Scribd
Upload
2K views5 pages

Motion For Reconsideration (Prosecutor Level)

The motion seeks reconsideration of a resolution dismissing a case for malicious mischief due to lack of evidence. The complainant argues that: (1) the flooding of his farmland was caused by the respondent blocking a drainage canal, not an act of nature; (2) the respondent did not claim to block the canal to prevent flooding of his own land; and (3) the facts still show some culpability by the respondent. He asks the prosecutor's office to reconsider and allow filing of charges. The motion includes affidavits of service by registered mail to the respondent.

Uploaded by

Darwin Charles Zambo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views5 pages

Motion For Reconsideration (Prosecutor Level)

The motion seeks reconsideration of a resolution dismissing a case for malicious mischief due to lack of evidence. The complainant argues that: (1) the flooding of his farmland was caused by the respondent blocking a drainage canal, not an act of nature; (2) the respondent did not claim to block the canal to prevent flooding of his own land; and (3) the facts still show some culpability by the respondent. He asks the prosecutor's office to reconsider and allow filing of charges. The motion includes affidavits of service by registered mail to the respondent.

Uploaded by

Darwin Charles Zambo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Office
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
ZAMBOANG DEL SUR
Pagadian City

RONALD G. PARAMEO,
Complainant,
NPS Docket No.
- versus - IX-09-INV-21-00526
FOR: MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
RICHARD S. HIDALGO,
Accused,

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


The undersigned COMPLAINANT respectfully states that, to wit:

1. INTRODUCTION.

The subject matter of this Motion for Reconsideration is the Resolution


dated November 28, 2022, issued by the investigating 2 nd Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Fernando A. Cagoco, Jr. and approved by
Provincial Prosecutor Mary Ann W. Tugbang-Torres;

2. MATERIAL DATES.

The Complainant received his copy of the aforementioned Resolution


on March 9, 2023, via personal follow-up of the Complainant’s agent,
recommending the above-captioned case DISMISSED for lack of
sufficient evidence.

Under the Section 4.7.25 of the 2017 Revised Manual of Prosecutors,


(non-verbatim) a party aggrieved to an Investigating Prosecutor’s
Resolution has fifteen (15) days within which to file a verified motion
for reconsideration. Hence, the present motion.

3. GROUNDS.

The Complainant assigns the following grounds for this motion for
reconsideration, to wit:

a) The flooding of the Complainants’ farmland cannot be made


attributable solely nor purely as an act of nature considering that it
had not inundated thereat ever since regardless of whatever heavy
rainfall occurs in said place, at least not before the time when the
upper drainage/canal serving as chute for rainwater was obstructed
by the Respondent.

Rather, the damage was basically caused by Respondent’s


malicious blocking of the drainage/canal beside his land by
improperly placing the sacks of mud and soil directly unto the said
drainage/canal.

Page | 1
As a result, instead of allowing the ordinary course of
rainwater to make its way into the drainage/canal beside
Respondent’s land, the water blockage caused by him consequently
created an overflow of accumulated rainwater from his canal down
to the Complainant’s farmland which is a land located at the lower
level/portion1 of the surrounding area compared to the
Respondent’s land which is at the upper portion.

For the record, there were no history of flooding in both of


the Complainant’s and Respondent’s area in order for them to
conduct any immediate preventive measure, at least not until the
selfish and thoughtless Respondent blocked his side of the canal
resulting in the damage and prejudice of the Complainant’s
vegetables and plants.

Additionally, the Complainant’s farmland does not place


equally flat beside the Respondent’s land. Perforce, the latter’s land
is substantially elevated as against the Complainant’s farmland;

b) To say that the Respondent’s action in placing the bags of mud and
soil is “to prevent any water from entering his farm which he has a
lawful right to do so”, is like putting words in the Respondent’s
mouth when it is clearly stated in the Resolution that, “no return
was made (on the part of the Respondent) despite sufficient lapsed
(sic) of time.”

Considering that no return was made on the part of the


Respondent, he could never raise nor allege, at least in the
prosecutor’s level, that his act was done solely for the purpose of
preventing any water from going into his land. Moreso, when there
is supposedly a pre-existing drainage/canal which should have
been, with plain common sense, left untouched or unblocked in the
first place.

If indeed the Respondent’s act was a preventive measure


done in good faith, he could have easily notified first the
Complainant that he intends to close his side of the canal, as
preventive measure, so that the latter could come up as well with a
solution and to prepare himself, or, if not, give the Complainant a
chance to manifest his counter-proposal or opposition to the
Respondent’s intended measure;

c) If at all, the facts stated in the Complaint falls short of the crime of
Malicious Mischief, granting without admitting that malice does not
exist, the facts in the Complaint including its Annexes, when
thoroughly perused, are replete of evidence which suggests an
interpretation that there can be an existing culpability on the part
of the Respondent, which if dismissed or set aside, would severely
cause injustice to the Complainant.

Flowing from the above discussion, it is humbly submitted that there


was an error in finding that evidence is/are lacking to prove the existence of
probable cause that a crime was committed, may it be intentional or
culpable.

1
See Paragraph/Item No. 14 of the Affidavit of Complaint including an attach photo in its Annex “J”

Page | 2
Thus, the Resolution is against the law and not in accordance with the
facts presented.

On the basis of the foregoing premises, Complainant respectfully


implores this Honorable Office of the Provincial Prosecutor to RECONSIDER
its RESOLUTION dated November 28, 2022, and that a Resolution be
rendered IN FAVOR of the filing of an information holding Respondent
Richard S. Hidalgo liable of a crime against the property of the Complainant.

Respectfully submitted.

March 14, 2023 in the City of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur,


Philippines.

RONALD G. PARAMEO
Complainant

Republic of the Philippines)


Province of Zamboanga del Sur:S.S.
City of Pagadian)
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

VERIFICATION

I, RONALD G. PARAMEO, of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and a


resident of Tawagan Norte, Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, after having
been sworn in accordance with law do hereby depose and state that, to wit:

1. I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration;

3. I have read and understood the contents hereof, and the facts herein alleged
are true and correct of my own knowledge based on available verifiable
records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14 th day of


March, 2023 in the City of Pagadian, Province of Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines.

RONALD G. PARAMEO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in this 14th day of March, 2023, at


Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, by the above-named affiant, who is
personally known to me, to be the same person who presented and personally
signed before me this VERIFICATION and attested that the contents hereof are
true and correct; and that he voluntarily executed the same.

Doc No. _________;


Page No. ________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2023

Page | 3
Copy furnished by registered mail:

RICHARD S. HIDALGO
Purok Rose, Brgy. Sugod, Tukuran,
Zamboanga del Sur
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR:S.S.
CITY OF PAGADIAN)
x----------------------/

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, RONALD G. PARAMEO, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident


of Tawagan Norte, Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, after being
duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the complainant of NPS Docket No. IX-09-INV-21-00526;

2. That on March 14, 2023, I served a copy of the Motion for


Reconsideration by registered mail for the abovementioned NPS
Docket Number entitled Ronald G. Parameo vs. Richard S. Hidalgo for
Malicious Mischief, by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed
envelope, plainly addressed to the respondent at his residence with
postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No.
_________________ and with instructions to the post master to
return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day


of March, 2023 in the City of Pagadian, Province of Zamboanga del Sur,
Philippines.

RONALD G. PARAMEO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of March,


2023, at Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines.

Page | 4
Doc No. _________;
Page No. ________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2023

Page | 5

You might also like