Republic of the Philippines

SHARIA DISTRICT COURT

Fourth Sharia Judicial District
Zamboanga City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 47223

Plaintiff,
-versus-

-for-

ROLANDO H. CILES

MURDER

Accused.
x------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM

The STATE, thru undersigned fiscal, unto this Honorable Court respectfully
submits this memorandum that the accused stand charge for Murder under Art.
248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, under information dated
February 25, 2011 to wit:

INFORMATION
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II (Detailed), Office of
the City of Prosecution of Zamboanga, hereby accused Rolando Celis of the
crime of MURDER UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, committed as follows:
That on or about June 29, 2010 in the
City ofZamboanga, Philippines and within
the jurisdictionof this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused,did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked
the person of Arnel Manahan, thereby
inflicting upon the latters person injuries
which caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Zamboanga City, Philippines, February 25, 2011.

APPROVED :

SGD. SHALDIYN B. BANGSALA

Associate Prosecution Attorney

SGD. RICARDO CABARON

City Prosecutor

FACTS OF THE CASE

That on or about June 29, 2010 at around 4 Oclock in the afternoon,

Rolando Celis visited her daughter who was living with her wife at Talon-Talon
Loop, this city. Rolando Celis, herein accused and Ritchelle Celis are separatedin-fact for about 5 years. When the accused was approaching the house his
daughter Lizettet, also surnamed Celis, 6 years of age was then playing with
other children in the neighborhood saw him and ran towards and hugged him.
The accused asked her the whereabouts of her mother. She told him that her
mother was inside the house. The child went back to play with her playmates.
Since the house was just opened, he immediately went in finding nobody in the
sala, he went to the kitchen and there he saw Hazel Amarado, his wifes
housemaid, asked her the whereabouts of his wife which she answered,
upstairs so he did. The accused saw the door of the bedroom almost halfopened and approached it. Much to his surprise he saw a man, Arnel Manahan,
plaintiff herein, a policeman lying on the bed, with pants on. He heard his wife
asking sino yan? from the bathroom.
Quoted from the statement of the defense that the accuseds mind
became dimmed. He was blinded by anger and jealousy uttering mga walang
hiya kayo pointing his forefinger at the plaintiff papatayin kita. Accused then
hurriedly went downstairs where the kitchen is located and took a knife with the
intent to kill the plaintiff. As he was angrily going back to the room, he saw Arnel
going down the stairs, as the plaintiff was trying to escape and leave the house,
accused pursued him and stabbed the plaintiff at his back. When the accused
was about to stab again the plaintiff the latter was able to get hold of his gun and
shot the accused hitting him on his arm and caused him to fall down.

Ritchelle , the wife of the accused came and tried to pacify the plaintiff and
the defendant saying, Tama na! Tama na! The accused was able to stand up
from the fall and boxed Arnels face. Arnel loose gripped of the gun. The accused
wrest the gun and there and then willfully, unlawfully, feloniously shot Arnel thrice
causing his death.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

On cross, Hazel Amarado, Ritchelles housemaid which under transcript of
stenographic notes taken during the hearing conducted on August 2, 2010
testified, thus:
Atty. MJ:

How long have you been working as housemaid

of Ritchelle Ciles?

Hazel:
Atty. MJ:

For 7 years.
Do you know why they separated?

Hazel:

They always quarrel.

Atty. MJ:

Quarrel about what?

Hazel:

Money. Because kuya Rolando had no permanent

job and was always drunk.

Atty. MJ:

Who shoulders the household and other expenses

therefore when they were still together?

Hazel:
Atty. MJ:

Maam Ritchelle po.

When did Ritchelle decided to live separately with
Her husband?

Hazel:
Atty. MJ:

5 years .More or less.

Is Arnel one of the causes why Ritchelle left the
her husband?

Hazel:
Atty. MJ:
Hazel:

Hindi po.
Howcome were u able to say that?
Maam Ritchelle met Arnel just 2 years ago in her
work place

Atty. MJ:

How did you come to know the deseased?

Hazel:

She frequently visits the house especially

on weekends. He sometimes bring Lizelle, the
daughter of Ritchelle and the accused to school when
maam is on duty at Zamboanga City Medical Center
as midwife.

Atty. MJ:

Why was Arnel at the house on the day of

the incident?

