Answer Guerrero 2
Answer Guerrero 2
Answer Guerrero 2
Counter Affidavit
I, PMAJ. ROMEO A. BRITANICO, of legal age, a member of the
Philippine National Police presently assigned at the Las Pinas City Police
Station after having duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby deposed
and sayeth, THAT;
1. On December 14, 2014 I was the Chief of the Station Investigation and
Detective Management Branch (SIDMB) of the Las Pinas City Police Station
and likewise the concurrent chief of the Anti-Carnapping Unit of the said
Police Station;
4. I asked him what his basis was for concluding that there wascarnapping
committed by the said Spouses and he informed me of the facts that were
relayed to him by Mr. Santos. He likewise showed me the documents that
were presented to him, i.e. Certificate of Registration, Official Receipts of
Registration, Promissory Note and Chattel Mortgage of the vehicle;
5. After going over the said documents, I asked him what his plan of
action was. SPO2 Bautista then informed me of his intention to conduct a
follow-up investigation at the house of the Spouses Guerrero in Bacoor,
Cavite;
-p1-
6. Trusting the judgment of SPO2 Bautista considering that he was the
one who conducted the investigation, I allowed SPO2 Bautista and the other
respondents to conduct a follow-up investigation. However, I specifically
ordered them to perform their duties lawfully and to conduct themselves
properly during the investigation. I also ordered them to coordinate with the
proper Police Station and the Barangay Office in Bacoor, Cavite to inform
them of the investigation they were going to conduct;
9. Aside from the plain view doctrine, they were also justified in seizing
the stolen vehicle considering the exigencies of the circumstances. The stolen
motor vehicle, being a movable object, could be immediately removed from
the premises by the Spouses Guerrero and hidden or concealed somewhere
else if the respondents would leave the place to apply for a warrant. Thus, they
were justified in seizing the said vehicle;
-p2-
10. After recovering the stolen vehicle we filed a case of Violation of
10883 (New Anti-Carnapping Law of 2016) against spouses Guerrero before
the Las Pinas City Presecutors’ Office on December 16, 2016 docketed under
I.S. No. 16L-01163 and was further filed in court at RTC Branch 253, Las
Pinas City with Criminal Case No. 17-0302;
11. I was only doing my duty to as the Chief of the Anti-Carnaping unit
which is to serve and protect and in good faith because we followed all the
standard operating procedures in conducting the investigation;
-p3-
Republic of the Philippines)
Las Pinas City )S.S.
-p1-
5. After thoroughly interviewing Mr. Santos about the circumstances
regarding his complaint and reviewing the documents he submitted, we were
able to conclude that the crime of carnapping was committed by the
complainants Spouses Guerrero;
-p2-
.
12. Thereafter, we were able to talk with the Spouses when the latter
came out of their house. We calmly informed them of the complaint of Mr.
Santos and requested them to voluntarily surrender the vehicle;
14. We then brought the said vehicle to the Bacoor Police Station
(Sector 10) to inform them of what transpired during our investigation as well
as the seizure of the vehicle and thereafter brought the seized stolen vehicle
to the Las Pinas Police Station where the same was impounded as evidence;
15. It should be stated that the seizure of the stolen vehicle was valid
under the plain view doctrine. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who
has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even
without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. The "plain view"
doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he
can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object
must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent;
16. Aside from the plain view doctrine, we were also justified in seizing
the stolen vehicle considering the exigencies of the circumstances. The stolen
motor vehicle, being a movable object, could be immediately removed from
the premises by the Spouses Guerrero and hidden or concealed somewhere
else if the respondents would leave the place to apply for a warrant. Thus, they
were justified in seizing the said vehicle;
-p3-
19. We were only doing our duty as members of the Philippine National
Police which is to serve and protect, without fear or favor and in good faith
because we followed all the standard operating procedures in conducting the
said investigation;
21. We are executing this Joint Counter Affidavit to attest to the truth of
foregoing facts.
-p4-
VERIFICATION
3. That the allegations contained in the Answer are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc No. ____
Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2017
x----------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
7. Respondent asked him what his basis was for concluding that
there was carnapping committed by the said Spouses and he informed
respondent of the facts that were relayed to him by Mr. Santos. He likewise
showed me the documents that were presented to him, i.e. Certificate of
Registration, Official Receipts of Registration, Promissory Note and Chattel
Mortgage of the vehicle;
8. After going over the said documents, respondent asked him what
his plan of action was. SPO2 Bautista then informed respondent of his
intention to conduct a follow-up investigation at the house of the Spouses
Guerrero in Bacoor, Cavite;
12. From the foregoing, the only act which herein respondent
performed relative to the incident subject of this case was the act of signing
the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet. Other than that, respondent did
not participate in any other act relative to the instant case;
18. Likewise, the Memorandum dated April 3, 2017 which gave rise
to the instant case and which stated that the circumstances of the complaint of
Mr. Santos did not constitute carnapping is erroneous;
20. Moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City also found
probable cause that the complainants committed the crime of carnapping and
issued a warrant for their arrest. A copy of the Order of Arrest against the
Spouses Guerrero is hereto attached as Annex “D”;
21. Verily, the Spouses Guerrero had committed the crime of
Carnapping and the respondent’s subordinates were justified in pursuing their
lawful duties in investigating the complaint of Mr. Santos as well as in the
seizure of the stolen vehicle;
22. It should also be stated that the seizure of the stolen vehicle was
valid under the plain view doctrine. Objects falling in plain view of an officer
who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
even without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. The "plain
view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he
can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object
must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.2
2
People of the Philippines vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999.
23. The presence of respondent’s subordinates at the residence of the
Spouses Guerrero was lawful and legal considering that they were there for
the purpose of conducting a follow-up investigation on the complaint of Mr.
Santos;
26. Aside from the plain view doctrine, they were also justified in
seizing the stolen vehicle considering the exigencies of the circumstances. The
stolen motor vehicle, being a movable object, could be immediately removed
from the premises by the Spouses Guerrero and hidden or concealed
somewhere else if the respondents would leave the place to apply for a
warrant. Thus, they were justified in seizing the said vehicle;
PRAYER
Other reliefs and remedies just under the premises are also prayed for.
Las Pinas City for Calamba City, Laguna, June 27, 2017.
By:
Copy furnished:
Atty. Joseph Maganduga
Counsel for Complainants
G/F JP Tuason Bldg.,
Sta. Lucia St., San Antonio,
Paranaque City
EXPLANATION
VERIFICATION
3. That the allegations contained in the Answer are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc No. ____
Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2017