Legtech Rtc Decision

7/27/2019 Legtech Rtc Decision

1/20

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAVITE

Fourth Judicial Region

Branch 18

Tagaytay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Plaintiffs)

versus

Pedro Lim y Caniza

Venerando Ozores

Bonifacio Roxas y Viacrusis

Luisito Mirasol y Balungan

Eugenio Hizon y Param

Mariano Hizon y Mendoza

Capt. Alfred Abad and

Eugene Yu y Chua (Accused)

___________________________________

D E C I S I O N

At bar is the above captioned cases charging Pedro Lim Y Caniza,Verando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas Y Viacrusis, Luisito Mirasol YBalungan, Eugenio Hizon Y Param, Mariano Hizon Y Mendoza, Capt.

Alfred Abad and Eugene Yu Y Chua for the crime of kidnapping withtwo (2) counts of murder.


2/20

In an Information charging all accused on November 14, 1994 readsas follows:

With intent to kill, qualified by treachery, evident premeditation,taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or

by a band, or by employing means or persons to ensure or affordimpunity and the use of a motor vehicle, consideration of pricereward or promise, conspiring, confederating and mutually helpingone another, did then there willfully, unlawfully and feloniouslyabduct the (two victims herein), with violence upon the persons of

Atty. Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino by then shooting in thehead with a firearm thereby causing their instantaneousdeath. CONTRARY TO LAW.

The arraignment of the accused took place on different dates. OnJune 23, 1997, the following accused who were then arraigned arePedro Lim Y Caniza, Eduardo Hizon Y Param, Mariano Hizon YMendoza and Luisito Mirasol Y Balungan.

On July 7, 1997, accused Bonifacio Roxas was likewise arraigned withVenerando Ozores on July 9, 1997.

Accused Eugene Yu was likewise arraigned on May 13, 2003.

All of the accused after having been arraigned entered their respectiveplea of NOT GUILTY.

NOTE: This is a consolidated information; the accused being thesame in the cases of Murder two (2) counts and kidnapping.

Consequently pre-trial follows:

On August 5, 2003, pre-trial was conducted pursuant to theprovisions of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended by

the 1988 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The prosecution wasrepresented by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, Jose Velasco, Jr.,Private Prosecutors, Atty. Phydias Emmanuel Ramos and Atty. DaniloCunanan and the accused Bonifacio Roxas, assisted by his counsel-de-parte, Atty. Victorino Fonier appeared.

The prosecution did not mark any documentary evidence and


3/20

manifested that the marking will be made during the course of thetrial.

The following proposals for admission were introduced by theprosecution:

1. That Bonifacio Roxas who is here today is the same Bonifacio Roxaswho is the accused in these cases, which was admitted by the defense;

2. That the Honorable Court has the jurisdiction to try these casesover the person of the accused, which was admitted by the defense;

3. That in so far as those cases are concerned, we have alreadypresented witnesses and we have already formally offered some

documents in the petition for bail, which were admitted by thedefense;

4. That there were previous stipulations and markings insofar as theother accused are concerned and the same be adopted as far asBonifacio Roxas is concerned.

5. And likewise, the testimonies of the witnesses be considered asretaken subject to cross-examination of the same, which wereadmitted by the defense.

The issues proposed by the prosecution are then following:

1. Whether or not Bonifacio Roxas is part of he conspiracy and thealleged gunman who shot Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino.

2. Whether or not the accused Bonifacio Roxas is liable for damages.

On the part of the accused, the counsel did not mark anydocumentary evidence nor offer any stipulation of facts. The counsel

manifested then manifested that he will be presenting the accusedhimself (Bonifacio Roxas)

Pre-trial was concluded and parties are given fifteen (15) days fromreceipt of the pre-trial order to make the necessary correctionotherwise they are not allowed thereafter.


4/20


5/20

Peter Lim and the owner type jeep belongs to Rodolfo Ochoa.

