Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
JUSSTICE ON WHEELS
Kiamba, Sarangani Province

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 707-01

Plaintiffs,
- versus - - for -

MARIO PULA RHODA, KITAB MULTIPLE MURDER WITH

KAHARUDDIN, RAMIM MINGKA FRUSTRATED MURDER
ALIAS “ROCKY MINGKA”, RAKIM
SAYADI, ROCKY SAYADI & ONE
(1) JOHN DOE,
Accused.
X------------- -----X

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

OF PROBABLE CAUSE

COMES NOW, Accused, Kitab Kaharuddin and Benjamin

Rocky Mingkat and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully move for
Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and in support hereof state
and show, THAT:

BACKGROUND

On or about 7:00 o’clock in the evening of 19 November

1999 at Sitio Tuguis, Bgry. Tambilil, Kiamba, Sarangani
Province, the house of Tungko Miranda was straffed by
unidentified men leading to the death of Rubi Ann Miranda,
Rushell Miranda and Elton Pacto and injuries of Bai Debugue
Miranda, Maricel Miranda, Elma Miranda, Marialyn Miranda and
Rose Ann Miranda.

The incident was allegedly perpetrated by the herein

accused. The accused were given the opportunity to submit
their counter affidavit and that of their witnesses. Despite
submission of overwhelming evidences showing their
innocence, coupled with the inconsistency of the affidavits of
the complainants, the instant case was filed in court.

EVIDENCES

For the Prosecution:

On 24 December 1999, Tungko Miranda executed a

sworn statement before the National Bureau of Investigation,
General Santos City. In his sworn statement, he categorically
stated that he was at the seashore when he heard the gun

Page-1
Cont/motion/kaharuddin…….Page-2

reports. His house was about 600 meters away from the
seashore. He immediately went home to verify what happened
and when he was sure that the perpetrators were gone, they
entered his house and saw the gruesome massacre of his
family. Attached herewith, machine copy of the sworn
statement of Tungko Miranda, marked as Annexed “A”;

On 19 January 2001, Tungko Miranda executed another

sworn statement in connection with the incident on 19
November 1999. In the said sworn statement that he executed
for the second time before the National Bureau of
Investigation, General Santos City, he claimed that he saw the
herein accused on the premises of his house immediately after
the incident. He alleged that he was able to identify them
through the illumination coming from a petromax inside their
house. Attached herewith machine copy of the sworn
statement of Tungko Miranda, marked as Annex “B”;

Another witness, Bai Miranda Debuque executed her

sworn statement before the National Bureau of Investigation,
General Santos City on 26 December 1999. She alleged that
while they were inside the house having conversation, she
noticed that their dog was barking and she heard footstep
outside the house that prompted her to order Elma Miranda to
close and lock the door. Thereafter, there were gun burst. She
alleged that she was hit and she lost her consciousness. She
mentioned several persons to be the possible perpetrators
since she filed several cases against them. Attached herewith
machine copy of the sworn statement of Bai Miranda Debuque,
marked as Annex “C”;

On 19 January 2001, Bai Miranda Debuque executed a

supplemental sworn statement before the NBI, General Santos
City. In her supplemental sworn statement she named the
herein accused to be the perpetrators. Her accusation was
based on the story of her brother, Tungko Miranda. Attached
herewith machine copy of the sworn statement of Bai Miranda
Debuque, marked as Annex “D”;

For the Respondent:

Respondent Kitab Kaharuddin submitted his counter

affidavit and alleged that he was undergoing military training
from 25 October to 24 November 1999 at Headquarters, IID,
PA, Kuta Major Cesar L. Sang an, Pulacan, Labangan,
Zamboanga del Sur. Attached herewith machine copy of the
affidavit of Kitab Kaharuddin, marked as Annex “E”;

Respondent Kitab Kaharuddin also submitted, order of

training and certificate of completion of the course to prove his

Page-2
Cont/motion/kaharuddin……….Page-3

innocence of the crime charged which is hereto attached as

Annexes “F” and “G”, respectively;

Respondent Benjamin Mingkat submitted his counter

affidavit. He claimed that he is a member of the Philippine
National Police, assigned with 5 th Coy, Special Mobile Group,
Cotabato City, since September 1999 to March 2000. On the
alleged date of incident, he was on duty. To prove his
innocence of the crime charged, he presented a certification to
the effect that he was on duty on 19 November 1999 and that
he has no issued long firearm. Attached herewith machine
copy of the affidavit of Benjamin Mingkat, certifications dated
05 June 2000, marked as Annexes “H”; “I” and “J”,
respectively;

On 03 November 2001, NARIO PULA RHODA was arrested

and held for trial. During the course of his trial, Tungko
Miranda was presented and took the witness stand and
testified against the accused RHODA. However, during the
cross examination, he admitted that he could not identify the
perpetrators because of the distance. The other witnesses
failed also to identify the perpetrators. The defense filed a
demurrer to evidence and it was given due course. As a result
of which, the case was ordered dismissed. Attached herewith
machine copy of the decision dated 13 August 2009, marked as
Annex “K”;

DISCUSSION

In giving due course to the motion of the herein accused,

worthy to note the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Albay
Accredited Constructors Association, Inc vs Disierto, 480 SCRA 520,
to wit;

“The ultimate purpose of preliminary investigation is “to

secure the innocent against hasty, malicious, and oppressive
prosecutions, and to protect him from open and public accusation of
crime, from the trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial, and
also to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions”.