Hazel:

It was Saturday that day. They had their lunch

together.

Atty. MJ:

What else did they do afterwards? Can u please tell

this court?

Hazel:

After having their lunch, Lizelle went outside to play

with some kids in the neighborhood. Maam Ritchelle
and sir Arnel went upstairs to take a nap. The door
of the bedroom was almost half opened. I saw sir
Arnel lied on bed and later Maam Ritchelle asked me
for a glass of water. I went in the room and saw sir
Arnel asleep. Then I went back to the kitchen to
watch TV.

Atty, MJ:
Hazel:
Atty. MJ:
Hazel:

Did you leave the house on that day?

I did not.
Can u relay to us what happened next?
that same afternoon, while I was watching TV,
I was surprised to see sir Rolando asking the
whereabouts of maam Ritchelle.

Atty. MJ:
Hazel:

What did you say?

I hesitated to answer but he insisted. So
I told him that she is upstairs.

Atty. MJ:
Hazel:

Then?
I heard sir Rolando shout mga walang hiya kayo
papatayin kita. He went to the kitchen and took a
knife and stabbed sir Arnel at his back while he was
trying to escape and leave the house.

Atty. MJ:
Hazel:

What else did you see?

Nothing more because I was so scared. I ran towards
our neighbor Hannah, told her what I saw and asked
Her to accompany me at the police station to report
The incident.

Atty. MJ:

No further questions.

Hannah Abad, neighbor of Ritchelle Ciles, 40 years of age, married, was

called to testify at the witness stand and on cross, she corroborated the
testimony of Hazel that she frequently sees Arnel visiting Ritchelle Ciles. That on
that same afternoon she saw Hazel running towards her crying and said
Tulungan niyo po si sir Arnel. Sinaksak po siya ni sir Rolando. Then suddenly
they heard three gun shots coming from the house of Ritchelle. They immediately
went and peeped at the window and saw Arnel lying on the floor with blood

oozing from his body and Rolando holding the gun which he used to shoot Arnel.
Upon the hearing the sound of gun shots, neighbors went out of their houses and
one of the neighbors called the police.
Ritchelle Celis, wife of the accused also testified on cross that she and the
accused were already separated for more or less 5 years when the incident
happened. That she decided to separate her husband Rolando, the accused
herein as they were always in dispute about Rolandos irresponsibleness as a
husband and as a father to their daughter. That he never tried to look for job to
support the family and always depending on what his mother gives him. She
further averred that Arnel was not the reason why they separated. That she and
the diseased only met around 2 years ago from her work place where Arnel, a
policeman was the watcher of a detainee confined at Zamboanga City Medical
Center and that the accused, Rolando knew about her relationship with Arnel
when in fact it was Arnel who stands as a father to their daughter in his absence
like sending their daughter to school, allowances and helping them (Ritchelle and
Lizelle) in other household expenses. That when Arnel was trying to evade the
Rolando on that same afternoon of the incident, accused stabbed Arnel at his
back. And when she was trying to pacify both of them, accused boxed the face of
Arnel causing the latter to lose grip the gun and the accused was able to wrest
the gun and shot Arnel thrice causing his death.

ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED, ROLANDO CELIS BE CONVICTED
FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER.
ARGUMENT
The accused, Rolando Celis should be convicted for the crime of
MURDER committed against Arnel Manahan.
Contrary to the argument of the defense that upon seeing a man lying on
the bed of his wife half naked, he was provoked to commit the crime upon
sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury, which produces passion and
obfuscation cannot invoke paragraph 6 of Article 13. For passion and obfuscation
may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when the same arose from lawful
sentiments. That even if there is actually passion or obfuscation on the part of the
offender, there is no mitigating circumstance when the act is committed in a spirit
of lawlessness or revenge and one of its requisites are that said act which
produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime

by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his
normal equanimity. (People vs. Alanguilang, 52 Phil. 663, 665; People vs. Ulita,
108 Phil 730, 743; People vs. Gravino, Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983, 122
SCRA 123, 134). Passion or obfuscation is incompatible with treachery. Based
from the testimonies of the witnesses, the diseased is said to be leaving the
house to evade the accused but then the latter pursued and stabbed him at his
back and when he was able to wrest the gun, and shot the victim suddenly. The
killing of the victim is qualified with treachery. The victim is not in the position to
defend him (People vs. Aguilar, 88 Phil. 693).
The defense invoking the benefits of Article 247 is without merit. Article
247 is not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act of
sexual intercourse with another person. In the case of People vs. Gonzales, 69
Phil. 66, the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court believed that there
must be actual sexual intercourse for the offended husband to be entitled to the
benefits of Art. 247.
Under the above-mentioned article, it also provides that when a person
surprised his spouse or young daughter while having sexual intercourse with
another person, it is necessary for the application of this article, that he killed or
inflicted serious physical injuries to any or both of them, either (1) while they were
in the act of sexual intercourse or if not, because they were able to run away, (2)
immediately after surprising them in the act of sexual intercourse.
In the case at bar, the accused did not see the wife and the diseased in
the act of sexual intercourse. Neither he would be surprised because as alleged
in the testimony of the wife of the accused, Rolando knew her having affair with
the diseased.

PRAYER
Wherefore, based on the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed of
the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff Arnel
Manahan, that the accused Rolando Celis BE CONVICTED for the crime of
MURDER.
Zamboanga City, Philippines, November 8, 2011.

MAY MARIE ANN ARAGON-JIMENEZ

Prosecutor
PTR No. 0338868: 1-3-2011
IBP No. 847714: 01-10-2011
Zamboanga City
TIN-114-348-912
Roll No. 26449
MCLE Compliance No. III-0002966: 4-7-09

Copy furnished:
Atty. Elaine Fernandez
Counsel for the accused
Room 211, Mendoza Building
Pilar street, Zamboanga City

Republic of the Philippines

SHARIA DISTRICT COURT
Fourth Sharia Judicial District
Zamboanga City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 47223

Plaintiff,
-versus-

-for-

ROLANDO H. CILES

MURDER

Accused.
x------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

ACCUSED, thru undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully submit this Memorandum for the Accused, and state:
The accused, Rolando Celis stand charge for MURDER penalized
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines under information
dated February 25, 2011 which reads:

INFORMATION
The undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney II (Detailed), Office of
the City of Prosecution of Zamboanga, hereby accused Rolando Celis of the
crime of MURDER UNDER ARTICLE 248 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, committed as follows:
That on or about June 29, 2010 in the
City ofZamboanga, Philippines and within
the jurisdictionof this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused,did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attacked
the person of Arnel Manahan, thereby
inflicting upon the latters person injuries
which caused his death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.
Zamboanga City, Philippines, February 25, 2011.

APPROVED :

SGD. SHALDIYN B. BANGSALA

Associate Prosecution Attorney

SGD. RICARDO CABARON

City Prosecutor

FACTS OF THE CASE

The accused, Rolando Celis, married to Ritchelle Celis on August 21,

1998. After seven years of their marriage, Ritchelle Celis left and went to live
with her daughter in Talon-Talon Loop.
On june 29, 2010 at around 4 Oclock in the afternoon, Rolando Celis
visited Ritchelle Celis with the intention of bringing his family back home. His
daughter Lizelle upon seeing him ran towards him and hugged him. He then
asked where her mother is. The child told him that she was in the house. We he
was inside, he saw hazel, his wifes housemaid and asked the same thing. Hazel
told him that his wife was upstairs. He immediately went up to the bedroom to
surprise his wife but instead, he was the one surprised to see a man half naked,
lying on the bed. Then he heard his wife asking who it was from the bathroom.
His mind became dimmed, overpowered by passion and obfuscation, went down
the kitchen and took a knife pursued and stabbed Arnel, the man he saw in the
bedroom, a policeman, at his back while the latter was trying to escape. Arnel
fought back with a gun and fired at him which hit Rolando, the accused herein on
his right arm. Ritchelle, wife of the accused came down wearing only a towel to
stop the fight. They continue to wrestle until Arnel loose gripped of the gun.
Rolando Celis fell down, after being punched in his right face. He saw the gun
took it and shot the plaintiff thrice causing the death of the latter.
Upon arrival of the police, Rolando Celis surrendered and admitted the
crime.

EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED

The first witness was Hazel Amarado, housemaid of Ritchelle Celis. She
testified that Arnel and the former had an affair for almost 2 years and he has
been visiting her and her daughter Lizelle almost every day. She also testified
that on that day, the plaintiff came to have lunch with them. After having their
lunch they both went up in the room and never came down until Rolando Celis
found them. That after lunch and doing some chores, she stayed at the kitchen
watching TV.
The second witness was Hannah Abad, 40 years old, also a resident of
Talon-Talon Loop this city. She testified that she is s neighbor of Ritchelle Celis
and she frequently sees Arnel visiting Ritchelle. That she was in the garden on
that same afternoon of the incident when she heard voices shouting followed by
gun shots and that she saw Hazel running from the house and asked her to
accompany her at the police station.
Ritchelle, wife of the accused who saw the whole fighting incident also
testified that indeed, she was having an affair with the diseased. That when her
husband saw Arnel lying on the bed the latter hurriedly got up and tried to
escape. That she was in panic so she only wore the towel that was on the
bathroom. She saw Rolando and Arnel fighting that it happened very fast and she
heard gun shots and saw Arnel on the floor oozing with blood with no life.
The last witness that testified was SPO1 Edwin Venancio, the police
investigator in the case at bar. In his testimony, the accused Rolando Celis
surrendered to him the gun which he used to kill the diseased.

ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE IMPRISONED WITH
THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER
OR WHETHER OR NOT HE BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE.

ARGUMENT
The defense submits that the accused Rolando Celis should not be
penalized with Reclusion Perpetua for the crime charged as alleged in the

10

information as the prosecutor failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of the

crime. Upon seeing a man lying on the bed of his wife half naked, he was
provoked to commit the crime upon sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable
fury, which produces passion or obfuscation. Moreover the person whom the
accused saw lying in the bed was the paramour, as testified by the witnesses.
Article 13, paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code states that of having acted
upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation. Passion or obfuscation is a mitiating circumstance because the
offender who acts with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his
intelligence and intent. When there are causes naturally producing in a persons
natural feeling of despair and the impulse was caused by sudden revelation
which cause vexation, disappointment and anger, he loses his reason, selfcontrol thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power..
The testimony of the witness should also be given credit as to the fact that
Arnel Manahan and Ritchelle Celis went to the bedroom together and did not
come down until Rolando Celis came. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code
states that death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstance
any legally married person who having surprised with another person shall kill
any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict
upon them any serious physical injury The phrase in the act of committing
sexual intercourse should not be literally interpreted. If a married woman at the
appointed hour, both enter a room alone, then and thereafter undress
themselves, and were kissing and petting in preparation for the carnal act, should
the husband wait until the sexual intercourse was performed? To receive the
benefit of Article 247, it is not necessary they should be in the position to hold
sexual intercourse. Upon the fact that the present case, it is testifies that Arnel
Manahan and Ritchelle Celis had an illicit relationship, and that the paramour has
been visiting her almost every day. That paramour went to the bedroom alone
and Rolando Celis saw Arnel half naked lying on the bed, it is clear that Arnel and
Ritchelle have committed an adulterous act. It is not necessary that the husband
should witness their sexual intercourse to entitle him the benefit of Art. 247 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Article 13, paragraph 7 states that the offender had voluntarily
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the peresentation of
evidence for the prosecution. In this case, upon the arrival of the police, the
accused Rolando Celis voluntarily admitted that he killed Arnel Manahan. For
voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a

11

manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to

the authorities because he acknowledges his guilt. Voluntary surrender is another
ground for mitigating circumstance. Under that said fact, the court should see his
conduct, after admitting completely the crime, the desire on his part to own the
responsibility for the crime.

PRAYER
Wherefore, based on the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed of
the Honorable Court that judgement be rendered in favor of the accused Rolando
Celis by means of mitigation.
Zamboanga City, Philippines, November 8, 2011.
MARK JOSEPH TUBO
Counsel for the accused
PTR No. 1449979: 1-3-2011
IBP No. 958825: 01-10-2011
Zamboanga City
TIN-114-559-022
Roll No. 56949
MCLE Compliance No. III-0002966: 4-7-09

Copy furnished:
MAY MARIE ANN JIMENEZ
Prosecutor
Zamboanga City

12

Statutory
Construction
Submitted by:
May Marie Ann A. Jimenez
LLB-IB

13