On cross-examination Rodolfo Ochoa reiterated that he freely andvoluntarily executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay and his purpose is totell the everything about the incident on November 14, 1994; and thatthe Sinumpaang Salaysay was freely executed by him and nobodyforced him to do so and he likewise testified that Sgt. Abalon is hissuperior and that it is his duty to follow instructions of the people

who are organic personnel. Sgt. Abalon and his superior are organicofficer and in charge of releasing other equipments of the 520th Air

Wing; and that said officer is in charge of releasing firearms tocivilian agents and he is one of the agent who was issued thefirearm. Said witness stated that he was armed with a Mission Order.The affidavit dated December 31, 1993 and the Mission Order dated

June 20, 1994. The 9 m. m. pistol issued to the herein wtitness wascovered by a Mission Order. Subsequent order were issued to him(referring to Ochoa) covering the date of questioned incident datedNovember 14, 1994 and that all the civilian agent were involved inthat November 14, 1994 incident were issued a Mission Order as wellas the Memorandum Receipt for their firearm and that they weredispatched on November 14, 1994 by Capt. Alfred Abad to continuethe surveillance of a certain Wilfredo De Los Santos. The said

witness furthermore said that before they went to the place of thesubject matter of the surveillance, the group which was manned by

Roxas, Sgt. Abalon, Vennie Ozores, Eugene de los Santos and TotoMirasol went to Greenbelt and arrived so early in the target place.

They decided to watch Karate movie. So much so, that where theywere already tailing the subject Mercedes vehicle of Atty. Tan and hisdriver were on board, they were caught at the Alabang exit. TheDatsun car driven by Bonifacio Roxas suddenly cut the lane of theMercedes Benz. The owner type jeep driven by Sgt. Abalon stopped atthe back of the Mercedes Benz. The driver of the Mercedes Benzalighted and the group forcefully entered the Mercedes Benz at the

back seat and at the side of the subject Atty. Tan and his driver. Thewitness realized that the mission order given to him was to arrest theFinancier na Pula was a dangerous mission. And being a dangerousmission all of them must be armed.

In the additional direct-examination, Rodolfo Ochoa was able to


6/20

identify Eugene Yu, Venerando Ozores, Luisito alyas Toto Mirasolwere also in the group of as well as Bonifacio Roxas alyas Boning.That Rodolfo Ochoa when he first came to know in the media andnewspapers that they were charged with this crime dated December13, 1994, he surrendered to the police authorities especially before theTask Force Habagat on December 16,1994. His SinumpaangSalasay was signed by him after he surrendered to the said TaskForce Habagat before Gen. Pampilo Lacson.

2. REYNALDO DE LOS SANTOS, under direct-testimony testifiedthat in the surveillance he conducted in person Financier na Pulatook them almost a month and in the second week of October. Thatthe surveillance mission with accused Bonifacio Roxas, VenerandoOzores and Rodolfo Ochoa and the vehicle that they used were two

(2) Datsun cars colored brown owner jeep owned by RudyOchoa. The start of the surveillance took place after lunch and pulledout around 3:00 oclock and 4:00 oclock in the afternoon and afterchecking the subject was not around and if it is positive they will justfollow the subject up to 8:00 oclock in the evening.

The duration of the surveillance was financed by Bonifacio Roxas, ashe provided them food, gasoline expenses.

Other than Bonifacio Roxas somebody is providing the latter money

for the expenses. When the surveillance was negative, they called upsomeone who gave instruction to proceed to a house in Taft Avenue,Manila. Ochoa, Reynaldo De Los Santos were brought by BonifacioRoxas to a house in Taft Avenue near La Salle. In fact, whenBonifacio Roxas called up somebody on a phone and talked to acertain Peter Lim, he was only one (1) foot away from the accusedRoxas. After knocking at the green gate of the house at Taft Avenuetwo (2) persons opened the gate and we were allowed to get in. Thattheir vehicle stopped in front of the door of the house; That he stillremember that the house was located between the school building ofLa Salle, Taft Avenue. Accused Eugene Yu appeared at the door andBonifacio Roxas approached him and he handed to Bonifacio Roxasan envelope with a cash and a small piece of paper. Witness De LosSantos was certain that the person was Eugene Yu. Witness furthertestified that he first came to know Eugene Yu at his wedding atGreen Hills and he was one of those who secured the area. Aside from


7/20

the fact that he frequented the Office at 520th Airbase, Airwing andhe was certain that the one handling the money was Eugene Yu, thehouse to where Rodolfo Ochoa and Reynaldo De Los Santos were

brought by Bonifacio Roxas was owned by Peter Lim and two (2)persons who were also civilian agents were also given money byBonifacio Roxas. On their way back to the office, Bonifacio Roxasshowed him piece of paper handed to him by Eugene Yu and thecash. The contents of this piece of paper was the name of TanManzano Law Office, Pacific Building, Ayala Makati and consequentlythey were advised to proceed to said place as the subject was holdingoffice there. Upon arrival at Villamor air Base, he handed theenvelope to Captain Abad and Captain Abad opened it and took somecash and gave it to Bonifacio Roxas and before leaving the office,Bonifacio Roxas again handed to them some cash and told them

bonus. And before they separated, accused Bonifacio Roxasinstructed Sgt. Abalon and Venerando Ozores to wear PLDT uniform,the following day. The following day, they proceeded to De La Rosastreet in front of the place where the subject was working and theyparked their car in the car park. Reynaldo De Los Santos wasinstructed by Bonifacio Roxas to proceed to the third level of the carpark, to check the vehicle of our subject. He saw the car, he wentdown again and reported to Bonifacio Roxas that the vehicle ofthe subject was there. In connection with this case, Reynaldo De LosSantos voluntarily surrendered was detained at Camp Crame. After

surrendering, he was interrogated and investigated regarding thiscase. The witnesswas shown is Sinumpaang Salaysay and wasasked to sign above the type written name Reynaldo De Los Santosand he affirmed to be his signature.

3. SGT. EDGAR ALLAN C. ABALON he is a member of thePhilippine Air Force Intelligence 520th ABW. Sgt. Abalon waspresent when Patricia Lim then accompanied by Eugene Yu and PeterLim had an argument with Gilda Lim. Eugene Yu, was the fiance of

Patricia Lim, thwarted the attempt of Gilda Lim against Patricia withthe help and timely arrival of some law enforcement agents. Sgt.Abalon further testified that he met Pedro Lim six times at their officeat Villamor Air Base and during which Pedro Lim always met withCapt. Abad. Sgt. Abalon, thus he stated:

Sometime in October 1994, Capt. Abad ordered him (Sgt. Abalon)


8/20

with the other accused and state witnesses to conduct a surveillanceoperations on one Wilfredo delos Santos, a financier ng mga pula(NPA) Alex Buncayno Brigade who in reality is the victim Atty.Eugene Tan, demanding revolutionary tax on Pedro Lim. He was alsotold that Bonifacio Roxas, one of the accused, can point to him thisWilfredo de los Santos he was to coordinate with BonifacioRoxas. Accused Bonifacio Roxas then was one of their civilian assetsand a protege of Capt. Abad. He, Roxas was likewise assigned as asecurity to Pedro Lim by Capt. Abad.

Sometime in the first week of November 1994, Capt. Abad, Roxas andPedro Lim were impatient that they wanted Wilfredo de los Santospicked up as Pedro Lim was being pressured to pay the revolutionarytax. Pedro Lim told Sgt. Abalon Kailangan mukuha na Butch dahil

tinatakot na ako.

On November 7, 1994, Sgt. Abalon, Bonifacio Roxas, Rudy Ochoa,Venarando Ozores, Reynaldo delos Santos and Toto Mirasol wereabout to get Wilfredo delos Santos whom they were tailing while thelatter was aboard his Nissan Patrol Car. Except for Toto Mirasol who

was Roxas man, Ochoa, Ozores and Delos Santos were all Capt.Abads civilian agents. Capt. Abads instruction was to take Wilfredode los Santos to his office for tactical interrogation.

On November 14, 1994, the operatives got Wilfredo de losSantos. After tailing Wilfredo de los Santos for sometime startingfrom Makati with Roxas driving a Datsun Car along with Reynaldo delos Santos and Toto Mirasol, blocked the path of Wilfredo de losSantos Mercedes Benz car, 150 meters from the Alabang Toll boothcausing the victim of the car to stop while the owner type jeep driven

by Rudy Ochoa bumped the rear of the Mercedes Benz.

Sgt. Abalon was riding the owner type jeep driven by Rudy Ochoa andVenerando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas then jumped out of the Datsuncar and strangled the victims driver, Eduardo Constantino, for him toobey their instructions. Thereafter, he was put inside the Datsun car

with Mirasols help. Venerando Ozores then drove the Mercedes Benzwhile he and Reynaldo de los Santos sat with the victim Atty. EugeneTan at the back seat. Sgt. Abalon then called Roxas to now proceed tothe office of challenger, Capt. Abads call sign, but Bonifacio Roxas,


9/20

with the agreement of others, said they were taking the victims to thesafe house.

Along the way, Sgt. Abalon had a conversation with Wilfredo de losSantos who asked why he was arrested. It was then that Wilfredode los Santos told Sgt. Abalon that they got the wrong guy and thathe was not Wilfredo de los Santos but Atty. Eugene Tan. Sgt.Abalonremonstrated over the blunder but he later realized that everyone inthe team except he, knew the real identity of Wilfredo de los Santosto be Atty. Eugene Tan and that they were not taking the victims toCapt. Abads office but somewhere else. Sgt. Abalon was helplesseveryone else in the team was armed except him.

Upon reaching Dasmarinas, Cavite, accused Bonifacio Roxas alighted

from the Datsun car and forcibly dragged Atty. Eugene Tan out of thecar and said to the victim Putang ina mo, alam mo malaki atraso mokay Peter Lim? Halika nga ditto! then forcibly loaded him aboard theDatsun car and drove further. At this point Reynaldo Engine de losSantos transferred to the Datsun car. Somewhere along the way he,again tried to convince Bonifacio Roxas to bring Atty. Eugene Tan toCapt. Abads office for tactical interrogation. That he flagged downthe Datsun car driven by Bonifacio Roxas who stopped, then rolledthe window. Sgt. Abalon then saw the dead bodies of Atty. EugeneTan and his driver Constantino lying limp and bathed in

blood. Bonifacio Roxas then proceeded to the place of Eugenio Hizonin Silang, Cavite to bury the bodies. Sgt. Abalon and Ozores followedand when they reached the house the wife of Eugenio Hizon toldthem, Dinala na nia, implying that she knew that Bonifacio Roxasand company were going to bury the bodies.

Sgt. Abalon and the other team members, except for Reynaldo delosSantos, went to see Capt. Abad at the house of Col. Abelardo

Abad. Sgt. Abalon immediately protested and told Capt. Abad Sir,bakit ganoon nangyari. Ginago nyo ako eh! But Capt. Abad told himto keep quiet, not to pose a security risk and that he will becompensated for the job.

Then Capt. Abad called someone in front of him Ochoa andOzores. Abad called Peter Lim by phone and the witness overheardCapt. Abad say HelloPeter pleasePeter LimSi Nonoy O, tapos


10/20

na then hung up the receiver.

4. CYNTHIA TAN the widow of the late Atty. Eugene Tan testifiedthat she and the victim have five (5) children. That the happiness ofthe family was cut short by the unjustified killing of her husband. Shelikewise testified on the anguish and pain that she and her childrensuffered; the loss of monetary support that her husband provides. Theloss of life of the husband cannot be compensated in terms of moneyonly but the justice of putting behind bars the perpetrators andconspirators of the crime. She therefore testified on the expenseincurred for the burial of her husband and the earning capacity of herhusband who was a senior partner of the Tan, Manzano law offices.

5. EUNICE TAN the third of the five children of the deceased Atty.

Eugene Tan likewise narrated how she felt with the loss of her father.Of how the love and support of their father was suddenly snatched bythe grisly murder of her father and his driver for which all of theaccused must suffer the consequences.

For Eduardo Constantinos part, the driver of the late Atty, EugeneTan, the defense made stipulation on the death of the said

victim. They likewise agreed to stipulate the heirs left by the saidvictim and the expenses incurred in the burial.

6. DR. ROSALINE COSIDON, Medico Legal Officer, Camp Crame,testified on cause, facts and circumstances of death of Atty. EugeneTan and Eduardo Constantino, both of which are un-rebutted. Theidentities were duly established. And pursuant to the autopsyconducted by the said Medico Legal Officer, the first cadaverexamined was Atty, Eugene Tan. He briefly testified that the gunshot

wound was on the head of the victim with size of 0.8 x 0.8; that thegun used was a 38 caliber revolver, With respect to the autopsy of theother victim Eduardo Constantino, the driver of Eugene Tan, thesame location of the gunshot wound on the head was testified to bythe Doctor as well as the size of the gunshot wound which is 0.8 x0.8. The autopsy of both cadavers were conducted on November 18,1994 at the Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City.

7. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT RODOLFO TOR testified thathe was one of the arresting officer of Pedro Lim. That Lim wasarrested because of the affidavit of Bonifacio Roxas pointing to him


11/20

as one of the mastermind in the killing of Atty. Eugene Tan and hisdriver.

After the prosecution has completely presented their evidence, thepresentation of defense evidence followed:

1. PETER LIM Y CANIZAwas presented as first defense witnessand stated that he was 43 year old, married, sales manager andresident of 2353 Taft Avenue. Malate, Metro Manila and an

Australian citizen. He further testified that he was born in Manila ofFilipino parents; that he became an Australian citizen throughnaturalization process which was in 1984. He was required to residein Australia after naturalization in 1984 and then he said he wasresiding in Melbourne, Australia and he worked as a sales manager

for an import-export corporation dealing in artificial flowers and thename of his employer was Danic Propriety Limited in 1990 receivinga salary of $26,000.00 Australian Dollar. Since, he was naturalizedas an Australian Citizen in 1994, he had been in the Philippines threetimes and that was in 1986, 1990 and 1994. And after he goes to thePhilippines, he usually stays here for several months. He furthertestified that his nick name is Peter and that he denies being themastermind in the killing of a certain Eugene Tan and that he nevermet any one like Sgt. Abalon, Bonifacio Roxas inside the Villamor

Airbase and that he further denies having met Sgt, Abalon and

uttered to him the statements, Pinipilit ka na raw. by the victim inthis case. And this meeting with Sgt. Abalon was followed by anothermeeting between you (Peter Lim), a certain Capt, Abad and BonifacioRoxas inside the Villamor Airbase; that he further denied that hemade a promise to the other accused in this case to pay them about500,000.00 pesos in exchange for the killing the victim Eugene Tan;that he arrived in the Philippines in July 2, 1994 and he presented hispassport and that he was arrested illegally pursuant to the Decision ofthe Court of Appeals in the case of Peter Lim versus Judge Guerrero.He furthermore stated that he is married and the name of his wife isBernadette Lm and she is here today attending the courthearing. And that he never made any inducement in the commissionof the crime which led to the death of the victim Eugene Tan andEduardo Constantino neither was he a privy to that conspiracyleading to the arrest of Eugene Tan and his driver.


12/20

The accused Peter Lim was again called to the witness stand. Saidwitness in testifying under the same oath for additional direct-examination, for purposes of authenticating the passport.

Defense witness, Peter Lim Y Caniza presented his two (2) originalpassports in the name of Peter C. Lim, the first which expired on July6, 1998 and the second which expired on July 21, 2008. Said witnesstestified on the authenticity of both passports; that the photocopies ofthe passports No L-1307093 and passports No. 0271259 are faithfulreproduction of the original.

Said witness further testified that his parents are Filipino and they arestill alive and residing in Malate, Manila and their lives have beenspent here in the Philippines. But the mother of said witness has

already died on February 1995 and his father is the only one living inManila as well as his brother, sisters are all residing in Manila; thatthey are all Filipino Citizen; that the witness wife and is child are alsoresiding in Manila most of them stay here; that most of his closestrelatives and friends are all here in the Philippines; that when the

witness said if he is willing to surrender his passport he answered Byall means; that he is willing to comply with all the conditionsimposed by this Honorable Court, in particular, reporting periodicallyin person to the members of the Court or to any representative of theCourt. As an Australian Citizen, the embassy has been supportive in

his case; they have been monitoring the same and they have writtenthe Department of Foreign Affairs about the case; they also visitedhim (Peter Lim) in jail; they also attended Court hearings; that one ofthe consular officers is present in Court; that definitely he has nointention of fleeing the country (Philippines) should his applicationfor bail is granted; the witness said that the renewal of his passport

was properly made. The Australian embassy sent their personnel tojail, took photograph and then he filled up a renewal application formfor the passport.

The said witness, accused Peter Lim on cross-examination testifiedthat he was in the Philippines on November 14, 1994 and even amonth prior thereto he was also here in the Philippines.

2.ANTHONY LUCERO, 39 years old, married, governmentemployee and resident of Block 9, Lot 8, Mercedes Homes, Binan,


13/20

Laguna, after which he testified in the following manners:

The instant witness is the chief of PAG-ASA station of Tagaytay andhe is being presented for the purpose of identifying the measurementof rainfall made by the Amdadeo Rain on November 14, 15 and 17,1994. He further testified that a certain Panfila Gica, a weatherspecialist of PAG-ASA, Rosa Boy and Lourdes are also connected withthe climatology. All these persons are connected with PAG-

ASA. Witness Anthony Lucero testified that he is connected withPAG-ASA and is presently holding the position of Weather SpecialistII and his designated as the Chief of the Tagaytay PAG-ASA sinceadmission. This witness likewise stated his duties and responsibilitiesand one of which is to manage the weather station administrativelyand technically insure that the weather parameter are properly

measured and recorded on the PAG-ASA form that we have beenprovided and to perform supervisory duties to the personnel assignedhereat and pursuant to the bunch of documents which were presented

by the witness was the weather condition over Matitim, Amadeo,Cavite from November 14, 15, 17, 1994; that was the measurement ofthe amount of rainfall for the day on 14 of November, 1994 and theperiod of occurrence, the period of occurrence of rainfall startingfrom a certain period and the period where it ended. The witnessfurther stated the measurement of rainfall through eight inches gaugeand which is measured from 8:00 oclock. The period of observation

is 8:00 oclock in the morning and 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, theymeasure the rainfall and they recorded it to the chart where it hadoccurred and that they clarify that the metrical day is very muchdifferent with the local standard because the meteorological standardstarts at 8:00 oclock the following day and whatever measurementthey could record in 8:00 oclock, that is charged the previous day.

3. SPO3 AGATON OLQUINO testified that he is from Firearmsand Explosive Office, Philippine National Police (FEO-PNP), whoproduced and identified exhibits 8, 9 and 10 and their sub-markings, consisting of duly authenticated public documentspertaining to firearms licenses and/or applications in the name ofEdgar Allan Castillo Abalon. Through Oliquino, the defense was ableto establish that:

a. Abalon lied when he testified before this Court on 20 August 1997


14/20

that he did not own a 45 caliber firearm, when FEO records show thatjust two months previously, on 11 June 197 Abalon applied for alicense for a .45 caliber frame (tsn, 6-22-01), pp. 24-25);

b. Abalon lied in the license application (Exh. 9) he filed with FEOin 1996 for a .38 caliber pistol when he stated therein that he has noprevious application for a firearm license, when Exh. 8 and its sub-markings show that Abalon applied for and was granted a firearmlicense in 1995 for a 9 mm. pistol (tsn,6-22-01, pp. 9-10, 17-18); and

c. Abalon has been illegally possessing firearms since 1997, since henever renewed the firearms licenses that he secured in 1996 (for a .38caliber pistol) after they lapsed in 1997 and 1998 respectively, sinceSection 5 of P.D. 1866 provides that the term of unlicensed firearms

includes a firearms with an expired license (TSN, 6-22-01, pp 29 -34).

Pursuant to trial memorandum of the accused Pedro C. Lim page 6and 7. The said witness testified on the validity of the firearms fortwo years. Upon the expiration of the two year period lifetime of thelicense, under Section 5 of Presidential Decree 1866, as amended thecoverage of the term unlicensed shall include the firearm with expiredlicense.

Meaning this particular license has already expired and considered to

be unlicensed firearm.

4. EUGENE YU, with respect to the accused Eugene Yu, assummarized herein, post the twin isssue of:

1. Whether or not accused Eugene Yus constitutional rights to speedytrial and speedy disposition of his case has been violated.

2. Whether or not the evidence of the prosecution show beyondreasonable doubt the guilt of the accused Eugene Yu.

Accused Eugene Yu respectfully submits his constitutional right tospeedy trial and disposition of cases has been transgressed.

First, record shows that the period between the day when thisHonorable Courts Resolution downgrading the Information againstaccused Eugene Yu should have been compile with by the prosecution


15/20

of, which was sometime in February 1996, and the arraignment ofaccused Eugene Yu, which was on 13 May 2003, is more than seven(7) years.

Second, the delay is attributable to the prosecution. Accused EugeneYu after failing to seek for a reconsideration of the Order of thisHonorable Court finding probable cause to indict him as anaccomplice for the abduction and killing of Atty. Tan and his driver,did not anymore assail the said ruling before the High Court butinstead steadfastly faced the accusations against him. On the otherhand, the prosecution persistently wanted to indict accused Eugene

Yu as principal for the abduction and killing of Atty. Tan and hisdriver notwithstanding the unconvincing statements of is witnessesOchoa and de los Santos.

