upon him an unfair
and unreasonable burden of preparing a defense on the
basis of the averments in the Information only to put him
4
G.R. No. 71117, [July 10, 1986], 226 PHIL 518-525)
off-balance in the midst of the trial with a totally new
allegation for which he is hitherto unprepared to meet.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that:
1. Pending the appeal of the resolution of the Office of the City

Prosecutor finding probable cause for the filing of the
information for Rape, Sexual Assault, and Acts of
Lasciviousness against the accused herein, the proceedings in
this case be suspended; and/or
2. The Motion for Reinvestigation be granted; and/or
3. For the interest of justice and to uphold the rule of law, an
outright dismissal of this case.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the
premises are also prayed for.
Makati City, Philippines. November 7, 2019.
Respectfully Submitted.
OFFICE OF THE LEGAL AID

CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSTY
SCHOOL OF LAW AND JURISPRIDENCE
(Counsel for the Accused)
259 Sen, Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City
NOTICE OF HEARING
Hon. Vimar M. Barcellano

City Prosecutor
OCP, Quezon City
Greetings :
Please take notice that the foregoing Omnibus Motion shall be

submitted for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court
on _____ at ____ in the morning or as soon as counsel and matter
may be heard.
(NAME)
REQUEST
Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court Branch 106
Quezon City
Please submit the foregoing Omnibus Motion for the Court’s

consideration immediately upon receipt thereof.
(NAME)
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Copy of this Omnibus Motion is made through registered mail due to

lack of personnel to effect personal service.
(NAME)
Copy Furnished:
Hon. Vimar M. Barcellano
City Prosecutor
OCP, Quezon City

PANAL CASE Omnibus Motion Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PANAL CASE Omnibus Motion Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PANAL CASE Omnibus Motion Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

OMNIBUS MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION WITH MOTION TO

The Accused, through undersigned counsel, unto this

1. Accused Joselito Panal is charged with the crime of Rape,

2. The Accused was able to obtain a copy of the Resolution of

3. Accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Office of

4. Verily, the investigating prosecutor failed to personally

5. More so, it can be inferred that the Private Complainant is not

6. The accused most respectfully prays that a Reinvestigation of

7. Should the need arise, pursuant to Department Circular No.

8. Pursuant to Section 9 of Department Circular No. 70, the

9. One of the requirements in the rules of the Department of

10. This Motion is being done in compliance with the

“x x x a judge is not bound by the resolution of the public

And that Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of

12.1. Mere written statements cannot be the sole basis to find

12.2. In the case of People vs. Amarela3, it was held that:

“More often than not, where the alleged victim

12.3. Further, in People v. Ng,4 the Court ruled that:

“A charge of rape based upon the sole testimony of

12.5. Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule that while the precise

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

1. Pending the appeal of the resolution of the Office of the City

Makati City, Philippines. November 7, 2019.

OFFICE OF THE LEGAL AID

Hon. Vimar M. Barcellano

Please take notice that the foregoing Omnibus Motion shall be

Please submit the foregoing Omnibus Motion for the Court’s

Copy of this Omnibus Motion is made through registered mail due to

You might also like