REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH 9

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus -

CRIM. CASE NO: _______________

For: Kidnapping under Art. 270
of The Revised Penal Code

JOHN RENIDO, MYRENE RENIDO,

& MA. ANTONETTE RENIDO
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
URGENT MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE
ACCUSED, by themselves and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states, THAT:
1. All the accused are charged of Violation of Art. 270 of the Revised
Penal Code or Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor Child;
2. Prior to the filing of the said information, the Honorable Office of
the City Prosecutor dismissed the case for failing to find probable
cause in charging all the accused, and the mother of the minor
child, Kathleen Joyce Renido, of the crime stated above. However
upon motion for reconsideration was filed by private complainant,
the Honorable Office reversed itself and found probable cause to
charge herein accused of kidnapping under Art. 270;
3. The finding of probable cause by the Honorable Office of the City
Prosecutor, after a motion for reconsideration filed by private
complainant, against herein accused is patently erroneous, and
utterly without basis thus the Honorable Court should not issue a
warrant of arrest against all the undersigned;
4. At the onset, the Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor erred in
charging the herein accused of the said crime but did not charge
the mother of the said offense despite private complainants claim
of conspiracy against them. In private complainants complaint and
reply, he alleged that Keishas mother, Kathlenn Joyce Renido,
conspired and confederated with herein accused to commit the
offense of Kidnapping under Art. 270 of the Revised Penal Code,

however if such allegation were true, then why was the mother not
charged of the same offense despite the fact that she in essence is
a principal by inducement, as she was the one who entrusted the
guardianship of the minor to herein accused during her schooling
in New Zealand;
5. It is basic in criminal law that in conspiracy should be proved, and
that all participants in the offense be included in the charge. The
non-inclusion is fatal as conspiracy between all of them cannot be
proven, as the hand that guided the act of the accused herein to
take custody of the said minor is not included. There is no
principal by direct participation if there is no principal by
inducement;
6. Assuming without conceding that the mother would be charged of
the same offense then the said case would still fail against them,
as the mother would be absolved of any liability being the true and
legal guardian of the minor illegitimate child. If the mother is thus
absolved of the said offense due to her status as the legal guardian
of the child, under our existing legal system, then the accused
herein should also be absolved of the offense considering that they
are in conspiracy with the mother who gave the order to take
custody of the child. Also they could not be charged with this
offense, as the mother, who has the personality to file the said case
against them did not file actually file a case. The proper private
complainant for this case is the mother, who has the authority to
entrust the custody of the minor to another person;
7. Again, the Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor erred in finding
probable cause against the accused simply because the first
element of the offense is lacking. The private complainant in this
case has no authority to entrust the custody of the minor child to
the accused in this case, as he has no parental authority of over
the minor. Under existing laws, the mother has parental authority
and custody over an illegitimate child, thus in this case private
complainant cannot entrust the child to the accused, as he has no
power or authority to do so;
8. The second element is also lacking, as the private complainant has
no right to demand the return of the child to him, considering that
he has no right to custody over the minor. Furthermore, the child
is with her guardians, as appointed by her mother, who in fact, has
the power and authority to do so;
9. From the foregoing arguments it is clear that warrant of arrest
should not be issued against all the accused in this case, as the
case against them are patently erroneous. The elements of the
offense, are lacking to indict the accused and to secure a
conviction against them. Furthermore, there is no need to issue a
warrant of arrest against herein accused, as there is no risk of

flight or evasion from all the accused considering that they are
legal guardian of the minor child Keisha, and they are currently
providing for her needs and looking out for her welfare;
10. In accordance with Sec. 6 (a) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rule on
Criminal Procedure, the Judge has the discretion or prerogative to
issue warrant of arrest after a personal determination if there is
probable cause to issue such warrant. However in this case, it is
clear that there exist no probable cause to issue warrant of arrest
against all the accused;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court the that Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination
of Probable Cause filed by herein accused be GRANTED, and the
Honorable Court find No Probable Cause in the Issuance of a Warrant of
Arrest against herein accused and to refrain itself from issuing the same.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
City of Manila. October 17, 2016.

JOHN RENIDO
Accused/Movant

MYRENE RENIDO
Accused/Movant

MA. ANTONETTE RENIDO

Accused/Movant

NOTICE
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 9, Manila City
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila City
Greetings,
Please submit the foregoing Urgent Motion for Judicial Determination of
Probable Cause for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court on October 28, 2016
(Friday) at 1:30 p.m or as soon as parties can be heard.

JOHN RENIDO

MYRENE RENIDO

MA. ANTONETTE RENIDO

Copy furnished:

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Manila City