Third, the accused Eugene Yu is asserting that his constitutional rightto speedy trial and speedy disposition of cases at this very stage. Andeven on the assumption that the accused failed to assert this right, itis settled that the right of the accused to speedy trial and speedydisposition of his case will be upheld notwithstanding his failure totake any step to assert his right. Thus, in Cervantes vs.Sandiganbayan (307 SCRA 149 ), Supreme Court held:

We cannot accept the Special Prosecutors ratiocination. It is the

duty of the Prosecutor to to speedily resolve the complaint, asmandated by the Constiution, regardless of whether the petitioner didnot object to the delay or that the delay was with his acquiescenceprovided that it was not due to causes directly attributable to him.

Finally, the question of how much lapse of time is consistent with theconstitutional guarantee of speedy trial and speedy disposition ofcases varies with the particular circumstances. There is noconstitutional basis for holding the right to a speedy trial can bequantified into a specified number of days and months (21A Am Jur2d Sec.1036). The mere passage of time is not sufficient to establish adenial of a right to speedy trial, but a length delay, which ispresumptively prejudicial, triggers the examination of other factors todetermine whether rights have been violated (U.S. vs. Villete 688 F.Supp. 777 (D. Mer. 1988).

To be considered as accomplice, one needs to have knowledge of and


16/20

participation in the criminal act. In other words, the principal andthe accomplice must have acted in conjunction and directed theirefforts to the same end. Thus, it is essential that both were united intheir criminal design and purposes.

CAREFUL EVALUATION, of the foregoing facts andcircumstances will show that the testimonies of Abalon, de los Santosand Ochoa, on the out of Court utterances of Roxas and Capt. Abadhave no legal importance because they are heresay without probative

value. Unless Roxas and Abad are presented in Court and unlessaccused Pedro Lim is given the opportunity to cross-examine them,so as to test their accuracy and credibility, the extra judicialdeclaration of (Abalon, de los Santos and Ochoa) have no probative

value at all and cannot be used as evidence against Pedro Lim and the

other accused.

State witnesses Reynaldo de los Santos and Rodolfo Ochoa personallysaw the shooting to death of the late Atty. Eugene Tan and his driverEduardo Constantino by accused Bonifacio Roxas inside the Datsuncar.

There is no evidence that the accused Pedro Lim participated in thecommission of the crime by the other specific acts direct or indirect.

The spontaneous utterances of accused Bonifacio Roxas quotedtherein Halika ka nga dito, malaki atraso mo ka Peter Lim to thelate Atty. Eugene Tan was nothing but a hollow utterances bereft ofany evidenciary value against Pedro Lim because the accusedBonifacio Roxas was never presented in court although he wasavailable. The failure of the prosecution to represent evidence that

will collaborate such utterances of accused Bonifacio Roxas rendersthe inculpation of Peter Lim in the above captioned cases withoutlegal and factual basis.

The telephone conversation claimed by Sgt. Edgar Allan C. Abalonobtaining between Capt. Abad and Pedro Lim was without anycorroborating evidence showing clearly that both Abad and Lim werereally talking to each other on he phone because there was specificevidence showing as to who was talking in the other line. Aside fromthe fact that Sgt. Abalon does not know the exact number which wasdialed by Capt. Alfred Abad. Again, it is speculative in character and


17/20

therefore not cognizable in this Jurisdiction.

In sum, the above captioned cases are without substantial evidencebeyond reasonable doubt impleading Pedro Lim as accused herein.

With respect to the case of Eugene Yu, the envelope and piece ofpaper written the Office of Tan, Manzano, Villes, Pacific Building,Greenbelt Makati City given to the accused Bonifacio Roxas asclaimed by Ochoa, de los Santos and Abalon the best evidence is toprove such incident is accused Bonfacio Roxas by Eugene Yu andtherefore the failure to present him in Court renders the said claimnullified and without legal force and effect.

The evidence that the alleged envelope contains the pay off money

given to accused Bonifacio Roxas by Eugene Yu was hearsaybeing uncorroborated by other evidence.

