Is the Court of Appeals blind?

Is the Court of Appeals blind?


Interested readers may read below the Motion for Reconsideration filed by newsman Jaime who is now picking up garbage for a living.

Republic of the Philippines
Court of Appeals
Ma. Orosa St., Manila

their minor son JESTIN

          - versus -                                 No. 00051 – WRIT OF AMPARO
                                                          (GR No. 205532)

Motion for Reconsideration

            The petitioners, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully file this Motion for Reconsideration from the Decisioan of the Honorable Court promulgated June 17, 2013.

            The said decision was received by the law firm on 20 June 2013.  The fifteenth (15th) day within which to file a motion for reconsideration has yet to end on 5 July 2013.

            Thus the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration is still timely.

            Moreover, this is not a prohibited pleading because this motion is directed against the decision and not on an interlocutory order.

            The grounds upon which this motion is being filed are as follows:

1.     With due respect, the Court erred in not considering the Judicial Affidavit of petitioner Jaime G. Aquino, which ruling resulted in non-admission of all the exhibits identified and marked therein.

2.     With due respect, the Court erred in not considering the Position Paper  of the petitioner.

3.     With due respect again, the petitioners also take exception to the conclusion of the Court that it is more secure for minor Jestin Imus Aquino to be with the DSWD.

4.     With due respect also, the petitioners disagree with the Honorable Court in not considering the safety and security of the parents and family members of the petitioners that are actually now in worse situation than Jestin’s.

5.     With due respect, the petitioners disagree that the respondents did not cause threats and security to the minor.    

On the first cited error, the Honorable Court may have overlooked the fact that petitioner Jaime G. Aquino affirmed his Judicial Affidavit although it was admitted that the same was prepared through a Yahoo chatroom between the undersigned counsel and the petitioner.

The Honorable Court may have also overlooked the manifestation of the undersigned counsel that after the question-and-answer examination that he conducted with petitioner Jaime through the chatroom while the counsel was in Koronadal City and the petitioner was in Pangasinan, the counsel prepared the judicial affidavit into its final form and sent the same to the email address of petitioner Jaime, and that Jaime downloaded the same into several copies, signed the same and had the same notarized by a notary public for Pangasinan.

There was no dispute that that the same judicial affidavit was caused to be notarized in Pangasinan. There was also no dispute that indeed the judicial affidavit was notarized.  There is also no dispute that the notarization has the presumption of regularity while to the contrary the respondents did not submit any proof to the contrary.

These circumstances alone are sufficient to constitute substantial evidence for the purpose of proving that indeed Jaime Aquino had personal knowledge of the questions and answers written therein even if it cannot be ascertained whether it was Jaime Aquino who was interrogated by the undersigned counsel.

Lest, it be noted that the Honorable Court even pointed out that the burden in a petition for a writ of amparo is only substantial evidence.

Actually, petitioner Jaime G. Aquino even went to the extent of identifying this judicial affidavit as EXHIBIT “A” series and identifying his signature at the end of the judicial affidavit.

So that the clear conclusion is that the Judicial Affidavit at issue must be admitted and given weight.

For clarity and convenience, that part of the judicial affidavit is hereby quoted, to wit:

Q.2 -- Mr. Witness, what affidavit did you sign for this Writ of Amparo, if there is any?
A.2 – I signed a Judicial Affidavit for the purpose of submitting the same to the Court of Appeals hearing the Petition for Writ of Amparo case that we filed.

Q.3 -- Mr. Witness, I am showing you this Judicial Affidavit purported to be executed by one Jaime G. Aquino. Please examine this and tell the Honorable Court what is this affidavit in relation to the judicial affidavit that you said you signed for this Petition for the Writ of Amparo case.
A.3 -- (After examining) This is the one, Your Honors.

Q.4 -- There is a signature atop the printed name Jaime G. Aquino. Whose signature is this?
A.4 -- That is mine.

Q.5 --- Why do you say it is your signature?
A.5 -- I was the one who signed it.

Your Honors, we request that this Judicial Affidavit of Jaime G. Aquino be marked EXHIBIT "A", the signature of Jaime Aquino be marked EXHIBIT "A-1". The succeeding pages up to the page where the Attestation is found be marked consecutively as EXHIBIT "A-2", "A-3" ... so on and so forth.

