REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTORPalace of Justice, Capitol, Cebu City

CEDRIC R. LAURON, VII-03-INV-10F-0554

Complainant, For: Grave

Threat

-versus-

EDUARDO SABALA, Respondent.X------------------------------------/

RESOLUTION

This criminal complaint for Grave Threat is filed by complainant against above-named respondent, as alleged hereunder:

Complainant alleged that in the evening of December 13, 2009, to his surprised, he was met by his wife that his aunt Antonia came to their house and told him that Eduardo Sabala wants to kill him. The next day, his younger brother Roy R. Lauron came to their house and told him that Eduardo Sabala, his brother-in-law the husband of her elder sister Catherine wants to kill him. Then Roy came from the house of Arcelli Cabungcal, and told him that Eduardo Sabala, his brother-in-law hired Arcelli Cabungkal to kill him (Cedric) because he was very angry with him because of their differences and that “gibarang nako kuno cya”; that Eduardo really wants to kill him. He was surprised when he heard the news from Roy, that his brother in law alias “Eddie” hired somebody to kill him. So, they went to their auntie Antonia for advice and then he immediately went to the Barangay to blotter the incident. He told the Barangay to call respondent so they could talk and have a confrontation, so that they can make a compromise agreement or give peace to any disagreement they have made and not resort to killings or nay bad motives. He and

his family were very worried to learn that he did not appear for the meeting in the Barangay or made an effort to talk to them. He was afraid of his life if ever respondent will really push thru his plans in killing him. On February 2010, he learned that Arcelli Cabungkal, the best friend of his brother Roy was shot to death, the man that his brother-in-law Eduardo Sabala hired to kill him. He was more afraid of his life that Eduardo Sabala, his brother-in-law will push thru his plans and hire another man to kill him.

Roy R. Lauron, in his Affidavit, confirmed that when he went to the house of Arcelli Cabungkal to inquire why he was looking for him, then and there told him that Eduardo Sabala ask him (Arcelli) to kill his brother Cedric and warns him to kill his brother Cedric that Eduardo Sabala has hired him (Arcelli) to kill his brother Cedric.

The undersigned sent subpoena to herein respondents to give him an opportunity to answer the charge which subpoena was received by a certain Warley Sabala per return of the subpoena. Despite receipt of the subpoena, respondent failed to answer the charge.

Upon a thorough examination of the evidence submitted by herein complainant, the undersigned finds the evidence insufficient to establish probable cause of herein complaint for Grave Threat. The threat to kill complainant came from hearsay evidence. There were two sources of information received by complainant that respondent Eduardo Sabala wanted to kill him and led him to file this complaint. The information came from complainant’s aunt Antonia and his brother Roy. Roy Lauron executed an affidavit stating therein that Arcelli Cabungkal told him that respondent Eduardo Sabala asked him to kill his brother Cedric because he was very angry with him because of their differences and that “gibarang cya ni Cedric kuno” and that he really wants to kill his brother Cedric. Roy’s statement is hearsay since he acquired such information from another person and not to his own personal knowledge. Section 36, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides,

Sec. 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is , which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules.

2

As such, the testimony of Roy Lauron, if he will be allowed to testify, is hearsay. Likewise, the information received by complainant from his aunt Antonia that Eduardo Sabala wants to kill him is also hearsay. Antonia did not execute an affidavit to prove her claim if ever she has personal knowledge of the same in order to support this instant complaint.. Without any personal knowledge of the complainant and his witness of the threat on the life of the complainant, this complaint cannot stand scrutiny.

Complainant’s Affidavit and that of his witness did not even contain the approximate date when the threat to kill was committed in order to satisfy the provision of Sec. 6 Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as to the sufficiency of his complaint.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned hereby recommends the dismissal of the above-entitled complaint against herein respondent for insufficiency of evidence.

Cebu City, Philippines, August 19, 2010.

ARNULFO V. AMODIA

Associate Prosecution Attorney II

MCLE Compliance No. III-0006435

Issued on 12-01-09

APPROVED:

E. JOSEPH P. BERCILES2nd Asst. Provincial ProsecutorMCLE III-0006354-11-26-09

OIC Per Office Memo No. 2010-40Dated July 23, 2010

3

4