Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Batangas

LUISITO M. BARRION,
Complainant-Appellant,

- versus - NPSD: IV-02-INV-16D-00371

For: Murder

PASTOR GENIL,
Respondent-Appellees.
x-------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT, LUISITO M. BARRION,

by and through the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court
most respectfully avers, that:

I. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

1.1 On 16 March 2017, herein Complainant-Appellant received

a copy of the Resolution of the National Prosecution Service of
Pallocan, Batangas denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed on 20
September 2016. Hence, the timeliness of the filing of the Petition for
Review.

II. ASSAILED RESOLUTION

2.1 Herein Complainant-Appellant maintains that there were

misappreciation of facts and evidence in the Resolution of the
Honorable Prosecution Office finding no probable cause for the
commission of the crime, which states:

Viewed in the light of the above,

undersigned respectfully recommends that this
complaint against the respondent Pastor R.
Genil for Murder be DISMISSED.
 III. ISSUES

3.1 Whether or not the Honorable Prosecution Office erred in

dismissing the complaint for murder for insufficiency of evidence; and

3.2 Whether or not the Honorable Prosecution Office erred in

finding no probable cause for the filing of Information against the
Respondent-Appellee;

IV. DISCUSSIONS

With all due respect

Honorable Prosecution
Office erred in dismissing
the complaint for murder
for insufficiency of
evidence

4.1 At the onset, Complainant-appellant through the

undersigned counsel reiterates that the filing of the information
against Respondent-Appellant be recommended;

4.2 It should be noted that the Honorable Prosecution Office

was mistaken to dismiss the Complaint for insufficiency of evidence
since the preliminary investigation is merely an inquiry to determine
whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty
thereof and should be held for trial;

4.3 The Supreme Court in Galario v. Office of the

Ombudsman (Mindanao)1 enunciated that the determination of
probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely
than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to
believe that it was committed by the accused;

4.4. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of

guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.2
What is merely required is "probability of guilt." Its determination, too,
does not call for the application of rules or standards of proof that a
judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.3 Thus, in
concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed
that the act or omission complained of constitutes the very offense
charged;

1
554 Phil. 86, 101 (2007).
2
Casing v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192334, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 500, 509.
3
Ricaforte v. Jurado, 559 Phil. 97, 109 (2007).
 4.5 It is also important to stress that the determination of
probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a partys
accusation or defense or on the admissibility or veracity of testimonies
presented.4 As previously discussed, these matters are better ventilated
during the trial proper of the case. As held in Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Company v. Gonzales5:

Probable cause has been defined as the

existence of such facts and circumstances as
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind,
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty
of the crime for which he was prosecuted. xxx
The term does not mean "actual or positive
cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It
is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does
not require an inquiry into whether there is
sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is
enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the
reception of evidence of the prosecution in
support of the charge.

4.6 A careful analysis of the Honorable Prosecution

Offices Resolution and records, however, reveals that
substantial facts and circumstances that could affect the
recommendation of the case have been overlooked. While no one
actually witnessed the killing or even the cause of death of
decedent John Lloyd Barrion, sufficient evidence to prove the
existence of probable cause nevertheless exists. These pieces of
evidence consist of:

(1) Presence of Respondent-Appellant at the place of the

incident;
(2) Declarations made by decedent himself subsequently
after the incident;

4
Lee v. KBC Bank N.V.,
5
G.R. No. 180165, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 631, 640-641
Honorable Prosecution
Officer erred in finding no
probable cause in
recommending the filing of
Information

4.7 The Honorable Prosecution Office failed to give credence

to the evidence and testimonies presented by the Complainant that
would be sufficient to find probable cause against the Respondent-
Appellee for the killing of the Complainant-Appellants child, John
Lloyd Barrion;

4.8 It is of record that Respondent-Appellant himself in his

Kontra Salaysay did not deny that he was in their home when the
incident happened, to wit:

xxx

Na, pagbukas ko ng pinto, sabi ni Jade, ay

tingnan nyo at may nakasabit na bata.
Tiningnan ko, nakita ko ay si Baloy. Ay di agad
ay sumigaw ako at nagtawag ng kapitbahay
tapos ako pumasok ng bahat at tinawag ang
aking asawa;

xxx

(Kontra Salaysay ni Pastor Genil, 25 May

2016)

4.8 Further, decedent John Lloyd Barrion himself uttered to

his sister Angel Rose Barrion what conspired during the incident as
testified by the latter in her Salaysay, which states;

xxx

T: Maaari mo bang isalaysay sa akin kung ano

and sinabi sa iyo ng kapatid mo na si john Lloyd?
S: Opo, noong Abril 2, 2016, dinala po ulit
naming ang aking kapatid sa Batangas
Provincial Hospital, Lemery, batangas. Tapos
habang nasa hospital po siya (John Llyod) sinabi
po ng aking
xxx

(Kontra Salaysay ni Pastor Genil, 25 May

2016)
Honorable Department
erred in ruling the
presence of conspiracy
without clear and
convincing evidence.

