Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
MANILA
oo0oo
First Division
In the Matter of Request for the
transfer of Venue of Criminal
Case/s Nos. (07-09) 1648-3 and
(07-09) 1649-3 entitled People
of the Philippines vs. Temogen
Cocoy Tulawie

A.M. No. 11-4-75-RTC

x------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(on the Resolution dated 23 August 2012)
ACCUSED

Temogen

Cocoy

Tulawie,

by

counsels,

respectfully moves for a reconsideration of the abovementioned

Resolution by averring that:

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION

1.

On 20 September 2012, accused received a copy of

the Resolution from this Honorable Court dated 23 August

2012 which states, among others:
(1)
GRANT
the
aforesaid
petition for change of venue of the
subject criminal cases.
(2) to DIRECT the Clerk of Court of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11,
Davao City to FORWARD the records of

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

the subject criminal cases to the Office

of the Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial Court in Manila [xxx]
GROUNDS
2.

Herein accused moves for a reconsideration of the

above-mentioned Order based on the following grounds:

2.1 The second change of venue of this case

from Davao to Manila will result in
vexatious and oppressive delay of the
trial of the case and will cause serious
violation of the right of the accused to
speedy trial.

It must be recalled that the venue of this case has

already been resolved by this Honorable Court in favor of the
accused in an earlier Resolution dated June 13, 2011 which
transferred the case from the Regional Trial Court in Jolo,
Sulu to Davao City. This second transfer of the venue of the
case from Davao to Manila will expectedly cause another delay
of the trial of the case which will be violative of the right of the
accused to speedy trial.

It is of judicial notice that the

Regional Trial Court in Davao City is functional and competent

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

to hear and decide the criminal charges against the accused

and the move to transfer the case this time in Manila will only
serve the delaying tactic of the private complainant, Governor
Sakur Tan of Sulu. Herein accused has been detained since
January 13, 2012 and as of now, trial on the merits has
barely moved because of the dilatory tactics on the part of
the private complainant. Between the interests of the private
complainant who has all the financial means and political
influence

to

prove

his

accusation

in

court

and

the

constitutional right of the accused to fair and speedy trial, it is

incumbent upon this Honorable Court to protect the rights of
the accused and more so because he is currently detained and
restricted of his freedom. As decided in the case of OLBES VS.
BUEMIO1,

citing

CORPUZ

VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN2,

this

Honorable Court held that:

The right of the accused to a speedy trial and
to a speedy disposition of the case against him was
designed to prevent the oppression of the citizen by
holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for

FEDERICO MIGUEL OLBES, Petitioner, vs.HON. DANILO A. BUEMIO, in his capacity as pairing
presiding judge of Branch 22 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, SAMIR MUHSEN and ROWENA MUHSEN,Respondents;
G.R. No. 173319
December 4, 2009
1

MARIALEN C. CORPUZ and ANTONIO H. ROMAN, SR., petitioners, vs.THE SANDIGANBAYAN

(Special Fourth Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
G.R. No. 162214
November 11, 2004
2

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the

administration of justice by mandating the courts to
proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of
criminal cases. Such right to a speedy trial and a
speedy disposition of a case is violated only when
the

proceeding

capricious

and

is

attended

oppressive

by
delays.

vexatious,
x

(Emphasis ours).

Since the arrest of the accused on January 13, 2012, the

trial on the merits of the case has not yet commenced due to
considerable delay in the transfer of the case folder from court
in Jolo to Davao City and on unnecessary issues of authority
to prosecute
Davao City.

on the part of

handling public prosecutor in

It was only sometime in August 3, 2012 that the

accused was arraigned after accused argued that the handling

prosecutor in Davao City should properly represent the State
and the accused right to speedy trial should not be left in
oblivion by the continued denial of the handling fiscal of
alleged lack of authority from the Department of Justice. If
the latest Resolution be upheld, accused now once more will
suffer further delay in the trial of his cases. His family of five
young children have already moved from Jolo to Zamboanga

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

City due direct threats against their life and safety. They have
now resettled in Davao City and have also enrolled here in
order to maintain personal visits with the accused. This will
again be disrupted if accused will be transferred in Manila to
accommodate self-serving interests of a highly influential
politician.

2.2

Herein Accused respectfully states in

clear and categorical terms that the criminal

cases filed against him by Governor Sakur
Tan is meant to cripple his human rights
work in Sulu and to silence human rights
defenders like him who dares to question the
abuses and oppressive governance of the
Governor.

