Republic of the Philippines

National capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Br. 58, Makati City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff.

versus Crim. Case No. R-MKT-13-01255-CR

RONDAH ARAWSI,
Accused.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION FOR BAIL

ACCUSED, RONDAH ARAWSI thru counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully state:
1. Accused is charged before this Honorable Court with
violation of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code;

2. The Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor recommended

no bail for the accused in view of the penalty attached to it which is
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death;

3. Section 8 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure allows a person in custody for the commission of an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment to apply
for bail. The said provision provides:

Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application.

-At the hearing of an application for bail filed by

a person who is in custody for the commission of
an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, of life imprisonment, the prosecution
 has the burden of showing that the evidence of
guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the
bail hearing shall be considered automatically
reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of either
party, the court may recall any witness for
additional examination unless the latter is dead or
is outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable
to testify.

4. A perusal of the records of the instant case, it appears that

the allegations and the evidences of the prosecution against the herein
accused are weak if totally not wanting in evidence. Thus, herein
accused may be released on bail pending the determination of the
instant case and subject to the usual condition imposed by Courts on
the release of accused on bail.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing herein
accused, RONDAH ARAWSI, be released on Bail subject to such
amount and condition as the Honorable Court may deem appropriate
under the foregoing premises.

OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the foregoing

circumstances are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Makati City, December 6, 2013.

PABEBE LAW FIRM

Law Office
Councel for Petitioner
#5225 Fahrenheit Street
Barangay Palanan, Makati City
By:

JASMINE A. DIEGO
PTR NO. 1850081, MAY 8, 2013, Manila
IBP NO. 935347, April 5, 2013, Makati
Roll of Attorney No. 62353
Admitted to the Bar April 26, 2013
Mobile No. 09175605492
 Email Add: jasmine_diego@yahoo.com

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Clerk of Court

Branch 58
Makati City

Office of the City Prosecutor

Makati City

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel will submit the

foregoing Petition for Bail for the consideration of the Honorable
Court on December 12, 2013 at 8:30 in the morning or soon thereafter
as the parties may be heard.

JASMINE A. DIEGO

Copy of Furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor

Makati City
 Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 58, Makati City

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES;
Plaintiff,

versus CRIM CASE NO. R-MKT-13-01255-CR

For: Murder

RONDAH ARAWSI y AMOY,

Accused.
X--------------------------------------X

MOTION TO SET CASE FOR ARRAIGNMENT

The Prosecution, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

STATES:

1. On August 23, 2013, the Honorable Court issued an order

directing the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City to
conduct preliminary investigation in this case within sixty (60)
days;

2. After preliminary investigation, a resolution (copy attached)

was issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor dated October
24,2013, the dispositive of which reads;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, there appears to be

no reason to disturb the previous finding of this Office as to
the existence of probable cause for the crime of murder
against the accused. The charge of murder therefore
stands.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of substantial justice, it is most

respectfully prayed that the instant case be now set for arraignment on a
date most convenient to this Honorable Court

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Makati City, October 24, 2013.

 NICOLE A. BAGTAS
Public Prosecutor

NOTICE OF HEARING & COPY FURNISHED

Atty. John Thomas Alferos III

Rm. 311 ACRE Bldg. Malakas St.,
Makati City

The Branch Clerk of Court

This Honorable Court

Greetings:

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing
motion for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court on November
29 2013 at 8:30 am, or as soon thereafter as counsels and parties may
be heard.

NICOLE A. BAGTAS

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL/
APPROVED BY AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

ROGELIO A. VELASCO
2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
Chief Inquest Division
 Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Makati City

PEOLPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

versus Crim. Case No. R-MKT-13-01255-CR

For Murder

RONDAH ARAWSI y AMOY

Accused.
x--------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

Pursuant to the order of the Honorable Court, 3 preliminary

investigation was conducted in this case. After the submission of the
parties respective evidence the instant case was submitted for
resolution.

It appears that private complainant. PiayaWorstback filed the

instant case in connection with the supposal murder of her
husbandPianonoWorstback y Amoy on June 19, 2013 in Brgy.
Palanan ,Makati City where the alleged assailant was herein accused
the victims first cousin.

As per sworn statement of eye witness marc Villegas, it appears

that on June 19, 2013 at around 5:30 am, the victim and herein accused
arrived drunk in their house. The accused was holding a one (1) liter
red horse. He had conversation with the two who continued in their
drinking spree. After a while, the victim teased the accused who
immediately left stamping his feet in anger. After 10 minutes the victim
also went out of their house. In a few minutes, a person went to their
house shouting that something happened to the victim. He then went
outside and saw that the victim was already in a tricycle to be brought
to OspitalngMakati where he was declared dead on arrival.

Another complainants witness Brian Darolllorelated that on June

19, 2013 at around 7:00 am in Brgy. Palanan, Makati City, he saw
victim PianonoWorstback who was already bloody throwing punches
on his cousin, RondahArawsi. He also saw herein accused holdup a
knife, which prompted him to intervene and grab the knife from him.
Accused trial in escape, but he was held by neighbors who later turned
over him to the Barangay Tanods of Brgy. Palanan, Makati City.
Thereafter, the accused was brought to the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Unit of Makati City Police District, Camp Karingal for the
filing of appropriate charges. AutopSy examination on the cadaver of
the victim reveals that the exact cause of death was due to stab
wounds, chest (1) back (3) xx.

