Motion To Release Cicl .docx

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION Branch 260, Parañaque City HONORABLE JUDGE JAIME M. GURAY PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES - versus -

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 15-0538 FOR: SEC. 5, ART. II, RA 9165

CICL SADAM KUSIN Y ABUSAMA, Child, x-----------------------------------------x MOTION FOR RELEASE OF CICL UNDER SUSPENDED SENTENCE CICL SADAM KUSIN Y ABUSAMA, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, invoking his special entitlement as a child under Philippine Law, respectfully moves for his release under suspended sentence and in support thereof hereby avers THAT: 1. On March 7, 2019 this Honorable Court rendered a decision finding the CICL guilty of the crime charged and imposed the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal; 2. Republic Act No.9344, warrants the suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law notwithstanding that he/she has reached the age of majority at the time the judgment of conviction is pronounced. Thus: Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however, that suspension 1

of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. 3. The child is presently under the custody and care of City Social Welfare Development Office (Bahay Pag-Asa); 4. The child hereby respectfully applies for release on recognizance pursuant to the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law [Administrative Memorandum No. 02-1-18-SC], issued by the Honorable Supreme Court, providing for the following, thus, to wit: "Section 16. - When Bail A Matter of Right. - xxx However, where the juvenile does not pose a threat to public safety, the Family Court may, motu proprio or upon motion and recommendation of the DSWD, release the juvenile on recognizance to the custody of his parents or other responsible person." 5. The child will be released to his sister-in-law and guardian Nornisa K. Kamid who is willing to take the said child into her custody pending the trial of this case; 6. The child’s guardian hereby undertake to guarantee the child’s appearance whenever so required before this Honorable Court (Attached herein as Annex “B” is a copy of the Custodial Undertaking); 7. Further, this motion is also in line with Article 191 of Presidential Decree 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as amended, and Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations on the Apprehension, Investigation, Prosecution and Rehabilitation of Youth Offenders, mandating law enforcers to divert and turn over children at the point of arrest to the custody of social workers and/or responsible members of the community, and Section 8 of Republic Act 8369 or the Family Courts Act of 1997, providing children with alternatives to imprisonment such as community continuum, counseling, conflict resolution seminars, essay writing, apology, community service, etc.; 8. The pertinent provisions of the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act 8369), together with its progenitor, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international instruments, accord special protection to children accused of violating the law; 2

9. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), specifically Article 13.1 thereof, provides: "13. Detention Pending Trial. 13.1. Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period." 10. By virtue of the Beijing Rules and in the advent of the Family Courts Act of 1997, detention should be undertaken by the state only as a measure of last resort and only for the shortest possible period; 11. Both international human rights law and Philippine laws mandate the state to observe the best interest of the child principle (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) as well as the principle of diversion enshrined under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act of 1997 (RA 8369) and under Sections 4 (fg) and Sections 20-24 of the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law as well as Article 11, Section 11.1 to 11.4 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) in order to avoid the contact of children and youth with the criminal justice system which criminological findings show merely traumatize, criminalize, and alienate them from society; 12. This motion is not in any way intended to trifle with the proceedings of this Honorable Court, but only for purposes as stated above. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that the above-named child be released on recognizance pending the trial of the instant case. Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for. Respectfully submitted. Parañaque City, September 19, 2018. PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Counsel for the Accused th 8 Floor, Legislative and Judicial Building 3

Parañaque City Hall, Parañaque City By: MARIA ANGELICA MATEO-VALENZUELA Public Attorney II Roll No. 65675 IBP Lifetime No. 014862 MCLE Compliance No. VI-0007451 April 17, 2018

NOTICE ATTY. MEDWIN B. MAGTIBAY The Branch Clerk of Court RTC – Branch 260 GREETINGS: Please submit the foregoing Motion for the kind consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof.

ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA MATEO- VALENZUELA

Copy furnished: Hon. Napoleon R. Ramolete Office of the City Prosecutor Parañaque City

4