            On the second cited error, the petitioners posit that the Honorable Court should have admitted and considered their Position Paper, although it may have been belatedly filed and although the motion for extension of time was denied for being a prohibited pleading.

            This is so because the interest of justice that is apparent should have been given more weight than technical rules in the writ of amparo whose purpose was no less than to expedite the process.

            So that even if the motion for extension of time was not accepted, the Position Paper filed with motion for leave should have been considered.

            Nevertheless, it is begged of the Court to consider the Position Paper as part of the Motion for Reconsideration.

            For this, the entirety of the Position Paper is hereby re-pleaded. 

“Stripped of non-essentials, this Position Paper directly proceeds to the statements of issues and discussions of the same while at the same time citing the exhibits presented and marked during the hearing of May 24, 2013 and citing other evidence as authorized in an open-court order issued by the Court during the same hearing.

“The Issues

            “The petitioners hereby submit the following issues for resolution:

1.     Whether or not the minor, Jestin Imus Aquino, must be freed to the father and the mother; and

2.     Whether or not the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Department of Social Welfare and Development-National Capital Region (DSWD-NCR), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and AKAP SA BATA NG MGA GURO KALINGA PHILIPPINES be permanently enjoined from taking the minor and use him as a witness to the murder committed against former mayor Ruperto Martinez of the town of Infanta, Pangasinan on December 15, 2012 in Infanta, Pangasinan.”

“The Discussions

“Release the minor to his parents

            “The conclusion in this case, as will be proven below, is no other but an order directed at all the respondents, including the DSWD-National Capital Region, to release the minor son to his father Jaime Aquino and mother Ester Imus Aquino.”

“In brief, the justification is this:

“There is no legal justification to keep the minor from his parents whose rights to the custody over their son is inviolable and there is no clear and convincing evidence to overcome this inviolable right.

“So that in resolving the first issue, the path that will be taken by this discussion shall be as follows:

1.     Lay down the premise that no parents can be deprived of their right to custody over their minor child Jestin Imus Aquino;

2.     Examine the justifications being advanced by the respondents if they have clear and convincing evidence to defeat the parents in the contest of custody over the minor;

3.     If the respondents cannot show by clear and convincing evidence any right to justify involuntary termination of parental authority over the minor, then the minor must be released to the petitioner; and

4.     With more reason that the minor must be released to the petitioners if the respondents cannot present pieces of evidence to show that the security of the minor, as well as the parents, are not compromised if the custody over the minor is maintained by the respondents or any of them.”

“The right of parents to custody is inviolable

“The Constitution proclaims the right of parents to parental authority over their children as a matter of policy and as a matter of right, natural and primary.

“In Section 12 of Article II of the Constitution, it states:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

“Under the natural law doctrine or natural right doctrine, this right is inalienable unlike legal rights that are mere positive laws.

“If it is a natural right of the parents to take custody over their minor children, it takes the State or anybody else going against the parents to conquer a mountain to defeat the parents in the contest for custody.

“No less than the Constitution respects this natural right of the parents.

“Now, the Constitution also respect that natural right as PRIMARY as a matter of State Policy.

“If the right of the parents are primary, everything else are either secondary or of even lesser classes.

“The Constitution also recognizes this natural and primary right of the parents over their children in Article XV of the Constitution, that says:


Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

Section 3. The State shall defend:

    The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;

    The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;

    The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and

    The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.

Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the State may also do so through just programs of social security.

            “As its highest respect to the inalienable rights of the parents, the State passed the Family Code where it pronounced the following:

            Art. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. (n)

Art. 210. Parental authority and responsibility may not be renounced or transferred except in the cases authorized by law. (313a)

            “And to highlight the inviolability of the parents’ authority over their minor children, the Family Code pronounces as follows:

Art. 215. No descendant shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to testify against his parents and grandparents, except when such testimony is indispensable in a crime against the descendant or by one parent against the other. (315a)

            “The first rule as to testimonies is that the children cannot testify against the parents and grandparents.

            “It is only an exception for the children to be allowed to testify against the parents and grandparents.

            “And because it is only an exception, the NBI and all other respondents have the burden of proof to show clearly and convincingly why Jestin Imus Aquino should be allowed to testify against his father Jaime Gutierrez Aquino.

            “Now, if ever there is a necessity for a minor to testify against his parents, logic dictates that there must be no legal impediment in allowing so.  To remove the obstacle, the parental authority must first be severed and this can be done only by means of a court order.

“This is stated under Article 229 of the Family Code, that states:

Art. 229. Unless subsequently revived by a final judgment, parental authority also terminates:

(1) Upon adoption of the child;
(2) Upon appointment of a general guardian;
(3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment of the child in a case filed for the purpose;
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent court divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or
(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or incapacity of the person exercising parental authority. (327a)

            “Looking at the Child and Welfare Code of the Philippines, or Presidential Decree 603, the same law recognizes the primary right of the parents.  Section 43 therein states:

Art. 43. Primary Right of Parents. - The parents shall have the right to the company of their children and, in relation to all other persons or institutions dealing with the child's development, the primary right and obligation to provide for their upbringing.

            “Reading further PD 603, it shows that whenever the parental authority of the parents were to seized by the State, it is required to file a Petition for Involuntary Commitment of a Child and the State has the burden of proving the causes.

            “Having established the premise that the rights of the parents to the parental authority over their minor children are primary and natural, let this discussion now go to whether or not the respondents (NBI, DOJ, DSWD-NCR, and AKAP SA BATA NG GURO KALINGA PHILIPPINES) have justifications to seize from petitioners Jaime Gutierrez Aquino and Ester Imus Aquino that parental authority.

            Justifications used by the respondents

            “In the instant case, the DSWD-NCR, the  DOJ, the NBI, and AKAP SA BATA justified their seizure of the parents’ right over Jestin I. Aquino by claiming the following:

1.     That the minor was an eyewitness to the plotting of three murders where the son allegedly pointed to his father, Jaime G. Aquino, as one of those present when these three slayings were plotted; and

2.     That the child is abandoned or neglected by his parents

“Are these justifications sufficient?  The answer to this may be the key to answer the issues in this petition.

“In furtherance of the respondents’ claims, the respondents conspired to cause the preparation and execution of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Jestin Imus Aquino on 8 January 2013.

“The affidavit upon which the signature of Jestin was secured states in the main that the boy was with his father Jaime G. Aquino when:

(a) he witnessed the plotting of the killing committed in 2006 against Councilor Nato Sabangan of Bayambang, Pangasinan;

(b) he witnessed the plotting of the murder perpetrated in June 2012 against Barangay Kagawad Jovencia Gazmin of Barangay San Juan, municipality of Alcala, Pangasinan; and

(c) he witnessed in November 2011 the plotting to kill then Mayor Ruperto Martinez of the town of Infanta, Pangasinan, he saw on December 14, 2012 Representative Jesus “Boying” Celeste ordering Kardo to kill Mayor Martinez, and he saw on the television announcing that Mayor Martinez was shot dead on December 15, 2012.

“In insisting on their right to seize custody from Jaime G. Aquino, the respondents have been hanging on to nothing but the same Sinumpaang Salaysay and Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay supposedly executed by Jestin Aquino.  The second Salaysay was executed on 15 January 2013.

“At the same time, the respondents insisted that Jestin stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that he ran away from his house on 18 December 2012 because his father mauled him.  He then said that on December 22, 2012 he went to Manuel Tolentino, a man who ran for mayor of Alcala against then incumbent Vice-Mayor Ryan Paolo Mencias, son of Engineer Reynaldo Mencias who Jestin mentioned as among those who plotted to kill Gazmin.

“In other words, there are two reasons that are being peddled by the respondents, in conspiracy, to justify keeping to themselves the custody over Jestin Imus Aquino.

Justifications insufficient to defeat natural and
primary right of parents to parental custody

“As discussed below, the justifications set forth by the respondents utterly lack merit to defeat the natural and primary right of the parents to parental authority over minor Jestin.

“If the respondents based right to keep custody over minor Jestin I. Aquino only on the claim that he is a witness to three heinous crimes and that the boy has been abandoned, neglected and maltreated physically by Jaime G. Aquino, then it failed to overcome the natural and primary right of the parents over Jestin.

“All these justifications—as a witness to three heinous crimes and as an abandoned, neglected and maltreated child—are not even supported by evidence submitted by all the respondents combined.