When the accused was referred was for Inquest Proceedings, the
Inquest Prosecution recommended the filing of in order against him,
which was duty, approved by the Chief Inquest. The corresponding
information was then filed with the Honorable Court. The case,
however, was referred back to this Office upon motion of the accused
thru counsel.

In her counter-affidavit, the accused claimed that the qualifying

aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information were not duly
supported by the testimonies of the witness, hence, the crime
committed, if there is any, will not constitute the crime of murder.
Based from the testimonies of BrianDarollo and Marc Villegas, the
deceased and the respondent were engaged in an affray prior to the
alleged killing incident. The prior fight between the deceased and the
respondent negates the allegation of the use of evident premeditation
and treachery as a qualifying circumstance in the instant case.

He invoked the case of People vs. Salting, 6445 SCRA 627,

which states that in order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two
elements must be present (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself, and (2) the accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means, method or forms of
attack employed by him. He pointed out that the testimony of Brian
Darollo that nakitako na sinusunto kng biktima na si Pianono
Worstback ang suspect na pinsan nya na si Rondah Arawsi x xx would
clearly negate treachery. Further, he claimed that there was no evidence
presented that would show that the respondent plan the crime and that
it is indispensable that the aggravating circumstance of an evident
premeditation b appreciated.

Moreover, the accused revealed that the deceased is very much

bigger that the respondent both in frame and height. For abuse of
superior strength to be appreciated, the test is the relative strength of
the offender and his victim. Hence, if ever herein respondent attacked
the victim there could not have been a notorious inequality of forces
between the respondent and the victim.

Finally, the accused claimed that the allegation of the

complainant as well the affidavits of her witnesses obviously reveal a
patent inconsistency and self-serving story, which should not be given
credence by this Honorable Office. The inconsistence in the affidavit of
her witnesses should not be taken lightly as these matters got to the
very substance of the allegation in the complaint and material in
providing the crime charged. Therefore the dismissal of the charge of
murder is proper.

In his reply, complainant asseverated that the killing of the victim

is attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. He contended
that on June 19, 2013, while Pianono was walking home from a store,
respondent suddenly appeared from behind armed with a fan knife and
stabbed Pianono at the back several times on the chest and other parts
of his body. He emphasized that the wounds at the back and neck as per
Medico Legal Report indicated a treacherous attack from behind which
was not accompanied by any struggle. Allegedly, there was no quarrel
or argument before the attack which could warn the victim of the
impending attack Pianono was not aware and prepared for such violent
attack as prior to the treacherous attack, the two had drinking spree in
Pianonos house and were talking and joking casually. The alleged
affray between the two parties happened after the stabbing of Rondah
when he was about to escape. It is apparent that the means employed by
Rondah in killing Pianono did not afford the latter the opportunity to
defend himself. The suddenness of the attack of Rondah against the
unarmedPianono clearly indicates treachery.

Complaint likewise submitted that evident premeditation is

present in the commission of the crime charged. Allegedly, the
numerous mortal wounds found on the back, neck and chest of the
victim are signs of rage that the respondent nurtured and of his planned
andpremeditated determination to finish the latter. The respondents
acts of arming himself with a knife constitute a direct evidence of a
careful and deliberate plan to carry out a killing (People vsSomalde 336
SCRA 632. His alleged statement Akala mo kung sino ka? Patay ka
mamaya before the incident would indicate that he evidently
premiditated on killing Pianono not be vindicate his pride and honor
because Pianono often teased and called him abnoy. Sufficient time,
allegedly, had elapsed for respondent to desist from his criminal plan
had he wanted to, instead, he clung to his determination and went ahead
of his heinous plan.
 Complainant also assented among others, that the qualifying
circumstances of abuse of superior strength is present in the case at bar.
The Court, allegedly has consistently held that an attack made by a man
with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless man
consulates abuse of superior strength. She further argued that the
physical built of the victim as irrelevant and immaterial in this case
because the killing was in a treacherous manner.

In support of his reply, complainant submitted additional

affidavits of witnesses namely; Jeffrey Rodriguez, Joy Sy Jimenez and
Laarnie Velacha.
In his rejoinder, accused maintained that treachery, evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength are not present in the
instant case. The element of swiftness and unexpectedness of the attack
is allegedly lacking. There was no impossibility on the part of the
victim to defend himself or retaliate because the very testimony of the
witnesses affirmed and confirmed that the victim was the one they saw
attacking the respondent.

Accused argued that the Salaysay of witness Joy Sy Jimenez with

regard to the fact that she allegedly heard the respondent say Akala
mo kung sino ka. Patay ka mamaya cannot be given credence for
being fabricated and self-serving. He further claimed that it is highly
impossible for the said witnesses Jimenez and Rodriguez allegedly lack
credibility as they did not see the killing incident.

