Memorandum For The Prosecution-sample.docx 2c481n

Memorandum for the Prosecution REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 18 TAGAYTAY CITY CRIM CASE NO. TG-2395-94 TG-23595-94-A & TG-2396-94 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -versusPEDRO C. LIM, ET. AL, Accused. x—————————————————x MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION The People, by the undersigned prosecutors, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum as follows: PREFATORY STATEMENT In the evening of November 14, 1994, Atty. Eugene Tan, former President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and his driver Eduardo Constantino were abducted by the accused, acting in conspiracy with one another. The victims were forcibly abducted in Alabang, Muntinlupa and were brought to Cavite where they were shot to death and found in a shallow grave. The accused were then charged for kidnapping and two counts of murder. The prosecution humbly states and takes the position that it has presented competent witnesses, clear, convincing and sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused are guilty of committing the crime charged and that the accused miserably failed to present any evidence that could even raise an iota of doubt as to their guilt of the offenses charged. The Supreme Court has once said that violent death or brutal killing not only steals from the family of the deceased his precious life, deprives them forever of his love, affection and , but often leaves them with the knowing feeling that an injustice has been done to them (People vs. Caraig, 400 SCRA 67). I. STATEMENT OF FACTS During the course of the trial, the Prosecution, through its witnesses were able to establish the following facts: 1. On December 13, 1994 the Department of Justice issued a resolution in the Preliminary investigation of the case docketed as IS No. 94-557 finding probable cause against Pedro Lim, Bonifacio Roxas, Rodolfo Ochoa, Reynaldo de los Santos, Venerando Ozores, Toto Mirasol,

Mariano Hizon, Eugenio Hizon, Capt. Alfred Abad and Eugene Yu were charged with an information on November 14, 1994. The said information read: “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 afford impunity and with the use of a motor vehicle, consideration of price, reward or promise, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct the (two victims herein), and thereafter, attack, assault and use violence upon the persons by shooting with a firearm thereby causing instantaneous death.” 2. Subsequently, an amended Information was filed against the same accused before this Honorable Court on December 16 and 17, 1994. While under the custody of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) the accused Ochoa and De los Santos agreed to become state witnesses and thereafter executed separate sworn statements implicating Eugene Yu and the other accused as to the latter’s participation in the crime. During the Preliminary Investigation accused Reynaldo de los Santos and Rodolfo Ochoa were discharged as state witnesses. The discharge of Delos Santos and Ochoa were questioned before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court by the other accused. The Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, however, upheld the decision of the Department of Justice to discharge De los Santos and Ochoa as state witnesses. The gist of the testimonies of witnesses De los Santos and Ochoa are as follows: Accused Pedro Lim was the one who brought funds for the operation. That he also provided the team led by accused Roxas with the Nissan Datsun car sometime in September and November 1994 in the surveillance operation made by the team against the alleged “financier ng pula” who turned out to be the victim Atty. Eugene Tan. That sometime in the first week of November 1994 they saw and overheard accused Pedro Lim talking to Capt. Abad and Roxas about their plan to finish the surveillance operation and get the “financier ng pula” as soon as possible and that the same Datsun Car was used by the same team in the abduction and the killing of the victims. Sgt. Edgar “Butch” Abalon, an intelligence operative for the Philippine Air Force, assigned to the 520 Air Base Wing, Office of the Directorate for Intelligence “ODI” who was not included in the information testified on the following matter. That he came to know Peter Lim and Eugene Yu when he and his companions from the ODI responded to a comrades’ distress call at the Sanctuario de San Jose Church at Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila. The call was about a conflict between siblings Atty. Gilda Lim and Pedro and Patricia Lim on the other hand. Sgt. Abalon was told by his companions that some of them were providing security services to Patricia Lim upon orders of Capt. Abad. After that incident in Sanctuario de San Jose church, Sgt. Abalon was invited by the accused Peter Lim to meet with him and his sister Patricia. He was told that his sister, Atty. Gilda Lim, was being manipulated by a certain Atty. Eugene Tan in taking away all the properties belonging to their family. On another occasion, Pedro Lim asked Sgt. Abalon to be his security detail but Sgt. Abalon refused because he has not received any order from his security officer. th

On the witness stand he testified and confirmed his statement executed before the PACC. He testified on the surveillance they conducted as instructed by their superior officers. He also testified that his superiors told him that the subject of the surveillance has a standing warrant of arrest. That it took them many days to conduct the surveillance that at one point he disguised himself as a repairman of PLDT to gain access at the office of the financier ng pula. That he was likewise ordered by the superior officers to immediately make the necessary arrest of the financier ng pula upon coordination with Bonifacio Roxas who was designated the leader as he was the one who has knowledge of the financer ng pula. Sgt. Abalon, as with Ochoa and De los Santos testified that in the evening prior to November 14, 1994, they were instructed by Captain Abad to effect the arrest of the Financier ng Pula. As per Sgt. Abalon’s testimony, he said that in the early afternoon of the same date, he and accused Roxas were instructed by Capt. Abad to effect immediately the arrest of the financer ng pula because the latter was already pestering Pedro Lim and the other of his family. That as per information of witness De los Santos and accused Roxas, the subject was at his office at the Tan Manzano & Velez law office in Makati City. When the group of Sgt. Abalon and Roxas were able to confirm the victim’s presence at the said office because of the parked Mercedes Benz at its reserved space which they earlier identified as belonging to the financier ng pula, they prepared to execute the plan. Being too early in the place they decided to watch a movie “The Shadow” at the Makati Cinema Square, to while away the time. After watching the movie, they all returned to their previous stations near the office of their subject between 5:30 pm and 6:30 pm. After failing at first to follow the victim’s vehicle when it left its reserved parking space as they lost it in traffic, the group was able to locate the car with the driver and its engers in Bel-Air Village, Makati City. They continued the stake-out and when the Mercedes Benz car leave the said location with the two (2) victims on board, they followed it using two vehicles. He (Abalon) was on board an owner type jeepney driven by accused Ochoa and the other of the group were in a Datsun car driven by accused Roxas who is the designated leader of the group. Before reaching the Nichols exit, accused Roxas radioed Sgt. Abalon who was on board the owner type jeep and told the latter that they will carry out and start their operation after the Alabang Access road exit which consist of their previous plan to abduct their subject as hatched by accused Roxas, through a method where the Datsun car being driven by accused Roxas will overtake the car. To stop the Mercedes Benz, Roxas will bump the rear portion of the car, which method was carried out by the group. When they and their subject all ed by the Alabang Toll exit gate, they immediately executed the plan. Roxas blocked the path of the car and Mirasol bumped the Mercedes Benz and as soon as the victim’s vehicle stopped on of the operation and plan employed by the group of the accused, Ochoa and Bonifacio Roxas immediately alighted from their respective vehicles and pretended to examine the damage caused by their vehicle to the Mercedes Benz. When the driver of the Mercedes Benz carrying the victims opened the door, Ozores, Mirasol and Delos Santos and the other of the same group went out of their respective vehicles and at that instance accused Roxas and Mirasol grabbed, Eduardo Constantino, the driver of the Mercedes Benz, and placed him inside the Datsun car.

Accused Ozores then went to the driver’s seat of the same Mercedes Benz car and boarded it. During the abduction of the victims Sgt. Abalon remained inside the owner-jeep and watched his companions abduct the two (2) victims. After getting the two victims, they traveled along the Alabang-Zapote road towards the direction of Cavite on board the Datsun car driven by Accused Roxas, with their subject’s driver and accused Mirasol as engers, followed by the Mercedes Benz car driven by accused Ochoa and carrying victim Tan and accused De los Santos as engers and the owner type jeep driven by Sgt. Abalon. When the subject reached a place fronting the Alabang Twin cinema, accused Roxas ordered Sgt. Abalon over the radio to transfer to the Mercedes Benz car in order that he could help accused Ochoa in turning off the car’s hazard light, which Sgt. Abalon did. When Sgt. Abalon was inside the Mercedes Benz of the victim he radioed and ask Roxas that they immediately proceed to their office at the Villamor Air Base for the tactical interrogation of the victims but accused Roxas insisted in bringing their subject to a safe house first. Roxas informed Sgt. Abalon in the process that the safe house was already cleared with Capt. Abad. Sgt. Abalon just kept silent and did not insist. After a while, the victim, “Tan” inquired from Sgt. Abalon why he was being arrested. The former informed him that a warrant for his arrest was being executed by the group, he being Wilfredo De Los Santos. To this, victim Eugene Tan responded that he is not Wilfredo de los Santos. That victim Tan also told him that if it is money they want, he could also give it. Sgt. Abalon just kept his silence. When the group of Sgt. Abalon together with the two victims reached a place in Dasmariñas, Cavite, accused Roxas stopped the datum car that he was driving, alighted from the car and proceeded towards the Mercedes Benz car which similarly stopped. Accused Roxas then forcibly dragged the victim Atty. Eugene Tan out of the Mercedes Benz and told him “Putang Ina mo, alam mo bang malaki ang atraso mo kay Peter Lim?, halika nga dito.” and placed the victim Atty. Tan inside the Datsun car. Thereafter, the group of Sgt. Abalon and accused Roxas drove away from the place using the same vehicle but along the way, Sgt. Abalon attempted to convince accused Roxas that they should bring the victims to the office of Capt. Abad for tactical interrogation by flagging down the Datsun car being driven by accused Roxas and when the Datsun car stopped and Bonifacio Roxas rolled down its window glass, Sgt. Abalon saw at the back seat of the same car, that Atty. Tan was already lying limped together with his driver Eduardo Constantino. Ochoa and De los Santos on the other hand testified that it was Roxas who shot the victims in the head. This was in the first affidavit of Roxas. Sgt. Abalon was instructed by Roxas to bring the car of the victim to a place in Cavite. Before that incident he was able to see the place where the bodies of the victims were brought and buried by Roxas and company. He ed it as a place in Silang Cavite. Then the group went to see Capt. Abad in his house. After informing Capt. Abad of what has happened, the former (Capt. Abad) called up Pedro Lim on the phone saying “Hello….Peter please…Peter Lim…Si Nonoy (nickname of Capt. Abad)… O tapos na…” and place down the receiver in the presence of Sgt. Abalon, Ochoa and Ozores.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE In Criminal Cases Nos. TG-2395-94, TG-23595-94-A accused Pedro Lim, Venerando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas, Luisito Mirasol and Capt. Alfred Abad (currently at large) are charged for the

murder of the victims Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Eduardo Constantino, while Eugene Yu was cited as an Accomplice and the Hizons as Accessories to Murder. In TG-2396-94 the accused Pedro Lim, Venerando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas, Luisito Mirasol and Capt. Alfred Abad (currently at large) are charged for the kidnapping of the victims Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Eduardo Constantino, while Eugene Yu was cited as an accomplice. Murder is punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code which provides: Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. 2.

In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity. 5.

With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. Kidnapping is punishable under Article 267 the Revised Penal Code as: Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death: 1.

If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.

2.

If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made. 4.

If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense. It has been proven that the elements of the crime of murder are present in this case. All the principal accused, in conspiracy with one another, 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 afford impunity and with the use of a motor vehicle, consideration of price, reward or promise, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct the (two victims herein), and thereafter shot the two victims which resulted in their death. It has also been proven that the crime of kidnapping also took place since the accused in conspiracy with one another forcibly abducted Atty. Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino with the use of a motor vehicle and fire arms and deprived them of their liberty for an unspecified length of time and against their will. Facts and circumstances indubitably show that the accused Pedro Lim, Eugene Yu, Venerando Ozores, Bonifacio Rojas and Luisito Mirasol acted in conspiracy with one another and are GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of MURDER, as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and KIDNAPPING as penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. All the elements of the said offense enumerated and described above are present, and have been proven and ed by both testimonial and documentary evidence duly itted by this Honorable Court, during trial, as follows: Abstracts of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. As and by way of testimonial evidence, the prosecution presented five (5) witness, as testified by: 1. Sgt. Edgar Allan C. Abalon – that he, Sgt. Abalon is a member of the Philippine Air Force under the Intelligence 520 ABW. To quote the witness, he was present when Patricia Lim then accompanied by Eugene Yu and Peter Lim had an ongoing argument with Gilda Lim. Patricia Lim was supposed to be physically hauled to be subjected to psychiatric examination. Eugene Yu, who was then the fiancé of Patricia Lim, thwarted the attempt of Gilda Lim with the help and timely arrival of some law enforcement agents. Sgt. Abalon further testified that he met Pedro Lim six more times at their office at the Villamor Air Base during which Pedro Lim always met with Capt. Abad. Sgt. Abalon was allowed to testify as a State Witness under the Witness Protection program of the government, thus he further stated: Sometime in October 1994, Capt. Abad ordered Sgt. Abalon together with the other accused and state witnesses to conduct a surveillance operation on one “Wilfredo de los Santos”, a “financier ng mga pula (NPA)- Alex Boncayao Brigade” who in reality is one of the victim Atty. Eugene Tan, who is demanding revolutionary tax on Pedro Lim. He was also told that Bonifacio Roxas, one of the accused, can point to him this “Wilfredo de los Santos” thus he was to coordinate with Bonifacio Roxas. Bonifacio Roxas then was one of their civilian assets and a protégé of Capt. Abad. He, “Roxas” was likewise assigned as a security man to Pedro Lim by Capt. Abad. th