“Talking about the alleged crimes, they are unfounded by just looking on the face of the same Sinumpaang Salaysay alone.

“The first indication OF FALSITY that is clearly seen on the Sinumpaang Salaysay is the claim of Jestin that he witnessed three plots to kill.  Why the respondents only caused the filing of murder charge upon the killing of Mayor Martinez when there were two other cases of murders?   Why file a murder case on the Martinez murder when the Sinumpaang Salaysay is very obvious to be wanting of conformity to the experience of mankind?   The narration in the Sinumpaang Salaysay about the plot to kill Gazmin is never lesser than the narration made in the case of Martinez.   Yet the respondent did not cause the filing of the case about Gazmin’s death.  The excuse given by witness Roloando Argabioso that they were still investigating on the cases of Gazmin’s and Sabangan’s is flimsy.

“The second indication OF FALSITY that is clearly seen on the Sinumpaang Salaysay is the claim that the minor was brought by his father to three meetings to discuss plot to kill.   And to top it all, the father would make the son sit beside him during the discussions!  This alone is improbable to happen if gauged against the experience of mankind.   No murder plotters would discuss plots in the presence of persons with whom there is no full trust.   With more reason that any murderer would not talk about the plan to kill in the presence of strangers who are minors and who appear to be having sufficient discernment for minors, by habit of life, are more prone to squeal what they learned in confidence and who are more driven to reveal secrets if they would hear shocking plans such as plot to murder.

“The third indication OF FALSITY that is clearly seen on the Sinumpaang Salaysay when checked against reality is the claim of the minor that he graduated valedictorian from Mapandan Elementary School.   The respondents never checked this claim.  If only the NBI checked this, it would discover that the valedictorian was somebody else and discover also that Jestin has poor academic records as an elementary pupil.   This falsity is patent and it proves the contention that the NBI was hurrying up to file the case even though there is no sufficient evidence to support the claims.

“The fourth indication OF FALSITY that is also observed is the fact that the same Sinumpaang Salaysay mentioned names of politicians being portrayed as good guys as against the politicians being charged as murder plotters along with petitioner Jaime G. Aquino.

“Put this against the backdrop of politics in Pangasinan where the ones being prejudiced were incumbent Gov. Amado T. Espino Jr. and Rep. Jesus “Boying” Celeste and where the ones benefited were Liberal Party gubernatorial bet Hernani Brangaza and mayoral bet for the town of Alcala, both mentioned favorably by Jestin in the Sinumpaang Salaysay.

“With this, the true intention of the execution by the minor of the Sinumpaang Salaysay was for it to be used for political propaganda, as can be seen in the Memorandum of Governor Amado T. Espino Jr. that is attached hereto and being requested to be marked as EXHIBIT “G” in series, including the annexes thereto. 

“In this Memorandum of Espino submitted to the Department of Justice panel handling the preliminary investigation of the murder charge, a newspaper Pangasinan News carried a story that Espino and Celeste will be imprisoned soon because of the testimonies of Jestin.

“The fifth indication OF FALSITY that is immediately apparent is the fact that the Sinumpaang Salaysay showed Jestin testifying an improbable thing to happen: THAT he witnessed the plotting of murder in November 2011 and yet the crime was to happen on December 15, 2012.  There is no murder plot that waits for a year to be executed.  This is improbable because the passage of this length of time is sufficient to cool the heads.

“To support all these, this Position Paper presents EXHIBIT “A” up to EXHIBIT “F” that were marked during the hearing, including the annexes to each of the exhibits marked as sub-exhibits, as well as the exhibits marked in this Position Paper.

“Please be notified that EXHIBITS “A” to “F” were already attached to the copies submitted to the Court of Appeals and the copies sent to the OSG.  Thus, only EXHIBIT “G” is attached hereto as additional evidence.

“The undersigned counsel deemed it no longer necessary to have these exhibits certified because the OSG has copies of all of them.

“It is very clear on the face itself of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, as well as the Karagdagang Salaysay, that they do not constitute even a slight indication of probable cause to justify the respondents to seize the parental authority over Jestin Aquino to allow Jestin to testify against his father, Jaime G. Aquino.

“More importantly, the respondents failed to discharge the obligation to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the case at bar is exempt from the law that prohibits minors from testifying against his father.

“Additionally, the Sinumpaang Salaysay and Karagdagang Salaysay is null and void because it was executed by Jestin upon the guidance of DSWD Social Welfare Officer Miriam Navarro for the purpose of giving testimonies against the father when it is prohibited by law and when there was no clear exempting circumstances, as well as when Navarro was not judicially constituted as the guardian at litem.

“Imagine taking it upon herself that even assuming the father appeared prima facie guilty of murders there was still the mother, Ester Imus Aquino, who could be the guardian in executing the Salaysays?

“The appearance of irregularities is replete.  These acts by the respondents, therefore, do not enjoy the presumption of regularity, at least in so far as the execution of the same Salaysays is concerned.

“Further, requiring the minor to sign falsities under oath is no less than destruction of the intrinsic worth of Jestin and trampled his dignity.

“If he grows old used to the falsified ways, he will only grow up as a liability of the State instead of as being an asset as the parents now commit to give him more attention in order to cure what defects there may in terms of love, care, understanding, and proper teachings.

“The rules is always the same: TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL.  It is not “TEACH OTHER CHILDREN WELL.”

“The threats to life of the minor, petitioners

“It takes no compelling argument to conclude that the threats to the life of Jestin Imus Aquino remain and intensify as long as the respondents keep him in their custody.

“In the same manner that the threats to the life of Jaime Aquino, as the father, will continue as long as his minor son is kept by the respondents.

“It takes no imagination to understand that the keeping by the respondents of the custody over Jestin will send a wrong and deadly message to the supporters of Governor Espino and Representative Celeste that they would search out the minor and if they cannot find him they would continue circling and stalking the family of petitioner Jaime G. Aquino.

“Because the danger to life and security of the minor and his father is present and clear, the better rule of prudence is for the order to release Jestin Imus Aquino to his father Jaime and mother Ester Imus Aquino and give a chance to the parents to make amends if there were defects in their performance of the obligations as parents.

“The love by the parents to their children is irreplaceable, and vice versa.

“Even if there was hatred that intervened, the end of the day will still see love conquers all.

“Neither the DSWD-NCR or AKAP SA BATA
has right to seize parental authority

“The premises of DSWD-NCR and AKAP SA BATA that Jestin Imus Aquino has been an abandoned, neglected and maltreated child are untenable to justify deprivation of Jaime Aquino’s natural and primary right as to his parental authority over Jestin.

“This is so because it is very clear in the affidavits alone of Jestin that his Salaysays showed falsities in too many occasions, unbelievable when gauged against the experience of mankind, and proceeding from incredible witness because the Salaysays did not lay down the premises to show how he became credible in terms of perception of events during the happening of those claimed incidents of maltreatment, abandonment, neglect and murder plots.

“The fact alone that there is no specific, spontaneous, and straightforward narration of events from one sequence to another is an evidence in itself that the allegations clearly did not proceed from a credible witness.   Adding to these the fact that events that were claimed to have happened were improbable to happen gauged against experience of mankind, all the more it becomes clear that the DSWD-NCR and AKAP SA BATA, or even the alleged foster parent (temporary parent), failed to discharge the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of abandonment, neglect and maltreatment.

“Suffice it to say that PD 603 requires a minimum of six (6) months of abandonment to justify the grant of a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Custody of Child.

“Suffice it also to say that there was no physical neglect because Jestin appeared healthy and not malnourished during the first hearing of this case.

“Suffice it also to say that Jestin has completed elementary grade, although the performance is low.

Suffice it to say that Jaime Aquino has no derogatory record on file with the police station in Mapandan, Pangasinan.

“Suffice it to say that the problems in the person of Jestin was characterized by a child who chose “barkadas” over his family when his siblings are well attended.

“Suffice it to say that Jenny Lynn Imus Aquino graduated with a college degree only in March of 2013 with high grades who now is planning to enroll in law.

“If all other siblings of Jestin have no complaints and in fact supported their father, what reason there could be to justify the DSWD-NCR and AKAP SA BATA to strip Jaime G. Aquino the parental authority that belongs to him as a matter of natural and primary right that is inviolable.

“These siblings of Jestin, including Jenny Lynn who was supposed to testify but whose testimonies were not proceeded with as a matter that were to corroborate Jaime’s, all attended the May 24, 2013 hearing of the Court.