Prosecution witnesses Rodolfo Ochoa, Reynaldo de los Santos andSgt. Edgar Allan Abalon to the effect that they have no knowledgeabout the real purpose of the operation is NOTED, because all the

while they were made to believe by accused Bonifacio Roxas that theobjective behind the surveillance operation was on how to arrest theColletor ng Pula (NPA-Communist Tax Collector) known as Wilfredode los Santos, and therefore such surveillance operation was

legitimate.

On the other hand it was only Bonifacio Roxas who knew thesurveillance operation true and real objectives. The Datsun car usedin such operation driven by Bonifacio Roxas was without anyregistration papers showing its ownership, hence the allegation thatthe Datsun car is owned by Peter Lim is self-serving and thereforehearsay on the ground that the certificate of registration of theDatsun car was never presented by the Prosecution.

Our Honorable Supreme Court said in People vs. Ragondiaz, 334SCRA 193, 207, 208, (2000), When an accused is charged asprincipal, the prosecution must prove the specific acts done by him.

The principal in the commission of the crime are (1) those who takesa direct part in the execution of the act, (2) those who directly force orinduce others to commit it, and (3) those who cooperate in the


18/20

commission of the offense by another act without which it could nothave been accomplished. As such in order convict accused appellantsas principal in the crime of murder, the prosecution must provespecific acts done by him which fall under any of the above-mentioned acts.

Viewed on the foregoing facts, this court believes that the prosecutionmiserably failed to prove the culpability and the criminal liability ofPedro Lim accused as principal by induction for the crime ofkidnapping and double murder of late Atty. Eugene Tan and hisdriver Eduardo Constantino beyond reasonable doubt.

Eugene Yu, accused as accomplice in the above caption cases islikewise without any criminal liability as such, for failure of the

prosecution to prove the criminal participation of Yu beyondreasonable doubt.

With respect to the other accused namely:

Capt. Alfred Abad (at large)

Toto Mirasol (detained)

Venerando Ozores (detained)

Mariano Hizon (detained)

Eugenio Hizon (detained) deceased

Their respective criminal liability was not proven by the prosecutionbeyond reasonable doubt because accused Bonifacio Roxas was notpresented in the hearing of the above caption cases. Except for Capt.

Abad who is at large, all other accused herein are without knowledgeof the true objective of the surveillance because they were not

properly briefed by Bonifacio Roxas. All the while they were in thefirmed belief that the operation was legitimate.

Capt. Alfred Abad even during the conduct of the preliminaryinvestigation proceedings before the Department of Justice, panel ofprosecutors was not presented, however due to the failure of theprosecution to adduce evidence against him, the Constitutional


19/20

presumption of innocence still holds in his favor and therefore thereis no legal and factual basis to indict and convict him for lack of

jurisdiction over this person.

Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing facts and circumstancesaccused Bonifacio Roxas is hereby declared GUILTY of theCRIMES of KIDNAPPING and DOUBLE MURDER under theRevised Penal Code of the Philippines for the killing of the late

Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Eduardo Constantino beyondreasonable doubt. The Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua is herebyimposed twice against the said Bonifacio Roxas, who is hereby furtherordered to indemnify the the civil and moral damages to the heirs ofthe late Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Eduardo Constantino in thetotal amount of 500,000.00 pesos for each victim.

For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused Peter Limbeyond reasonable doubt, he is herebyACQUITTED from the abovecaptioned case.

Likewise Eugene Yu accused as accomplice isherebyACQUITTEDfor failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt

beyond reasonable doubt in the instant cases.

TheACQUITTAL of the following accused namely:

Capt. Abad ( at large )

Toto Mirasol ( detained )

Venerando Ozores ( detained )

Mariano Hizon ( detained )

Eugenio Hizon ( who died while in detention )

are herebyORDERED on the grounds that their respective guiltwere not proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as itappears that they were in the firm belief tha the surveillanceoperation was against the Collector na Pula an NPA-Communist TaxCollector and therefore a legitimate surveillance operations.


20/20

Capt. Abad, who is at large up to now still enjoys the constitutionalpresumption of innocence and lack of jurisdiction over his person

being at large.

The Cash Bond put up for the provisional liberty of Pedro Lim andEugene Yu shall be released upon proper request and receipt of thesame are duly acknowledged.

NO COST.

January 10, 2011, Tagaytay City

SO ORDERED

Documents

Legtech Rtc Decision