Sometime in the first week of November 1994, Capt. Abad, Roxas and Pedro Lim were visibly impatient that they wanted “Wilfredo de los Santos” picked up because there was already a warrant for his arrest and Pedro Lim was being pressured to pay the revolutionary tax. Pedro Lim told Sgt. Abalon “ Kailangan makuha na Butch dahil tinatakot na ako.” On November 7, 1994 Sgt. Abalon, Bonifacio Roxas, Rudy Ochoa, Venerando Ozores, Reynaldo de los Santos and Toto Mirasol were close to getting “Wilfredo de los Santos” who they were trailing while the latter was aboard his Nissan Patrol Car. Except for Toto Mirasol who was Roxas’ man, Ochoa, Ozores and De los Santos were all Capt. Abad’s civilian agents. Capt. Abad’s instruction was to take “Wilfredo de los Santos” to his office for tactical interrogation.

On November 14, 1994, the alleged operatives got “Wilfredo de los Santos”. After trailing “Wilfredo de los Santos” for sometime starting from Makati with Roxas driving a Datsun Car along with Reynaldo de los Santos and Toto Mirasol, blocked the path of “Wilfredo de los Santos” Mercedes Benz car, 150 meters after the Alabang Toll booth causing the car of the victim to stop and 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 and Venerando Ozores. Bonifacio Roxas then jumped out of the Datsun car and strangled the victim’s driver, Eduardo Constantino, for him to obey their instructions. Thereafter he was put inside the Datsun car with Mirasol’s help. Venerando Ozores then drove the Mercedes Benz while he and Reynaldo de los Santos sat with the victim Atty. Eugene Tan at the back seat. Sgt. Abalon then called Roxas to now proceed to the office of “challenger”, Capt. Abad’s call sign, but Bonifacio Roxas, with the agreement of the others, said they were taking the victims to the safe house. Along the way Sgt. Abalon had a conversation with “Wilfredo de los Santos” who inquired why he was being arrested. It was then that “Wilfredo de los Santos” told Sgt. Abalon that they got the wrong guy and that he was not “Wilfredo de los Santos” but Atty. Eugene Tan. Sgt. Abalon remonstrated over the blunder but he later realized that everyone in the team except he, knew the real identity of “Wilfredo de los Santos” to be Atty. Eugene Tan and that they were not taking the victims to Capt. Abad’s office but somewhere else. Sgt. Abalon was helpless because everyone else in the team was armed except him. Upon reaching Dasmariñas, Cavite, Bonifacio Roxas alighted from the Datsun car and forcibly dragged Atty. Eugene Tan out of the car and said to the victim “Putang ina mo, alam mo malaki atraso mo kay Peter Lim? Halika nga dito!” then forcibly loaded him aboard the Datsun car and drove further. At this point Reynaldo “Engine” De Los Santos transferred to the Datsun Car. Somewhere along the way he, again tried to convince Bonifacio Roxas to bring Atty. Eugene Tan to Capt. Abad’s office for tactical interrogation. That he flagged down the Datsun car of Bonifacio Roxas who stopped, then rolled down the window. Sgt. Abalon then saw the dead bodies of Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Constantino lying limp and bathed in blood. Bonifacio Roxas then proceeded to the place of Eugenio Hizon in Silang, Cavite to bury the bodies. Sgt. Abalon and Ozores followed and when they reached the house the wife of Eugenio Hizon told them, Bonifacio Roxas and his two companions left and said “Dinala na nila”, implying that she knew that Bonifacio Roxas and company were going to bury the bodies. Sgt. Abalon and the other team , except for Reynaldo de los Santos, all 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 n’yo ako eh!” But Capt. Abad told him to keep quiet, not to pose a security risk and that he will be compensated for the job. Then Capt. Abad called someone in front of him Ochoa, and Ozores. Capt. Abad called Pedro Lim by phone and the witness overheard Capt. Abad say “Hello…Peter please… Peter Lim… Si Nonoy…O, tapos na…” then hung the receiver. 3. For witness Reynaldo O. De los Santos alias “ENGINE” – A civilian agent of the 520 Airbase W-2 of the Philippine Air Force which is headed by Major Gammad with accused Capt. Alfred as second in command. As a civilian agent he gathered intelligence outside the camp while personally doing his daily chore. Together with other civilian agents he is brought along by