“If the show of support from all other siblings have been full for their father, what else can justify to argue that petitioner Jaime G. Aquino is a father who abandoned, neglected and maltreated Jestin?

“For once, Jaime has never physically touched Jestin.  The scars in his hands that the DSWD-NCR cited as maltreatment were actually wounds acquired by Jestin during the time he complained to the police that he was held up and a copy of the Police Blotter was attached to the evidence offered during the May 24, 2013 hearing.

“Child and Youth Welfare Code of the Philippines, or PD 603, is instructive, as follows:

Art. 141. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Chapter:

    (1) A dependent child is one who is without a parent, guardian or custodian; or one whose parents, guardian or other custodian for good cause desires to be relieved of his care and custody; and is dependent upon the public for support.

    (2) An abandoned child is one who has no proper parental care or guardianship, or whose parents or guardians have deserted him for a period of at least six continuous months.

    (3) A neglected child is one whose basic needs have been deliberately unattended or inadequately attended. Neglect may occur in two ways:
        a) There is a physical neglect when the child is malnourished, ill clad and without proper shelter.

        A child is unattended when left by himself without provisions for his needs and/or without proper supervision.

        b) Emotional neglect exists: when children are maltreated, raped or seduced; when children are exploited, overworked or made to work under conditions not conducive to good health; or are made to beg in the streets or public places, or when children are in moral danger, or exposed to gambling, prostitution and other vices.

    (4) Commitment or surrender of a child is the legal act of entrusting a child to the care of the Department of Social Welfare or any duly licensed child placement agency or individual.

    Commitment may be done in the following manner:
        a) Involuntary commitment, in case of a dependent child, or through the termination of parental or guardianship rights by reason of abandonment, substantial and continuous or repeated neglect and/or parental incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities, and in the manner, form and procedure hereinafter prescribed.

        b) Voluntary commitment, through the relinquishment of parental or guardianship rights in the manner and form hereinafter prescribed.

“Now, Article 142 of PD 603 lays down the rule for Petition for Involuntary Commitment of a Child, to wit:

Art. 142. Petition for Involuntary Commitment of a Child: Venue. - The Department of Social Welfare Secretary or his authorized representative or any duly licensed child placement agency having knowledge of a child who appears to be dependent, abandoned or neglected, may file a verified petition for involuntary commitment of said child to the care of any duly licensed child placement agency or individual.

The petition shall be filed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, if any, or with the Court of First Instance of the province or City Court in which the parents or guardian resides or the child is found.

Art. 143. Contents of Petition: Verification. - The petition for commitment must state so far as known to the petitioner:

    (1) The facts showing that the child is dependent, abandoned, or neglected;

    (2) The names of the parent or parents, if known, and their residence. If the child has no parent or parents living, then the name and residence of the guardian, if any; and

    (3) The name of the duly licensed child placement agency or individual to whose care the commitment of the child is sought.

The petition shall be verified and shall be sufficient if based upon the information and belief of the petitioner.

“The petition filed by the DSWD-NCR did not attach any proof that it contacted the mother of Jestin, assuming that Jaime must be out of the equation because he was being charged.

“For failure to show proof it contacted the mother and ascertained from the mother that Jestin was indeed neglected, abandoned and maltreated, the same cannot hold water.

“As stated above, the continued placement of Jestin in the hands of either AKAP SA BATA or DSWD-NCR will only aggravate the situation to continue to spawn clear and present danger to life, liberty and security of Jestin, his father and, of course, the entire family.

“It is noted in the Memorandum of Governor Espino that it is better that Jestin be released now for his own good.

“The rule is only one as to children, it is the primary and natural right of the parents to teach their children, love their children, care for their children.

“The DSWD-NCR may be able to provide the material needs of Jestin, but they cannot approximate the love coming from the parents.

“Release Jestin!”

            On the third cited error, the Honorable Court may have missed the point that the proximate cause of the existing threats to life, liberty and security of the minor are the respondents themselves.

            If only the respondents exercised the diligence of a good father, they should made sure first whether there were prima facie evidence in the allegations in the alleged Sinumpaang Salaysay documents that were made by the NBI to be signed by the minor.

