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