the organic personnel in intelligence operations like surveillance and arresting wanted persons. Reynaldo De los Santos was granted immunity in exchange for testifying as a state witness. Reynaldo De los Santos testified that accused Bonifacio Roxas was his fellow agent in the same unit who is very close to Capt. Abad. All of Bonifacio Roxas’ request for security detail are issued a corresponding Mission Order by their unit and signed by Capt. Abad. Bonifacio Roxas was assigned by Capt. Abad as security of Eugene Yu, Patricia Lim-Yu and accused Peter Lim. Bonifacio Roxas has his own team of civilian agents who are accredited by Capt. Abad. Reynaldo De los Santos first met Eugene Yu during the latter’s wedding with Patricia Lim sometime in August or September 1994. He was then one of those detailed by Capt. Abad to secure the occasion because of some threat to disrupt the ceremony. During the wedding he came to know accused Peter Lim. Days after the wedding there were three occasions when Reynaldo De los Santos was able to catch Eugene Yu having a conference with Capt. Abad at the latter’s office. Reynaldo De los Santos met Eugene Yu again on the day Capt. Abad’s father was buried where Eugene Yu asked him if he was the security detail assigned to them and he said no. Moments later Bonifacio Roxas arrived and escorted Eugene Yu. Reynaldo De los Santos’ second encounter with Eugene Yu was when he ed the surveillance team sometime on the second week of October 1994 wherein Atty. Eugene Tan was described as “financier ng pula” or an NPA financier. Bonifacio Roxas was the team leader of the operation. The operation also involved the participation of Sgt. Abalon, Rodolfo Ochoa, Venerando Ozores, Toto Mirasol, Emong Samonte, Danilo Bonifacio, William Domsao and a certain Abet Tangkad. Reynaldo De los Santos alleges that the surveillance operation of the NPA financier started in a closed door meeting among Capt. Abad, Ozores and Roxas inside the office of Maj. Gammad. They were later instructed to tail a light brown Nissan Patrol, a creamy Mercedes Benz, and a blue Toyota Corolla. And they did so for a month. Two weeks prior to November 14, 1994, Reynaldo De los Santos accompanied Bonifacio Roxas in looking for a telephone as he wanted to talk to Peter Lim and when Bonifacio Roxas called Peter Lim the latter was apparently giving instructions. After the telephone conversation their group went to Villamor Air base to talk to Capt. Abad. Thereafter, Bonifacio Roxas brought Reynaldo De los Santos to the house of Eugene Yu at Taft Avenue near De la Salle University to see Yu where the latter handed to Bonifacio Roxas an envelope, money and a piece of paper and they left. Bonifacio Roxas gave the money to the two civilian agents assigned at Eugene Yu’s house and also gave Reynaldo De los Santos and Ochoa for them to spend. Bonifacio Roxas also showed a piece of paper which reads “Tan Manzano Law Office—Pacific Bank Bldg. Ayala, Makati”. Bonifacio Roxas said that this is the place they will be closely working on since the NPA financier was working there. After that they reported back to the Villamor Air base, went inside the office of Capt. Abad and Bonifacio Roxas handed the envelope containing money. Capt. Abad took some cash from the envelope and handed them to Bonifacio Roxas. Bonifacio Roxas gave some money to Reynaldo De los Santos and Ochoa and said it was their bonus. Reynaldo De los Santos then testified that on November 14, 1994, they railed the NPA financier who was aboard a cream Mercedes Benz from Makati all the way to Alabang. Reynaldo De los Santos, Mirasol and Roxas were aboard the Datsun car while Ochoa and Sgt. Abalon were aboard an owner type jeep. After ing the Alabang exit they blocked the Mercedes Benz and

Bonifacio Roxas and handcuff the NPA financier. The driver Constantino was ordered Reynaldo De los Santos to transfer to the Mercedes Benz transferred to the Datsun. Ozores drove the Mercedes Benz and Sgt. Abalon sat beside the NPA financier. The NPA financier asked them: “Kanino ba kayo nagtratrabaho?” nobody answered. “Kay Eugene Yu ba?” and introduced himself as Atty. Eugene Tan the former IBP President. “Kung magkano ang binayad sa inyo ni Eugene dodoblehin ko kung magkaka-ayos tayo, hindi naman tayo magkakilala at wala naman ako gagawin para mapahamak kayo” Atty. Tan said. It was then that Reynaldo De los Santos suspected that Atty. Eugene Tan was not the NPA financier who was the subject of the surveillance. When they reached Cavite, Bonifacio Roxas transferred Atty. Tan to the Datsun. Ozores told Reynaldo De los Santos to Bonifacio Roxas at the Datsun. Somewhere in Silang, Cavite, Roxas told him to drive the Datsun and drive towards Silang, Cavite. Along the way, Bonifacio Roxas shot Atty. Eugene Tan and Constantino. When Reynaldo De los Santos asked Bonifacio Roxas why he shot the two when the instruction was only to arrest, Roxas answered “Directive ng opisina”. After disposing of the bodies they returned to Villamor Air base and reported to Capt. Abad. On November 15, 1994 De los Santos met Roxas at the office and asked him “kung bakit tinira?” and Roxas answered “may nagpatrabaho eh”. “Sino ba nagpatrabaho sa atin noong kahapon?” De los Santos persisted. Roxas answered “Kilala mo, si Eugene Yu pero si Peter and nakipagusap kay Kapitan.” On November 22, 1994 at about six in the morning Reynaldo De los Santos received a pager message stating “Proceed to Villamor/Wing 2 Office ASAP—Scorpio. “Scorpio” was Ozores code name, Reynaldo De los Santos rushed to the office but did not see Ozores so he proceeded to the house of Capt. Abad where he thought he would see them and there he found Ozores, Ochoa and Emong Samonte. It was there he learned that Roxas was arrested and that they were all being hunted for the killing of Atty. Eugene Tan and Constantino. Capt. Abad then ordered them to surrender all the documents, firearms, MO/MR he issued to them. They stayed in the house of Capt. Abad the whole day and were prevented from going out of the house by Col. Abelardo Abad, who is Capt. Abad’s brother. Reynaldo De los Santos does not know if money changed hands but he does recall that a day or two after the operation inside the house of Capt. Abad that he was talking to someone over the phone and told him, Ozores and Ochoa that it was Maj. Gammad who he talked to and Maj. Gammad was asking for a bonus for the successful operation. 4. For witness Rodolfo M. Ochoa alias “Rody” – who is also a civilian agent or operative of the 520 Airbase W-2. Rodolfo Ochao turned state witness gave his testimony before the Honorable Court and was subjected to cross-examination. Ochoa testified that he came to know of Peter Lim during the wedding of Eugene Yu and Patricia Lim at a church in Greenhills sometime in July 1994. He also came to know of Eugene Yu when the latter attended a family planning seminar prior to his marriage. Armed men were reportedly posting themselves near the site of the seminar. So Capt. Abad immediately dispatched his operatives to provide security. The Last Mission Rodolfo Ochoa performed was surveillance on an alleged “financier ng pula” who he does not know the identity since it is their SOP that only the team leader, in this case