            No less than a prima facie evidence in the allegations of murder should be required because what are at stake here are not only the reputation and honor of those being accused but also the life and security not only of the minor but his parents’ as well, the future not only of the minor but the parents’ and siblings as well, and the GRAVE IRREPARABLE INJURIES THAT WOULD BE CAUSED AND ARE NOW BEING CAUSED.

            It does not take to be a good skill for probity to detect that the affidavits that were made to be signed by Jestin are SO WEAK YET IT WAS ALREADY FILED.  These clearly betrayed the mediocre work of the NBI that should otherwise be considered as the cream of police investigation.

            Now, the life of petitioner Jaime Aquino has been completely destroyed. He has to run for his life because so many suspicious vehicles and riding-in-tandems have been visiting and circling his house in Mapandan, Pangasinan.

            He has already sold out all personal belongings and animals that he have had.

            The minor brothers of Jestin are now out of school.  Their father could no longer pay for their schooling.

            The minor siblings of Jestin are now picking up waste plastic bottles and other recyclables to be sold for their daily subsistence.

            Their father cannot now work due to real danger to his life.

            There is no dispute that it has been the clearly-falsified Sinumpaang Salaysay that the NBI prematurely or deliberately filed that has caused the root of it all.

            The undersigned counsel called up petitioner Jaime and he has been crying. He insisted that all what were said by Jestin who has been vulnerable to material promises have caused them to experience the extremely difficult life.

            It is taken of judicial notice that the alleged “running away” of Jestin from his father occurred during the height of political controversies between the incumbent and reelected Governor Amado T. Espino and ambitious Hernani Braganza.

            For their own political ambitions, they have destroyed beyond repair the family home of the petitioner, the future of all their children, including Jestin who got hooked by the promises of rewards and money offered by Hernani Braganza’s group.  The connection of Braganza is substantially proven in this case.  No less than the respondents submitted the perjured Salaysay provided the evidence that it was Manuel “Manny” Tolentino, the partymate of Braganza running for mayor in Alcala, Pangasinan, who brought Jestin to AKAP SA BATA and no less than AKAP SA BATA official Ruel Garcia who wrote the NBI to take the affidavit of Jestin.


            If the DSWD continues to hold Jestin and the NBI continues to prosecute the governor, Rep. Jesus “Boying” Celeste, and Jaime Aquino, himself, they are guilty of committing oppression and unforgivable injustice.

            Can’t the Honorable Court see this?

            The logic is simple to read from the circumstances.

            In the Memorandum of Governor Espino that he submitted to the Department of Justice, which memorandum is attached to the Position Paper, it is very clear that he assured that there will be no danger to Jestin if the NBI, the DSWD, and the DOJ stop exploiting the minor.

            On the fourth cited error and fifth cited error, the petitioners hereby replead the discussion on the third cited error.

Prescinding from the above discussions, it is very clear that the Honorable Court erred in not considering the safety and security of the parents and family members of the petitioners that are actually now in worse situation than Jestin’s.

Necessarily, it is also incorrect for the Court to say that the respondents did not, and cannot, cause threats and security to the minor.

To the contrary, it is not only the minor that is in danger but the parents and their family as well.

How heartless has the the situation become that the CLEARLY PERJURED AFFIDAVITS that clearly does not show a prima facie case that Governor Espino, Congressman Celeste and Jaime committed the crime of three murders as falsely stated in the Sinumpaang Salaysay.

Please be true to truth, justice and peace so that the greater glory to God will be fulfilled.

The Prayer

            WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court of Appeals to set aside its Decision promulgated June 17, 2013 and issue another granting the Petition for the Writ of Amparo.

            Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.  Manila, June 28, 2013.

Ground Floor, National Press Club Bldg.,
No. 1 Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila

Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
Emails:,; Telephone No.: +632-3105521


IBP No. 876498 / Manila IV / 10-01-2013
PTR No. 1435314 / Manila / 10-01-2013
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012


Counsel for NBI and DOJ
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati

Caritas Manila Compound,
2002 Jesus St., Pandacan, Manila

Counsel for DSWD-NCR
Unit 1208-B, New York Mansions, Montreal St., Cubao, 1109 Quezon City

Director, National Bureau of Investiation
Taft Ave., Manila

Secretary, Department of Justice
Padre Faura St., Manila
Post a Comment

Popular Posts