Cocoy Tulawie is a human rights defender who is entitled

to protection by the State as mandated by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 9, 1998, which recognizes
the legitimacy of the activities of human rights defenders, the
right to freedom of association and to carry out their activities
without fear of reprisals.

He is facing false and fabricated

criminal charges arising from his human rights work in Sulu

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

foremost of which is the Petition for Certiorari and

Prohibition that he has filed against Governor Sakur Tan for
declaring the Province of Sulu in a State of Emergency last
March 31, 2009. In a recent Decision of the Supreme Court
on the aforementioned Petition entitled KULAYAN, TULAWIE,
ET. AL vs. GOVERNOR TAN dated July 3, 2012 penned by
no less than the new Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno,
this Honorable Court held that:
It is only the President, as Executive, who is
authorized to exercise emergency powers as provided
under Section 23, Article VI, of the Constitution, as
well as what became known as the calling-out
powers under Section 7, Article VII thereof".
"Given the foregoing, the respondent provincial
governor is not endowed with the power to call upon
the armed forces at his own bidding. In issuing the
assailed proclamation, Gov. Tan exceeded his
authority when he declared a state of emergency and
called upon the Armed Forces, the police, and his
own Civilian Emergency Force. The calling-out
powers contemplated under the Constitution is
exclusive to the President. An exercise by another
official, even if he is the local chief executive , is ultra
vires, and may not be justified by the invocation of
Section 465 of the Local Government Code [xxx]
" In fact, respondent governor has arrogated unto
himself powers exceeding even the martial law
powers of the President, because as the Constitution
itself declared, "A state of martial law does not
suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative bodies, nor authorize the conferment of the
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ."

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

From the above-cited decision, it is clear that the

criminal charges filed against the accused are meant to harass
and punish him for questioning the declaration of State of
Emergency and exposing the formation of Private Armies in
the province of Sulu. It is a form of reprisal on the part of the
private complainant and is a classic case of harassment
against a human rights defender.
2.3

Accused

security

and

foremost
safety

concern

considering

is

his

reports

reaching the Tulawie's that the camp of

private complainant has allegedly contracted
out notorious Abu Sayyaf suspects who are
currently detained at the Camp Bagong Diwa,
Taguig City.

The Tulawie family has been advised not to allow the

accused to be mixed with the inmates at the SICA
building in Bicutan as the plot to liquidate him inside the
jail has already circulated among the suspected ASG
inmates. A reliable source inside the jail in Bicutan has
reported to the family of the accused that the would-be
assassins of Cocoy Tulawie are already preparing for his
arrival in Manila. Just before the start of Ramadhan,
operatives of the private complainant allegedly visited the
jail and inform their contacts inside of the transfer of

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

Cocoy Tulawie to Manila.

It must be noted that the

threat against the life of the accused from the Governor

of Sulu is well established in the earlier application for
Writ of Amparo by the accused before the Court of
Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City sometime in 2009. The
accused has valid reasons to believe that this is precisely
and ultimately the objective of private complainant, Gov.
Abdusakur Tan, in requesting for the transfer of venue of
these cases from Davao City.
This will necessarily result to the transfer of
detention of accused Temogen Cocoy Tulawie to Camp
Bagong Diwa, Taguig City. Accused now fears that this
transfer all the more endagers his life and that of his
family and his witnesses. Other than the fact that he will
be possibly be mixed with hostile inmates under the
influence of Gov. Abdusakur Tan, the transfer will also
render in nugatory the earlier findings of an indication of
actual and imminent threat to life of petitioner (Temogen
Tulawie) and his family as well as his witnesses, as found
by the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 00002-W/RAMIN.

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

3.

Aside from the above grounds mentioned, accused

would like to point out the recent circumstances which could

have precipitated the issuance of this Honorable Court of the
aforementioned Resolution dated August 23, 3012.

On

August 15, 2012, counsel for Gov. Abdusakur Tan, Atty.

Wendell F. Sotto wrote a letter3 to the Jail Warden of Camp
Bagong Diwa, Taguig City requesting that alleged certain four
witnesses for the prosecution namely, Sali Said Mujbar Bong
Alih Amon, Robin Sahiyal, and Julhamad Ahadi, who are
inmates of Camp Bagong Diwa be travelled to Davao City to
appear as prosecution witness for Criminal Case/s Nos. (0709) 1648-3 and (07-09) 1649-3
Temogen Cocoy Tulawie.

cases against accused

This letter by Atty. Sotto appears

to be a benign request on the part of the private prosecution,

yet already questionable in itself because the cited witnesses
have never been identified as witnesses for the prosecution.
On the very same date that the letter of Atty. Wendell Sotto
was made and received by the

office of the Jail Warden of

Camp Bagong Diwa, Senior Insp. Bernardo Edgar T. Camus,

surprisingly and
letter4 to the

immediately on the same day,

wrote a

Honorable Court Administrator Jose Midas

Marques, through the Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio

3
4

Attached with this Motion for Reconsideration.