Bonifacio Roxas, who knows the identity of the subject. Rodolfo Ochoa knows that the surveillance operation had something to do with Eugene Yu because a day or two before the operation Eugene Yu came to the office of Capt. Abad. They then went to the office of Maj. Gammad and told Rodolfo Ochoa to fix them coffee. When he went inside the room he heard Eugene Yu tell Capt. Abad. “Dapat magconcentrate na iyong mga bata sa trabaho para matapos na.” About half a week prior to November 14, 1994, Bonifacio Roxas brought Rodolfo Ochoa to the house of Eugene Yu at Taft Avenue near De la Salle University to see Eugene Yu where the latter handed Bonifacio Roxas an envelope, money and a piece of paper and they left. Bonifacio Roxas gave the money to the two civilian agents assigned at Eugene Yu’s house and also gave money to Rodolfo Ochoa to spend. Bonifacio Roxas also showed a piece of paper which reads “Tan Manzano Law Office—Pacific Bank Bldg. Ayala, Makati”. Bonifacio Roxas said that this is the place they will be closely working on since the NPA financier was working there. A day or two after Eugene Yu’s meeting with Capt. Abad, the latter ordered all operatives involved in the operation of the “Financier ng Pula” to concentrate on this operation. Thereafter Rodolfo Ochoa told Capt. Abad “Siguro sir malaking huli ang gagawin tungkol sa “Financier ng Pula” kaya kailangan madaliin.” Capt. Abad replied “Kailangan mahuli agad ninyo iyon subject sapagkat nangingikil iyan ng mga pamilya ng instsik tulad ni Eugene.” Sinong Eugene?” Rodolfo Ochoa asked again. “Si Eugene Yu, kilala mo siya di ba? “ Capt. Abad retorted. On November 14, 1994, they railed the NPA financier who was aboard a dirty white Mercedes Benz from Makati all the way to Alabang. Rodolfo Ochoa was driving his owner type jeep with Sgt. Abalon and Ozores as engers. When they reached Cavite, Bonifacio Roxas transferred Atty. Tan to the Datsun. Ozores told Reynaldo De los Santos to Bonifacio Roxas at the Datsun. Somewhere in Silang, Cavite, Roxas told him to drive the Datsun and drive towards Silang, Cavite. Along the way, Bonifacio Roxas shot Atty. Eugene Tan and Constantino. After disposing of the bodies they returned to Villamor Air base and reported to Capt. Abad. He then heard Sgt. Abalon and Capt. Abad arguing. Capt. Abad just told them to keep quiet and not pose a security risk. On November 22, 1994, Rodolfo Ochoa proceeded to the house of Capt. Abad where he thought he would see them and there he found Ozores, Ochoa and Emong Samonte. It was there he learned that Roxas was arrested and that they were all being hunted for the killing of Atty. Eugene Tan and Constantino. They stayed in the house of Capt. Abad the whole day and were prevented from going out of the house by Col. Abelardo Abad, who is Capt. Abad’s brother who told them “wag lang isasabit si Nonoy” referring to Capt. Abad. They stayed in the house for the whole day as they were prevented to leave allegedly for security reasons. Sensing that something may happen to them, they all escaped around 9:00 in the evening without the knowledge of Capt. Abad. 5. Cynthia Tan, the widow of the late Eugene Tan testified that she and the victim have five (5) children. That the happiness of the family was cut short by the unjustified killing of her husband. She likewise testified on the anguish and pain that she and her children suffered; the loss of the monetary that her husband provides. The loss of the life of the husband cannot be compensated in of money only but the justice of putting behind bars the perpetrators and conspirators of the crime. She likewise testified on the expenses incurred for the

burial of the husband and the earning capacity of the husband who was a senior partner of the TAN, MANZANO law offices. 6. Eunice Tan the third of the five children likewise narrated how she felt with the loss of her father. Of how the love and of their father was snatched by the grisly murder of their father and his driver for which accused must suffer the consequence. For EDUARDO CONSTANTINO’S part. Defense stipulated on the death of the said victim. They likewise agreed to stipulate the heirs left by the said victim and the expenses incurred in the burial. 7. Dr. Rosaline O. Cosidon, MEDICO LEGAL, CAMP CRAME testified on the cause, facts and circumstances of death of EUGENE TAN and EDUARDO CONSTANTINO, both of which are un-rebutted. The identities were duly established. 8. Chief Superintendent Rodolfo Tor on the other hand testified that he was one of the arresting officer of PEDRO LIM. That Lim was arrested because of the affidavit of Bonifacio Roxas pointing to him as one of the mastermind in the killing of Atty. Eugene Tan. Abstracts of the testimonies of the witnesses of the accused. ACCUSED’S’ evidence on the other hand consist mostly of alibi and denials. PEDRO LIM’S testimony bear no weight as ruled upon by the late Judge Eleuterio Guerrero when the latter denied the petition for bail. As earlier stated it is mere denials and alibis. The ission of accused Roxas of his participation in the crime as embodied in his affidavit and the people behind the murder is a strong proof of conspiracy committed by all of the accused. Except for Roxas, Ozores and Mirasol were not presented in the witness stand for their defense. Thus the testimonies against them are un-rebutted. The participation of PEDRO LIM and EUGENE YU in the planning and execution of the crime were vividly testified to by their cohorts who became state witnesses. Accused brothers Hizon died during the trial, thus were discharged of any personal liability as accessories to the crime. Bonifacio V. Roxas – Roxas in his statement declared that he is a resident of Victory Reyes, Dasmariñas Cavite, who was employed as driver and security of the accused Pedro Lim. Roxas claims that he was recommended to Pedro Lim by Capt. Abad sometime in August 1993. Bonifacio Roxas declared that it was Pedro Lim’s plan to kill Atty. Eugene Tan for a consideration of P500,000.00. In his extra-judicial confession given on November 22, 1994 at TF Habagat he , thus stated: In the first week of September 1994, Roxas and Peter Lim agreed for the former to conduct a surveillance of victim Atty. Eugene Tan and for this purpose he was given by Peter Lim the amount of P2,400.00 weekly allowance and a Datsun car that he will use in the surveillance mission. Roxas conducted surveillance for more than a month so he was given the allowance four or five times. Finally on November 14, 1994, he and the other accused carried out their plan to abduct and kill Atty. Eugene Tan. Bonifacio Roxas identified Sgt. Edgar Abalon, civilian agent Rudy Ochoa, agent “Engine” and civilian agent Veneracion among those who carried out the actual abduction of Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Constantino. Bonifacio Roxas narrated in detail that on November 14, 1994 at about 9:00 pm accused Rudy Ochoa was driving an owner jeep with Sgt. Abalon on board and proceeded to bump the Mercedes Benz of Atty. Eugene Tan. Accused Veneracion Ozores took over the wheels of the Mercedes Benz and then dragged the victims outside the Mercedes Benz and placed them inside the Datsun car. Between 10:30 to 11:00 pm while they were cruising along the highway of