In line with the above quoted ruling of the Supreme Court, the
Highest Tribunal was saying that the investigating prosecutor is
mandated to be fair and impartial in evaluating the existence of
probable cause and the proper person to be indicted. The role of the
prosecution is not to convict but see to it that justice shall be served
to both the complainant and the accused. In order that justice shall
be served, the truth must be first established. Evidences by both
parties must be evaluated carefully to avoid hasty and malicious
prosecution. Otherwise stated, the innocent must be protected and
the guilty must be punished in accordance with law;

Tungko Miranda executed two sworn statements. His

Page-3
Cont/motion/kaharuddin…………Page-4

first statement dated 24 December 1999 does not hold water

and as a result of which, the filing of the case was held in
abeyance for further investigation. Upon realizing that his
accusation will not stand in court, he executed another sworn
statement categorically pointing his finger to the herein
accused. The second sworn statement was executed on 19
January 2001, more than one (1) year from the date of
incident and from the execution of the first sworn statement.

Be it noted that his first sworn statement was executed

more than one (1) month from the date of incident and we
presumed that his recollection of the factual event is still fresh
from his memory coupled with the fact of his quest for justice
for his family. In the first affidavit, he failed to identify the
perpetrators because when he arrived, they were gone.

In the second sworn statement, he changed his mind for

he is now pointing his fingers to the herein accused to be the
perpetrators. What keeps him too long to reveal the identities
of the accused if his purpose is for the arrest of the
perpetrators to answer what they have done to his family? His
subsequent action is clearly contrary to human nature and
experience for a person who is in quest for justice. His second
sworn statement was merely an afterthought in order to pin
down the herein accused for trying to grab their land.

The two (2) sworn statements of Bai Miranda Debuque

have no probative value for they are merely based of
supposition, assumption, conjecture, and hearsay for he relied
to the story of his brother Tungko Miranda. In addition, her
sworn statements were not affirmed in open court because of
her untimely death while the case is pending trial;

The prosecution is now left to the testimony of the lone

witness, Tungko Miranda. However, during the trial on the
merit of the instant case as regards to NARIO PULA RHODA,
the Honorable Court ordered the case dismissed since the
testimony of Tungko Miranda was tainted with contradictory
statements.

Henceforth, there being no clear and convincing proof to

hold the herein accused for trial, the instant case be ordered
dismissed for lack of probable cause.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this

honorable caused that upon careful evaluation of the
evidences presented by both parties, the case be ordered
dismissed for lack of probable cause.

Alabel, Sarangani Province, 23 August 2012.

Page-4
Cont/motion/kaharuddin…………Page-5

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Department of Justice
Sarangani District Office
Alabel, Sarangani Province
BY:

JEROME C. BEATISOLA
Public Attorney II
MCLE Compliance No.
III-0018083/9-07-2010

NOTICE

The Clerk of Court

Justice on Wheels
Kiamba, Sarangani Province

G r e e t i n g s:

Please submit the foregoing Motion for Judicial

Determination of Probable Cause and set for hearing on the
said motion on 31 August 2012 at 8:00 o’clock in the morning
at Kiamba, Sarangani Province for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court.

JEROME C. BEATISOLA

Hon. Felipe Vicente Velasco

Provincial Prosecutor’s Office
Sarangani Province

G r e e t i n g s:

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for Judicial

Determination of Probable will be submitted to the Honorable
Court and set for hearing on 31 August 2012 at 8:00 o’clock in
the morning at Kiamba, Sarangani Province for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court.

JEROME C. BEATISOLA

Copy furnished:

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

 Page-5

1. Accused in obedience to the order provided for in the subpoena, they

filed their counter-affidavits together with the affidavits of their witnesses;

2. All the reasons of their none-involvement and innocence of the crime

attributed to them were stated under oath;

3. That on the basis thereof, the Honorable Prosecution made a very

gratuitous pronouncement of the existence of probable cause without any
glimpse of consideration to the counter-affidavit of the accused and their
witnesses, which act is purely arbitrary in essence;

4. The Honorable Court relies on the recommendation of the

Prosecution of probable cause and that is the main chore of this instant request
for the judicial determination of probable cause by this Honorable Court, the
findings of the Prosecution being just recommendatory, hence the final say as
to whether or not probable cause exist is lodge in the solemn discretion and
findings by this Honorable Court;

5. The justification of his motion were contained in the counter-affidavit

in that of the accused witnesses which are already forming part of the records
in this case, but not given any molecule of appreciation by the Honorable
Prosecutor and this motion is being filed so that the truth can be unearthed
from the inequities and unrightable wrong of appreciation by the Honorable
Prosecutor who recommended probable cause based on his own conjecture.

FROM ALL THE FOREGOINHG, accused most respectfully pray of

this Honorable Court, for a judicial determination of probable cause, so that the
truth can be unearthed from the inequities and unrightable wrong committed by
the Honorable Prosecutor.

Alabel, Sarangani Province, 06 February 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
Sarangani District Office
Alabel, Sarangani Province

BY:

SALVADOR G. TALAMAYAN
District Public Attorney