SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA

GREGORIO S. ANTONIO,
PETITIONER

VERSUS

DIR. FRANKLIN JESUS BUCAYU

Director of Prisons, AND

SUPT. VENANCIO J. TESORO

NEW BILIBID NATIONAL STATE PENITENTIARY Muntinlupa City, Republic of the Philippines RESPONDENTS

SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING TO THE PRIMARY

PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICENDUM OF HEREIN PETITIONER,

GREGORIO S. ANTONIO1
COMES NOW, THE PETITIONER, GREGORIO S. ANTONIO, OF LEGAL AGE AND UNTO THE MOST HONORABLE SUPREME COURT, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATE THAT:

In compliance to Sec. 3 of Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court, Alejandro S, Antonio, my youngest brother shall cause the verification against forum-shopping and thereafter cause the filing of the same.

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

It is humbly submitted that the erstwhile offer to supplement the prior primary pleading is consistent with the generally accepted and universally promoted tests to ferret out truth; In the interest therefore of JUSTICE, herein petitioner, substantiating the grounds sought under the Habeas rules, it is humbly submitted that the supplemental pleading be allowed and considered in due course because the same would not only establish the glaring police misconduct that had escaped the trial courts appreciation of substantive and procedural guarantees, totally inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; According to the documents belatedly recovered by the same undersigned, the alleged time of the BUY BUST could not have been possible because Your Honors, at 3 oclock that 20th of July, 2002, the undersigned petitioner was already DETAINED AT THE NCRFO HEADQUARTERS IN CUBAO; The physical impossibility to participate would have been caused by the same men claiming to have perfected an entrapment against my person on the other side of where they had gotten me at gunpoint, four hours prior to their supposed face off with me; Your Honors, I was arrested at around eleven in the evening on the 19th of 2002s July with the INQUEST done TEN DAYS after the fact of arrest; Assuming arguendo that the same indeed happened that way, according to the documents connected to the chain of custody, my arrest came at 3 in the morning with them as the of the same petitioner the Honorable Supreme Court allow me to

VIII. Therefore, applying the same HYPOTEHTICAL ADMISSIONS, petitioner would like to advance the discussion in establishing the lack of reasonable certainty that would otherwise extend the Bill of Rights to mean jurisdictional compliance cannot leave them watching while the rest of humanity can learn from the Philippine Example not to advance personal motivations but nonetheless be inspiration to those whose challenges may seem too scandalous that the integrity of the ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL COURT because the Philippines did some public declarations, PRIORITIZING NO LESS THAN JUSTICE AND THE IMPRESSIONS SO INTRICATELY WOVEN TO MANAGE THEIR COHESION AND AFFINITY; IX. As part of our X.