Silang, Cavite, Bonifacio Roxas confessed that using a .38 caliber provided by “Engine” who was driving the a Datsun car he shot the victim Atty. Tan once on the forehead and the victim Constantino on the right side of the head at close range while the two were seated at the back seat of the Datsun car. Thereafter, together with Rudy Ochoa, Engine and Toto Mirasol they proceeded to Silang, Cavite, where they buried the victims in a shallow grave which Mariano Hizon dug earlier for a fee of P500.00. On November 21, 1994, Bonifacio Roxas drove the Datsun car to Villamor and thereafter took it to the Shell station at the corner of Libertad and Harrison for cleaning. Bonifacio Roxas tried to collect the P500,000.00 from Lim but the latter told him to wait. After a week he called up accused Lim twice for the P500,000.00 and to get the salary but was unable to get the money. Bonifacio Roxas stated that if the money was paid he will divide it evenly among Abalon, Ochoa, Engine, Veneracion and himself. Toto Mirasol’s share will be taken cared of. Bonifacio Roxas likewise testified that he has no motive to kill Atty. Eugene Tan aside from the money of P500,000.00. That as far as he knows, Peter Lim and Gilda Lim have a bitter dispute over their properties with Atty. Eugene Tan, who he said is having an affair with Gilda Lim and who instigated the latter to take over the family business. PEDRO LIM just adopted his evidence presented during the petition for bail as part of his evidence in chief. OZORES and MIRASOL did not present anything for their defense except collateral documents consisting of land titles and other collateral documents completely irrelevant to the case. EUGENE YU on the other hand presented his secretary and a former employee who testified on the character of Eugene Yu. Both of which are completely irrelevant and will not suffice to overturn the positive assertion and identification of the prosecution witnesses. Testimonies of witnesses not presented can not be itted as part of the evidence. DISCUSSION The confessions of the accused, the testimonial and documentary exhibits of the Prosecution and the witnesses who positively identified and narrated the participation of the accused Pedro Lim, Venerando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas and Luisito Mirasol and that of Captain Abad, who in conspiracy with one another clearly committed two counts of murder (except for Yu and Hizon who were charged as Accomplice and Accessory) for the killing of Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Eduardo Constantino. The accused committed treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of their superior strength, with the aid of armed men or by a band. From the testimony of the witnesses and ission of other accused it is clear that the murder of the two victims were qualified with treachery and evident premeditation. Treachery was clearly present because the victims were not given the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused Bonifacio Roxas had the two victims handcuffed and placed at the back seat of the car. The act ensured the prosecution of the crime. The victims were defenseless. The suddenness in the shooting of the victims would clearly show that treachery was present. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions has stated that there is treachery when:

For treachery to exist, two conditions must be found: (1) that at the time of the attack the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. (People vs. Avendano, 396 SCRA 309) There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime which tends directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take. (People vs. Caloza, Jr., 396 SCRA 329) Clearly, evident premeditation was obtained in the circumstances. Upon the evidence of the prosecution and accuseds’ own issions they conspired with one another to kill Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver. The digging of the grave by Mariano Hizon showed that the murder was premeditated. The Supreme Court has held that for Evident Premeditation to qualify a crime the following must be proven: (a) the time when the offender has determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender has clung to his determination; (c) an interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime enough to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act. (People vs. Castillano, Sr., 400 SCRA 401). According to the testimony of the witnesses, they itted that the accused conducted surveillance operations and observed Atty. Eugene Tan prior to the November 14, 1994 incident. From the testimony of the witnesses, Eugene Yu and Peter Lim were already plotting with Capt. Abad and coordinating with the other accused to kill Atty. Eugene Tan. This can be also be determined from the action of the accused when the Datsun car was provided by Peter Lim and monies given by Eugene Yu and Peter Lim to the operatives. When the incident occurred on November 14, 1994 all of the accused waited for the victims to leave the office, followed the vehicle and even concocted a plan to stop the vehicle of the victims by having the Datsun car driven by Roxas to cut the vehicle of the victims and then the owner type jeep driven by Ochoa to bump the rear of the vehicle. Accused Roxas let go of his actual motive when he shouted at Atty. Eugene Tan that “putang ina mo alam mo ba malaki atraso mo kay Peter Lim!”. Likewise the fact that the accused even had a burial site prepared in the property of Eugenio Hizon clearly shows that there was evident premeditation on the part of the accused and they carefully planned the entire operation for more than one month. According to the witnesses there were six operatives who conducted the operation on November 14, 2007 and all of them were armed except for Sgt. Abalon. Roxas acting in concert with his cohorts used their superior strength and their arms in order to abduct and kill the two victims. The accused committed the crime of murder qualified by the use of a motor vehicle. As testified by the witnesses, Peter Lim provided the Datsun car with the owner type jeep which they used in abducting the victims. Aside from this, the accused used their vehicles as a means to stop the vehicle of Atty. Eugene Tan. After which the Datsun car was used in abducting the victims where they were also eventually killed. The vehicles were used by the accused in transporting and killing the victims. Eugene Yu and Peter Lim committed murder by arranging the killing and kidnapping of Atty. Eugene Tan for a consideration of price, reward or promise