4.11 At the onset, Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code states that
"conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." It
does not need to be proven by direct evidence and may be inferred from
the conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime
indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of
sentiments as in conspiracy. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all;6

4.12 Perusal of the assailed Resolution would reveal that the

main basis used in including herein respondent-appellee Ramesis
Reyes and his co-respondent Fernando Fernandez was the fact of their
presence at the time of the incident. The alleged act of kicking by herein
respondent-appellee was neither proven by evidence nor even
identified by the complainants witnesses. Aside from the inconsistent
testimonies of the complainants witnesses, nothing else was shown
that would even remotely suggest that herein respondent-appellee had
a hand in the incident. Herein respondent-appellee Reyes and
respondent Fernandez mere presence at the scene of a crime would by
itself establish conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or
series of acts, participated in the commission of the felony;

4.13 While conspiracy need not be established by direct

evidence, it is, nonetheless, required that it be proved by clear and
convincing evidence by showing a series of acts done by each of the
accused in concert and in pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.
The degree of proof required to establish conspiracy, like the crime
itself, is nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt;7
4.14 In criminal cases, conviction must rest on a moral certainty
of guilt. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to establish each
and every element of the crime and that it is the accused who has been
responsible for its commission or that he has conspired with the
malefactor. Certainly, there is no conspiracy in just being an employee
of the place of the incident;
4.15 Quantum of evidence required to establish conspiracy is
nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such was not proven
by the complainant to uphold the assailed Resolution of this Honorable
Department;

6 People v. Pantaleon, Jr., 600 Phil. 186, 223 (2009).

7 Pio Timbal vs People GR No. 136487 December 14, 2001
 4.16 Considering the evidence presented, the error made by the
this Honorable Department in modifying the original Resolution of the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City must be corrected for it is
unjust for respondent-appellee Ramesis Reyes and respondent
Fernando Fernandez to be indicted in a crime which they did not
commit nor even participated in.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully

prayed that:

a.) This instant motion be GRANTED;

b.) The Resolution dated 03 March 2015 of this Honorable

Office be set aside; and

c.) The adoption of the original Resolution dated 26 May

2014;

Other reliefs just and equitable under circumstances are likewise

prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
22 December 2016, Quezon City for Manila.

ALFEROS ARMAS & ASSOCIATES

Law Office
Unit K, No. 1143 San Francisco Del Monte Ave.,
Barangay Paltok 1105, Quezon City

By:

JOHN THOMAS S. ALFEROS III

PTR No. 2182053; 01.06.16 Q.C.
IBP No. 1018433; 01.06.16; Q.C.
Roll No. 48188; Page No. 138; Book no. XX
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019255; 04.15.16 until 04.14.19
Mobile No. 0918-9390566
[email protected]
Copy Furnished:

THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY

Department of Justice Building
Quezon City Hall Compound

THE PRESIDING JUDGE

Regional Trial Court
Branch 105, Quezon City

JOHN M. CHAVEZ
27-A Samar St., Brgy, Sto Cristo 1105
Bago Bantay, Quezon City

MR. FERNANDO FERNANDEZ

No. 1 Mindoro St., Brgy Sto Cristo 1105
Bago Bantay, Quezon City

MR. ALIAS RAMIL

Pulso Bar
No. 1 Mindoro St., Brgy Sto Cristo 1105
Bago Bantay, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration was furnished

Complainant and the other Respondents through registered mail due
to time constraint, distance and lack of personnel of the undersigned
counsel to effect personal service, for which the kind indulgence and
understanding of the Honorable Department is pleaded.

JOHN THOMAS S. ALFEROS III

 VERIFICATION

I, RAMESIS REYES, after having been duly sworn to in

accordance with law do hereby depose and state that:

1. I am one of the respondents in the above-captioned case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing motion for

reconsideration; and

3. I have read the mentioned motion and the allegations

contained therein are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic records and documents.

RAMESIS REYES
Affiant

Assisted by:

RUSTICA REYES
Mother

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of

December 2016 at Quezon City. Affiant Ramesis Reyes exhibited to me
his Brgy. Santo Cristo Barangay I.D. bearing No. R752907.

Notary Public

Doc. No. ____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2016.
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice

Manila

15 December 2016

HON. VITALIANO NAPEAS AGUIRRE II

Secretary
Department of Justice
Manila

Secretary Aguirre,

This has reference to the case entitled JOHN PIUS CHAVEZ versus
FERNANDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL docketed as XV-03-INV-
13H-08827 which was resolved by the Quezon City Prosecutors
Office and was the subject of a Petition for Review by His Honors
department.

Undersigned is one of the respondents in the above-entitled case and

was informed that a resolution has been released, but to date
undersigned has not receive any copy of the resolution.

It is in this regard that herein respondent request a copy of the same

and authorizes ALFEROS ARMAS & ASSOCIATES LAW
OFFICE or its duly authorized representatives to secure the
resolution, if any has been released.

Thank you very much and it is my fervent hope of His Honors action
on the matter.

Very truly yours,

RAMESIS REYES