POLICE INVENTED CYBER 'SEXDEN' STORY
QC police invented cybersex raid
The District Special Operations Unit (DSOU) of the Quezon City Police District invented a case of cyber sex den in order to raid a legitimate business process outsourcing. Read the manifestation to be filed today at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
Manifestation to Express
Opinion of Dismissal of the Case
The undersigned attorney of all the respondents, including at-large ALLAN REN FAJARDO SULIT, respectfully files this Manifestation to Express the Opinion that the instant complaint be dismissed outright for UTTERLY WRONG IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.
All the pieces of evidence listed and submitted by the District Special Operations Unit (DSOU) are FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE because of the violation of the witness rule of Rule 126, the rule governing the implementation of all kinds of search warrants.
Violation of the Witness Rule
Excludes All Pieces of Evidence
Gathered in the searches
Repeatedly directed by the Supreme Court is an order for all law enforcers to observe Section 8 of Rule 126, which is the witness rule in the implementation of search warrants.
If Section 8 is defied or not complied with, then all the evidence gather are FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
The Supreme Court settled in People vs Benny Go, GR No. 144639, September 12, 2003, penned by then Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales who is now the Ombudsman, reiterated that Section 8 clearly requires that the hierarchy rule be observed.
So that the SC stated:
So that the SC stated:
In People vs Benny Go, Carpio-Morales who is now the Ombudsman, penned the decision where the Supreme Court invalidated all the evidence gathered when the cops did not use the lawful occupants as witnesses to the search, to wit:
That the raiding party summoned two barangay kagawads to witness the search at the second floor is of no moment. The Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by “two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality” only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family. Thus, the search of appellant’s residence clearly should have been witnessed by his son Jack Go who was present at the time. The police officers were without discretion to substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law.
Section 8 of Rule 126 states:
Sec. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. – No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
The first rule of the execution of the search warrant is that it must be witnessed by the lawful occupants of the place being raided.
If there are no lawful occupants or if the lawful occupants refused to witness the searches, then the police operatives are required to take relatives of the occupants who must be the ones to be asked by law enforcers to be the witnesses to all searches to be done by any police unit. AND if there were no relatives, either, only then that the police agents are allowed to get persons of sufficient discretion from the community as witnesses to the search warrant.
In the case at bar, the operatives of the QCPD-DSOU even admitted in their joint affidavit of arrest that the persons they used as witnesses were barangay kagawad Noel S. Mira, reporter Jay Sabale of GMA 7 television station, reporter Angel Movido of ABS-CBN as witnesses.
The complaining policemen also admitted that some of the respondents were only made as “mere present” in the searches done. To be present in the search does not mean that the presence was equivalent to witnessing the searches. Refer to Page 3 of the Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
Illegal arrest clear
Further, the allegations of the joint affidavit of arrest are clear to show that there were no specific details how it happened that the police operatives caught the respondents in flagrante delicto. They just stated a general statement that the persons were arrested; nothing more and nothing less.
Hence, it is clear also that the pieces of evidence gathered by reason of the arrest cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding as dictated by Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the Philippines.
No victims or buyers presented
The Joint Affidavit of Arrest stated in general manner that the “in flagrante delicto” was committed by means of another general statement that the respondents were caught in the act of engaging in the selling of pornographic materials online.
If you say there was sale or act of selling, the police operatives must submit a piece of evidence of the BUYER.
In this case, there is no iota evidence of the existence of any buyer.
Additionally, if one is caught in the act of selling, then the police operatives arresting the seller must have also seen the thing sold or being sold.
There can be no act of selling if there is no buyer.
Further, the police operatives cannot even pinpoint any pornographic picture that was allegedly sold.
A look at some of the pieces of photo evidence submitted by the policemen showed no indications that these were the ones being caught being sold or sold.
Moreover, the police officers in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest cannot even say who among them arrested who.
What they did is another way of making a general statement that all of them arrested all the 30 respondents.
One more word.
The police operatives DID NOT PRESENT THE TIME OF SAVING INTO THE COMPUTER OR TAKING OF THE BOLD OR PROVOCATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS.
If they have forensic experts, they should know that every photo taken by a camera connected to a computer or cellular phone indicates the time and date of the taking or the time and date of the saving into the computer memory.
If the police operatives did not submit the proofs of the time and date of taking photos or saving photos into the computers, then the presumption of innocence dictates that THE ACTUAL TIME OF TAKING OR SAVING OF THESE BOLD PHOTOS OCCURRED AT THE TIME WHEN THE POLICE OPERATIVES WERE ALREADY SEARCHING AND WERE BEING DONE BY THE POLICE OPERATIVES.
Because the cops were in control of the time and date and if they did not present the same, then the deliberate act of not presenting the dates and times of taking or saving the alleged porno photographs must mean that the existence of these bold photos cannot be considered as caused by the respondents to exist.
In this case, the two police officers who professed to be forensic experts did not even present the time and date of saving or taking of any of the provocative photo.
See all the provocative photographs attached as parts of the alleged evidence supporting the Joint Affidavit of Arrest and Joint Affidavit of Seizure.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the instant MANIFESTATION be noted and considered in the resolution of the inquest of this case.
Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. 17 February 2017, Manila for Quezon City.
CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO Pelagio
Mailing Address: Unit No. 1, # 2368 JB Roxas St., corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, CE
IBP No. 1056866/ 04-01-2017 / Manila IV
PTR No. 5995672 / 04-01-2017 / Manila
Roll No. 60944
MCLE No. IV – 0007338 issued 10 August 2012
(Valid from 15 April 2013 until 14 April 2016)
MCLE No. V – 0013036 issued 13 January 2016
(Valid from 15 April 2016 until 14 April 2019)
SPO2 MARLON B. GAMMAD;
SPO1 AMADO J. BASILIO JR.;
SPO1 REYNALDO E. LAYSON JR.;
PO3 FREDERICK SELWYN D PACCLEB;
PO1 JOPETH P. MENDOZA;
PO1 MARK DARWIN G. CONTADO;
PO1 MAGDALENA I. NAWARDI;
PO1 CHARMAINE LABAYOG and
PO1 GRETCHEN PANIBIO,
District Special Operations Unit, QCPD
Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City
7 | Page