The Supreme Court has ruled that the person who has received the price or reward or who accepted a promise of price or reward would not have killed the victim if not for that price, reward or promise. Such person is a principal by direct participation. The one who gave the price or reward or who made the promise is a principal by induction. When these circumstances are alleged in the information for murder and proven by the prosecution, accused are guilty as principals by inducement for the crime of murder (U.S. vs. Alim 38 Phil. 1). From the testimony of the witnesses and the extra-judicial confessions executed given by the other witnesses, Bonifacio Roxas and the rest of the operatives were promised a reward by Eugene Yu and Peter Lim. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and by accused Roxas, vehicle and monies were provided by accused Lim and Yu for the entire operation and also coordinated with the superior of the accused named as Captain ABAD. Bonifacio Roxas testified that he was ordered to kill Atty. Eugene Tan for the amount of P500,000.00. The accused in conspiracy with one another committed the crime of kidnapping There is no denying that the plan of the accused was to abduct Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Constantino. It has also been proven that the crime of kidnapping also took place since the accused in conspiracy with one another forcibly abducted Atty. Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino with the use of a motor vehicle and fire arms and deprived them of their liberty for an unspecified length of time and against their will. Furthermore, the kidnapping done by the accused was qualified because they simulated their public authority as of the Philippine Air Force. They presented themselves to the victims as of the Philippine Air Force and testified that the abduction was part of their surveillance operation on Atty. Eugene Tan as an alleged “financier ng pula”. The crime of kidnapping is further qualified because the accused threatened to kill the victims. All the accused acted in conspiracy with one another in mutual aid of one another in order to kidnap and kill Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver Eduardo Constantino The accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abduct Atty. Eugene Tan and his driver and thereafter handcuffed their hands at the back kill them by shooting each one in the head and buried them in a shallow grave to cover the crime. Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy if two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. Conspiracy may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 478 SCRA 387, 414-415 that: It is a common design which is the essence of conspiracy. The conspirators may act separately or together by commission on different manner but always leading to the same unlawful act. The character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts but only by looking at it as a whole. Acts done to give effect to the conspiracy may be, in fact, wholly innocent acts. Yet, if they are parts of the sum of the acts which are relied upon to effectuate the conspiracy which the law forbids, they lose that character. Such acts

become a public wrong if the result is harmful to the public or to the individual against whom the concerted action is directed. Clearly, all the accused acted with one criminal intent and design. They all agreed to conduct an operation to abduct Atty. Eugene Tan by blocking his vehicle, with the purpose of killing them and to ensure that no resistance will be put up by the victims handcuffed their hands and thereafter shot both victims in the head. Thus, all the accused clearly committed the crime of MURDER. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Overwhelming evidence has been presented to prove conspiracy. In the case of People vs. Bulan, 459 SCRA 550 held: If conspiracy is proved, all the conspirators are criminally liable for the crime charged – and if proved the act of one is the act of all. It can be seen by the Honorable Court during that course of the trial that the prosecutors have sufficiently established that the accused Pedro Lim and Eugene Yu in consonance with Captain Abad ordered the abduction and murder of Atty. Eugene Tan. Motive was sufficiently proven as confirmed by the sudden outburst of accused Roxas when he confronted the victim during the abduction. The witnesses presented by the Prosecution are credible enough to warrant the conviction of the accused. Sgt. Abalon’s testimony was straightforward. De los Santos and Ochoa, whose qualification to become state witnesses was favorably decided by the Honorable Supreme Court itself are more damaging for they themselves participated and were present when they and their colleagues abducted and killed the victims. While the defense points to some inconsistencies in the testimonies of the other witnesses, as a rule however, inconsistencies in minor details and collateral matters, does not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies (People vs. Santos, 420 SCRA 37). The Supreme Court has ruled that even one witness is sufficient to convict an accused for murder. The Prosecution has presented more than five (5) credible witnesses who were subjected to cross-examination questions by the defense counsels of the accused and all their testimonies prove that all the accused acted in conspiracy with one another to kill Atty. Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino. The accused are liable for civil damages to the heirs of the victims The heirs of Atty. Eugene Tan have spent the amount of P450,000.00 as funeral expenses evidenced by the Official Receipt No. 55493 of the Loyola Memorial Chapels, Inc. (Exhibit “K” of the Prosecution) and P141,000.00 for the entombment at the St. Jerome Emiliani & St. Susana Parish as evidenced by Certificate of Payment issued by the St. Jerome Emiliani & St. Susana Parish (Exhibit “L” of the Prosecution). The heirs of Atty. Eugene Tan are also entitled to damages because of the loss of his earning capacity due to his untimely demise. At the time of his death Atty. Eugene Tan was making at least P1,446,976.75 annually as evidenced by Tan Manzano & Velez Law Office Statement of Partners Equity (Exhibit “J” of the Prosecution). The Honorable Court should also award the heirs of Eduardo Constantino the amount of not less than 300,000.00 or as the court may deem wise as actual and moral damages.

The Heirs of Atty. Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino are also entitled to exemplary and moral damages because of the violent manner in which the two victims were killed. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Prosecution respectfully prays that a Decision be rendered finding the Accused Pedro Lim, Captain Alfred Abad, Venerando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas and Luisito Mirasol and Eugene Yu guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of KIDNAPPING and TWO (2) counts of MURDER for the abduction and killing of Atty. Eugene Tan and Eduardo Constantino, as penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and be adjudged civilly liable to indemnify the heirs of their victims. Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for. Makati City for Tagaytay City, 18 March 2008 PAMARAN RAMOS & PARTNERS Private prosecutors 5/F PHILSTEEL Tower 140 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Makati City Tel # 8942875 Fax # 8103222 MANUEL R. PAMARAN PTR#0921243;1/07/2008; Pasay City IBP# 733978;1/8/2008; Manila IV Roll No. 3828 PHYDIAS EMMANUEL R. RAMOS PTR#0921244;1/07/2008; Pasay City IBP# 727385;1/07/2008; Pasay Roll No. 34508 With my conformity: ________________ Jose Velasco Public Prosecutor Copy furnished: GARAYBLAS GARAYBLAS DELA CRUZ CAIRME LAW OFFICE Counsel for accused Eugene Yu Suite 301 & 302 Amarcemca Building