As to the existence of abuse of superior strength, accused pointed

out that there is no notorious inequality of forces between the
respondent and the victim since the deceased is much bigger in both
frame and height than the respondent. He emphasized that the deceased
and the respondent in affray prior to the alleged killing incident, citing
the case of People vs. Pablo, GR No. 120394-97, January 16, 2001
where abuse of superior strength is not taken into account if the assault
was characterized with passion or obfuscation or made during a quarrel
or when the attack was made on the victim alternately and not
simultaneously.

In support of his rejoinder, accused submitted the affidavit of her

witness Joanne Allera.

After the submission of accused rejoinder, the instant case was

submitted for resolution

There appears to be no issue as to who actually perpetrated the

killing of the victim Brian Darollos account of the incident appears
that the victim and the accused were then having a quarrel or a fight.
He saw the victim, who was already in blood, throwing punches on the
accused, who was even the one who grabbed the knife from the victim.
Witness Jeffrey Rodriguez even heard the dying declaration of the
victim saying. Sinasak ako ni Rondah Pre, sinaksak ako ng pinsan ko.
Nanghihina na ako, dina ako makahinga. Another witness Laarnie
Velacha also saw the incident where the victim was running after the
respondent. When the accused fell down, the victim sat astride on him
and boxed him several times while uttering the words, Bakit mo ako
sinaksak? While uttering those words, the accused stabbed the victim
on his chest.

The only issue therefore is whether or not the circumstances

necessary to qualify the crime into murder are present in the instant
case. This is the same issue that was posed by the accused in paragraph
2 of his rejoinder.

After a fair and square evaluation of the facts and evidence

adduced, see find no reason to disturb the previous findings of this
Office via Inquest Proceedings as to the existence of probable cause for
the crime of murder against the respondent.

Treachery is present as the medico-legal report and post-modern

examination show that he was stabbed at the back three times. These
wounds at the back appear to have been initially sustained by the victim
considering that as per sworn statement of complainants witness
Laarnie Velacha, she saw the last thrust suffered by the victim, which
was on his chest. Though the victim subsequently appear to be the
aggression after receiving those stab wounds on his back, the same may
no longer be appreciated against him because treachery is determined at
the initial stage of the attack. The victim did not expect or was not
prepared for the attack as they were earlier having a drinking spree. The
initial attack made on his back by his assailant renders him defenseless.

Police investigation likewise disclosed that at around 7:00 am,

June 19, 2013, the victim went to a nearby store to buy cigarette and
when he was walking home accused suddenly appeared from behind,
armed with bladed weapon and with intent to kill, stabbed the victim
several times. Thus treachery appears to be present n this case.

Abuse of superior strength is likewise present considering that

the accused was armed with fan knife while the victim was unarmed. it
was held that an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed and defenseless weapon considerate abuse of superior strength
People vs. Brodett(542 SCRA 88). While it was the claim of the
respondent that the deceased is much bigger than her, the latter is still
no match to the former who is armed with a fan knife. Besides, such
claim has yet to be proven in court.

The case of People vs. Pablo cited by the accused in his rejoinder
is not applicable in the instant case because he and the victim were not
having a quarrel prior to the accused initial assault.

Also, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation

appears to exist in this case. There are three elements in order that this
circumstance may be properly appreciated, do with (1). The time when
accused determined to commit a crime, (2)An act manifestly indicating
that the accused had clung to his felonious determination and (3) A
lapse of time between the determination and execution sufficient to
allow accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. All the
foregoing elements are extant in this case. As per sworn statement of
complainants witness Joy Sy Jimenez, while she saw the accused
walking in front of the house of Pianono Worstback, she heard her
saying Akalamo kung sino ka, patay ka mamaya. Thus it was at 6:00
am of June 19, 2013 that she conceived in his heart to kill the victim.
Her tolerance of the foregoing words and her subsequent acts of getting
the murder weapon would show that he had clung to his felonious
determination to kill the victim. There was sufficient lapse of tune
between the determination to commit the crime and the execution
therefore considering the lapse of at least one (1) hour where he could
have reflected and meditated on the consequences of the act conceived
by her.

At any rate, this forum can only dwell as to the existence of

probable cause of the crime of murder against the accused which
appears to exist in this case. The exculpatory statement put up by the
accused, including her claim of inconsistencies in the affidavits of the
complainant and that of her witnesses and questions of credibility of
their statement are matters of defense, which ought to be threshed and
better appreciated in a full blown trial on the merits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered there appears to be no

reason to disturb the previous findings of this Office as to the existence
of probable cause for the crime of murder against the accused. The
charge of murder therefore stands.
Makati City, October 24, 2013

NICOLE A. BAGTAS
Assistant City Prosecutor
 APPROVED
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

ROGELIO A. VELASCO
2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
Chief Inquest Division
APPROVED:

DONALD T. LEE
City Prosecutor

Copy Furnished

PiayaWorstback- No. 17 Quintos St. Brgy. Palanca, Makati city

RondahArawsi- c/o MCPD
Atty. John Thomas Alferos III 5225 Fahrenheit St., Brgy.
Palanan, Makati City