Attached with this Motion for Reconsideration

Motion for Reconsideration

X-------------------------------------//

10

stating that because of the fact that the requested alleged

prosecution witnesses are high risk/profile inmates, Insp.
Camus instead requested that the venue for accused Tulawie
case in Davao City be the one transferred to any court
accessible to Camp Bagong Diwa.

4.

Interestingly, accused Tulawie and his counsels

were not furnished copies of both letters to the Jail Warden

and letter by Insp. Camus to the Court Administrator. In fact,
counsels emissary to the Camp Bagong Diwa requested that
she be given at least copy of the letter, but was not given.
Neither the private prosecution in Criminal Case/s Nos. (0709) 1648-3 and (07-09) 1649-3 at Davao City mentioned the
names of the four alleged witnesses as their witness in
previous hearing prior to the petition for bail;

5.

This scheme on the part of the private prosecution

has been kept out of sight from the accused whose hearing on
the petition for bail was already scheduled on September 19 to
21, 2012.

In other words, indirectly through the letter of Jail

Insp. Camus to the Court Administrator on August 15, 2012,

private complainant caused this Honorable Court to again
transfer the venue of the Criminal Case/s Nos. 107-091 1648-

Motion for Reconsideration

11

X-------------------------------------//

3 and [07-09] 1649-3

giving the

from Davao City to Manila without

accused the opportunity of responding and

confronting the self-serving documents

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING , it is
respectfully prayed that the Resolution dated August 23, 2012
of this Honorable Court be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE
and

a new one be issued reinstating the earlier

June 13,

2011 Resolutions of this Honorable Court (Third Division) and

14 December 2011 (First Division). It is also prayed that the
transfer of the Case Records from Branch 11 of the Regional
Trial Court of Davao City to the Office of the Clerk of Court in
Manila be HELD IN ABEYANCE until such time this Honorable
Court resolves this reconsideration.

ALTERNATIVE PRAYER
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, in case this Motion will not be
granted, it is respectfully prayed that the marathon hearings
on the Application for Bail of the accused be allowed to
proceed at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, in Davao City

Motion for Reconsideration

12

X-------------------------------------//

in order to afford the accused his constitutional right to bail

and speedy trial.
September 21, 2012, Davao City for Metro Manila,
Philippines.

GLOCELITO C. JAYMA
Co-counsel for accused Temogen Tulawie
ROLL NO. 47960
IBP LIFE MEMBER NO. 04561
PTR NO. 98114312; 1/3/11 D.C.
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. III 0018530; 24 AUG 2010
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. IV 0000315; 24 AUG 2010
ADDRESS:
Door 13, Second Floor
Paseo de Legazpi
Pelayo St. ,Davao City

RAISSA H. JAJURIE
Roll No. 40219
PTR Number: 1287107 Jan. 16, 2012, Davao City
IBP Number: 870934 Jan. 16, 2012, Davao City
Roll Number: 40219
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0002092, June 16, 2011
Telefax: 082-2984161
tambansaligan@yahoo.com
Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN)
Door 1, 422 Champaca Street, Juna Subdivision,
Matina, Davao City 8000
Telefax: 082-2984161

MARLON J. MANUEL
Roll No. 40046
IBP No. 883106/1-09-12/Bulacan
PTR No. 6075492/1-09-12/Quezon City
with pending application for MCLE exemption

Motion for Reconsideration

13

X-------------------------------------//

Copy furnished:
BRANCH 11
Regional Trial Court
Hall of Justice
Ecoland, Davao City
Sotto and Sotto Law office
Rm. 304, BG Investments & Development Center
Nunez cor. Tomas Claudio Sts
7000 Zamboanga City
Aguirre and Aguirre Law Office
Suite 2104 Alcantara Centre
No. 31 Annapolis Street, Greenhills,
1502 San Juan City

Explanation
A copy of this Motion was served to adverse counsel via
registered mail on account of physical distance by depositing a
copy thereof postage prepaid on September 20, 2012 at Davao
City Post Office as evidenced by registry receipts with
instructions to the postmaster to return the same if not served
after ten days in compliance with the Rules of Court.
GLOCELITO JAYMA