107-A Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City. FORNIER FORNIER & LAGUMBAY Counsel for Accused Venerando Ozores, Bonifacio Roxas and Luisito Mirasol St. Thomas Moore Law Center 12 floor, G.E. Antonino Bldg. TM Kalaw cor. J. Bacobo Street th

Ermita, 1000 Manila Jose Manuel I. Diokno Room 101m Alumni Center, Magsaysay Avenue University of the Philippines Campus Diliman 1101, Quezon City. Sanidad Abaya Te Viterbo Enriquez & Tan Law Firm Counsel for the Accused Pedro Lim 2 Floor, Transorient Maritime Building 66 Timog Avenue, Quezon City 1100 nd

Explanation The foregoing Memorandum is being served on the Counsels of the accused by ed mail due to time and personnel constraints. MANUEL R. PAMARAN About these ads

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, through counsel, most respectfully alleges:

STATEMENT OF FACTS: In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in the judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material, relevant and pertinent facts of the case to wit: 1. Plaintiff is Luz Diaz, sixty five (65) years old, widow and a resident of Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo, Rizal while defendant is Emma Crisostomo, forty two (42) years old, housewife married and also a resident of Mountain View Subdivision, Antipolo, Rizal; 2. Plaintiff and defendant have been neighbors for at least three (3) years. Plaintiff alleges that in the afternoon of October 25, 2010, a truck owned by the defendant's carpenter, Gregorio Timbol, was parked in front of the defendant's on a street that was sloping. Mr. Timbol has been working on the renovation of defendant's house. He has been a carpenter for at least thirty five (35) years; 3. Just before the incident, plaintiff was taking a nap in her house when she noticed that her dog, Trix was missing. She then looked around the house until she heard a crashing bang and a dog crying out; 4. When the plaintiff went outside her gate, she saw Trix pinned under the wheel of the truck. The truck was backed up against a tree by the sidewalk and Trix was thrashing and squealing underneath the truck with blood coming out his mouth; 5. Plaintiff cried and screamed to Nilda, her helper, and shouted for the guards who roamed the subdivision, but no one came. She could not save him even if she wanted to because there was no one in the truck's driver seat and she does not know how to drive. She could only cry and scream while Trix kept on howling until it stopped moving and making any sound. He died soon after; 6. According to the plaintiff, Trix had been with her since her husband ed away eight years ago. 7. Plaintiff observed that the truck had always been parked in front of the defendants house since the time defendant's house was being renovated;

8. When the incident happened, defendant did not do anything except to call Mr. Timbol. Defendant insisted that the truck was properly parked and what happened to Trix was an accident and Mr. Timbol could not be faulted. On the other hand, Mr. Timbol itted that his truck was of an old model. He bought it second hand and had it overhauled and repainted. He also itted that, when he parked it on the day the incident happened, he put two (2) large rocks against the back wheels to make sure the truck does not roll back down the street; 9. Mr. Timbol finally itted that when he looked at the scene after the incident happened, the rocks were no longer there. He concluded that someone must have removed them; 10. Plaintiff demanded that the defendant should give her another dog, but the latter refused and insisted that what happened to Trix was plaintiff's fault because Trix should have not been loose on te streets. 11. Defendant testified that Trix was a pesky dog and had complained about it many times. In fact, it was because of Trix that the defendant met plaintiff for the first time three (3) years ago. Defendant went to plaintiff's house to complain that Trix pulled out the plants in the yard; 12. Defendant also mentioned that Trix would dig holes in her lawn. It would frequently deposit its wastes on her driveway and also pee in front of her house, leaving a foul smell. One time, Trix even chased her little girl along the road; 13. Defendant went to the extent of complaining the activities of Trix before the Homeowner's Association, so that the latter issued a Board Resolution stating that wandering dogs will be caught and brought to the municipal dog pound.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Whether or not the plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision. 2. Whether or not the defendant validly abated the nuisance when she lodged a complaint before the Homeowner's Association 3. Whether or not the carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant 4. Whether or not the defendant may be held liable when the truck of her carpenter ran over the plaintiff's dog

ARGUMENTS 1. Plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because the dog endangered the safety of a resident of the subdivision. The dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of a resident inside the subdivision. Our laws on property states that: "A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which: (1) Injures or endangers the health and safety of others; or (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or (3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or (4) Obstructs or interferes with free age of any public highway or street or any body of water; (5) Hinders or impairs the use of property." (Article 694, New Civil Code of the Philippines). Here the plaintiff allowed her dog to roam the streets of the subdivision because it was ran over by a truck while on the street. Plaintiff's dog was not kept inside any cage or in a leash because it could sleep in plaintiff's room, lie on the floor or be found on defendant's yard. Plaintiff's dog was therefore free to move around freely. When plaintiff's dog was roaming the streets of the subdivision, it endangered the defendant's girl because it chased her on the street. Plaintiff's dog also caused annoyance and offended the senses of defendant because it dug holes on defendant's lawn, pulled out the plants in her yard and deposited wastes on her driveway or peed in front of her house that left a very foul smell. Therefore plaintiff committed a nuisance when she allowed her dog to roam on the streets and yard of her neighbor because it endangered the defendant's girl . It also caused annoyance and offended the senses of the defendant. Our laws on Property further states that "[n]uisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects the community or neighborhood or any considerable amount of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition."(Article 695, New Civil Code) Here, the nuisance maybe regarded as a private nuisance because it only affects an identifiable number of persons. Specifically, the defendant, her family and her surroundings. 2. Defendant failed to abate the nuisance because he did not obtain the approval of the City Health Officer to authorize him to abate the nuisance. {Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.} 3. The carpenter was negligent when he parked his car in front of the house of the defendant because he failed to use that care and diligence expected of sensible men under comparable circumstances.

{Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.} 4. The defendant may be held liable when the truck ran over the plaintiff's dog because he was the employer of the carpenter that committed negligent acts and which resulted to damages against the plaintiff. {Write your discussion here pointing out relevant laws and jurisprudence tying it up with the case at hand.}

PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered ordering the defendant to pay the value for the plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff likewise prays for costs and for such other and further relief as this honorable court may deem just and equitable in the premises. Manila, Philippines, November 27, 2011.