Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 282, Valenzuela City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

– versus –
Criminal Case No. 1210-V-19
DARWIN BERIDO y BUNSAAN For: Qualified theft
AND DOMINGO YOPYOP y
BUILDON,
Accused.
x----------------------x
– versus – Criminal Case No. 1211-V-19
For: Qualified theft
MARK SOBRENILLA y LAUZON,
Accused.
x----------------------x

COMMENT ON THE MOTION TO RELEASE VEHICLES

The above-named accused, represented by the Public Attorney’s

Office, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully aver as follows:

1. On 19 August 2019, Remington Industrial Sales Corporation filed

a motion praying that the vehicles described therein, which were
impounded by the PNP Highway Patrol Group, be released to its custody
while the instant cases are pending subject to the undertaking that it shall
surrender the said vehicles to the Honorable Court if so required by it.

2. The defense has no objection to the release of movant’s vehicles.

However, they have not yet been offered in evidence. It is not within the
province of the Honorable Court or any trial court to order the release of
any evidence which has not yet been formally offered in evidence. It is the
public prosecutor, through the Office of the City Prosecutor, who has the
authority to do so. This is in light of the pronouncement of the Supreme
Court in Senson v. Pangilinan (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430, September 8, 2003)
where it held that:

All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information are

prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.5 The seized
items ordered released by respondent Judge have not yet been offered in
evidence; hence, the prosecution, not the court, could still be deemed to
be in the legal custody and to have the responsibility over such items.6
The pronouncement by the Court in Vlasons Enterprises Corporation vs.
Court of Appeals is instructive; viz:

“x x x The outcome of the criminal action will dictate the

disposition of the seized property. If found to be contraband, i.e.,
 articles the possession of which, without more, constitutes a crime
and the repossession of which would subject defendant to criminal
penalties and frustrate the express policy against the possession of
such objects, they will not be returned, but shall be confiscated in
favor of the State or destroyed, as the case may be. If not
contraband, the property shall be returned without undue delay to the
person who appears from the evidence to be the owner or rightful
possessor.” [155 SCRA 186]

3. Apart from the aforementioned ruling, it should be noted that

based on the inquest resolution from the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City movant’s vehicles are also involved a criminal case for
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33, as amended by Presidential Decree
No. 1865 (“An Act Defining and Penalizing Certain Prohibited Acts Inimical
to the Public Interest and National Security involving Petroleum Products,
Prescribing Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes”). The said case is
pending in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 82. It is,
thus, improver for the Honorable Court to unilaterally authorize the release
of movants’ vehicles as it might be eventually needed by the court a quo,
the public prosecutor assigned to it, or the defense counsel of the accused
therein in the conduct of its proceedings. In order to insulate the
Honorable Court from being the subject of any administrative charge
which is akin to what happened in Senson v. Pangilinan where the
respondent judge was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and was
fined P10,000.00 for acceding to the release of articles, which were not yet
formally offered in evidence by the prosecution and which were
confiscated by members of the Philippine National Police for violation of
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 8550, also known as “The Philippine
Fisheries Code of 1998”, the undersigned public attorney strongly believes
that the better course of action is for the Honorable Court to endorse
movant’s Motion to Release Vehicle to the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Valenzuela City for its appropriate action. Based on the experience of the
undersigned public attorney this is what the presiding judges of the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branches 108 and 109 normally
do.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for the

Honorable Court to note this comment and to endorse movant’s Motion to
Release Vehicle/s to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City for
its appropriate action.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable, are likewise prayed
for.

Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 22 August 2019.

 PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
1 Floor, Metropolitan Trial Court Bldg.
st

Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,

Malinta, Valenzuela City

Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP OR No. 035862 dated 8/1/18 / CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0006876 dated 3/20/18

Copy furnished:
ACP Aileen S. Agacita
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City

Atty. Alejandro C. Dueñas

Atty. Mark Nester T. Mendoza
Flaminiano Aroryo 7 Dueñas
Counsel for Movant (by way of special appearance)
Unit 1002, One Corporate Centre
Meralco Avenue cor. Doña Julia Vargas Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605

Explanation on the Mode of Service:

A copy of the foregoing comment was furnished to Atty. Alejandro
C. Dueñas and Atty. Mark Nester T. Mendoza through registered mail for
lack of personnel to effect personal service.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN