Scribd
Upload
1K views4 pages

Motion For Reconsideration Balon

This document is a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Edwin Balon regarding two cases filed against him by complainant Mary Ann Balon for economic and psychological abuse. The motion argues that the joint resolution finding probable cause erred and overlooked evidence presented by the respondent, including receipts showing he supported his children and documents showing he lost his job due to family problems rather than lack of work. It further argues that the complainant's allegations of psychological abuse are not credible and that she was having an extra-marital affair, as shown by photos submitted. The motion prays that the joint resolution be reconsidered, set aside, and the cases dismissed for lack of merit.

Uploaded by

Ronbert Alindogan Ramos
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
1K views4 pages

Motion For Reconsideration Balon

This document is a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Edwin Balon regarding two cases filed against him by complainant Mary Ann Balon for economic and psychological abuse. The motion argues that the joint resolution finding probable cause erred and overlooked evidence presented by the respondent, including receipts showing he supported his children and documents showing he lost his job due to family problems rather than lack of work. It further argues that the complainant's allegations of psychological abuse are not credible and that she was having an extra-marital affair, as shown by photos submitted. The motion prays that the joint resolution be reconsidered, set aside, and the cases dismissed for lack of merit.

Uploaded by

Ronbert Alindogan Ramos
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/ 4

Republic 

of the Philippines
Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION OFFICE
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE
Daet, Camarines Norte

MARY ANN BALON y BARCENA NPS-V-09-INV-2020J-00613


Complainant,
        - versus -

EDWIN BALON y MAIGUE, FOR: VIOLATION OF R.A. 9262


Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MARY ANN BALON y BARCENA NPS-V-09-INV-2020J-00614


Complainant,
        - versus -

EDWIN BALON y MAIGUE, FOR: VIOLATION OF R.A. 9262


Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


Respondent EDWIN BALON, through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Office, most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the Joint
Resolution dated October 28, 2020, which was received by respondent on
November 7, 2020 and in support thereof, respectfully avers:

1. That the assailed Joint Resolution erred in holding that probable cause exists
in the two cases stated above despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary;

2. The insofar as the complaint for economic abuse (NPS-V-09-INV-2020J-


00613) is concerned, the questioned Joint Resolution failed to appreciate the weight
of the evidence presented by the respondent, particularly the receipts of utility bills
that he paid and the house that he built, which is sufficient to belie the accusation of
private complainant that respondent was not providing support to his children;

3. That the assailed Joint Resolution also overlooked the fact respondent lost
his job because of their family problem and not simply because he didn’t want to
work. A copy of the certificate of release from his employer is attached as Annex 1;

4. That it would be highly oppressive to compel the respondent to go through


the rigors of trial when he is the aggrieved or offended party all along;

5. That in addition, private complainant should not be allowed to abuse or


misuse the law to suit her whims;

1
6. That part of the role of the prosecution is to prevent malicious or unfounded
prosecutions by private persons and to spare innocent individuals of the rigors of an
unnecessary trial;

7. That insofar as the complaint for psychological abuse (NPS-V-09-INV-2020J-


00614) is concerned, the assailed Joint Resolution overlooked the fact that there is
no rhyme or reason in the narration of private complainant of the incident on
September 19, 2020 as contained in her Sinumpaang Salaysay. It is incredible that
respondent would get irritated and threaten to hit private complainant with a pipe all
because private complainant inquired if they were required to leave their house;

8. That assuming arguendo that respondent indeed uttered the words “Kaliit-Liit
mong babae marami ng butong pumasok sa puki mo. Wala akong karapatan sa
mga anak ko,” the same is merely an expression of frustration and exasperation
rather than intentional verbal or psychological abuse;

9. That in addition, it is contrary to human experience for a person to randomly


utter those words to another individual without reason or without being provoked.
This only reinforces the allegation of respondent that private complainant was
having an extra-marital relationship with other men;

10. That at any rate, a spouse has the right to redeem his honor by reprimanding
his unfaithful partner;

11. That it is undeniable that private complainant was having an extra-marital


relationship with other men as shown by the photographs and facebook posts
submitted by respondent. Said photos and posts showing private complainant with
her paramour is unequivocal and deserves heavy consideration;

12. That the Supreme Court in the case of Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals enunciated that while probable cause should be determined in a
summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent
material damage to a potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the
guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of
unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising
from false, fraudulent or groundless charges;

13. That under the same vein, it is likewise worthy to state that Prosecutors are
duty-bound to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive
prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime and
from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent most respectfully prays of


this Honorable Office that the questioned Joint Resolution dated October 28, 2020

2
be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE and a new one be issued dismissing the two
cases for lack of merit;

Further, respondent humbly prays for such other reliefs as may be deemed
just and equitable under the premises.

Daet, Camarines Norte. November 17, 2020.

ATTY. RONBERT A. RAMOS


Counsel for Respondent
Subia Bldg. J. Lukban St.
Daet, Camarines Norte
ROLL No. 71268 – 06-06-18
PTR No. CN 4046089 / 11-26-19
IBP O.R. No. 096177 / 11-29-19
MCLE Compliance No. VI – 0022944
Contact Number: 09178425548
Email: ronbertramos@yahooo.com

Copy furnished by registered mail:

Mary Ann Balon (Private Complainant)


Purok 4, Brgy. Dalas
Labo, Camarines Norte

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Receiving Clerk


Provincial Prosecution Office
Daet, Camarines Norte

Greetings:

Please be informed that undersigned is submitting the foregoing motion for the
consideration and approval of this Honorable Office immediately upon receipt
hereof.

ATTY. RONBERT A. RAMOS


Counsel for Respondent

3
4

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy