Scribd
Upload
973 views

Motion For Reconsideration Branch 19

This document is a Motion for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the accused Raymund Manzanares, Vivien Manzanares, and Christine Pitiquen. It argues that the accused have a constitutional right to bail that should not have been denied by the Court's previous Order. It cites provisions of the Philippine Constitution and Rules of Criminal Procedure establishing bail as a matter of right for accused persons who are not charged with capital offenses. The motion seeks an Order granting the accused's previous Motion to Quash and requests other just and equitable relief.

Uploaded by

Alkaios Ronquillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
973 views

Motion For Reconsideration Branch 19

This document is a Motion for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the accused Raymund Manzanares, Vivien Manzanares, and Christine Pitiquen. It argues that the accused have a constitutional right to bail that should not have been denied by the Court's previous Order. It cites provisions of the Philippine Constitution and Rules of Criminal Procedure establishing bail as a matter of right for accused persons who are not charged with capital offenses. The motion seeks an Order granting the accused's previous Motion to Quash and requests other just and equitable relief.

Uploaded by

Alkaios Ronquillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Manila, Branch 19

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff,

-versus- Crim. Case No. R-MNL-2020-03776-CR


For: Estafa

RAYMUND MANZANARES y PAVIA


alias RAYMUND,
VIVIEN MANZANARES y AMPIL alias VIVIEN
Both of Block 7 Lot 12 Verdant Heights,
Multinational Village, Parañaque City
CHRISTINE PITIQUEN y MALBAS alias TIN
2445 Rizal Avenue Brgy. 209, Tondo, Manila
Accused.
x--------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


Accused, by counsel, most respectfully submit their Motion for
Reconsideration to the September 11, 2020 Order issued by this Honorable
Court and hereby aver:

1. As a rule, admission to bail is a matter of right.

The right to bail is constitutional right. If the offense charged is bailable,


then, admission is a matter of right.

Section 3, Article 13, of the 1987 Constitution provides:

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by


reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction,
be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall no be
required.

Section 4, of the amended Rule 114, of the 2000 Revised Rules on


Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides:
All persons in custody shall admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this
Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment.

The above-cited constitutional and legislative provisions of law, no


doubt, give emphasis to the right of an accused to post bail when he is
deprived of his liberty, by virtue of a warrant of arrest or via citizen’s arrest.

Thus, to reiterate for emphasis, from the moment an accused is placed


under arrest, or is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can
claim guarantee of his provisional liberty under the Bill of Rights, and he
retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an
offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, (or death),
and the evidence of his guilt is strong (Padua and Pimentel vs People, et al.,
G.R. 220913, February 4, 2019)

2. It is the position of the Accused that application for bail does not
constitute an accused’s waiver to assail the irregularity or illegality of the
arrest.

3. Using the case of Miranda v. Tuliao where this Honorable Court had
based its decision to deny the instant Motion to Quash, with due respect, it is
considered opinion that the facts and circumstances are far-fetched and/or
do not apply in the instant case. Cognately, the Supreme Court held that:

“In fine, as much as it is incongruous to grant bail to one who is free, it is


likewise incongruous to require one to surrender his freedom before
asserting it. Human rights enjoy a higher preference in the hierarchy of rights
than property rights.”

4. The learned opinion of Judge Eleuterio Bathan 1 is likewise


persuasive:

“With the inclusion of Section 26, Rule 114, 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, the doctrine that the filing of a petition for
bail is a waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest laid down in Harvey v.
Defensor-Santiago and reiterated in People v. Abapo, 239 SCRA 373 is no
longer controlling. So, under Section 26, Rule 114, 2000 Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, bail is no longer a bar to objections on
illegal arrest.”
1
Bathan, Judge Eleuterio Larisma, Remedial Law Recitals in Criminal Procedure - 2019 Revised Edition.
Central Books. Pages 401-402
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that an Order be issued granting the Motion to Quash of the
Accused RAYMUND MANZANARES, VIVIEN MANZANARES, and CHRISTINE
PITIQUEN

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.

Quezon City for the City of Manila, 11 September 2020

ATTY. NARZAL B. MALLARES


No. 2 Sct. Dr. Lazcano cor. Mo. Ignacia St.
Brgy. Paligsahan, Quezon City
PTR No. 9506489/1-20-2020/Quezon City
IBP No. AR51335397/1-20-2020/Quezon City
MCLE No. VI-0017109/01-10-2019
Roll of Attorney: 29557
Cellphone No. 0906-2767254
Email: [email protected]

NOTIFICATION

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT


Metropolitan Trial Court
City of Manila
Branch 19
Greetings:

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel shall submit the


foregoing Motion for the approval and consideration of this Honorable Court
on September 15, 2020 at 1:00 P.M.

ATTY. NARZAL B. MALLARES


Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR


Manila City Hall
City of Manila

Crimes Against Property


Investigation Section –
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Unit (CAPIS-CIDU)
Manila Police District
U. N. Avenue, Manila

EXPLANATION OF FILING AND SERVICE


In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of
Procedure, as amended, the undersigned counsel respectfully manifests that
the filing of this Motion was made thru by electronic mail and service was
made to the other parties via LBC as personal filing and service are not
practicable at present for lack of manpower and due to pandemic conditions

ATTY. NARZAL B. MALLARES

You might also like