Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Motion For Reconsideration Xinchuang

    Uploaded by

    Vladichael
    This document discusses a motion for reconsideration of a court order granting the release of seized items. The motion argues that the plaintiff was not properly notified of the original motion and their due process rights were violated. It also argues that the requirements for releasing the items have not been met as there is still an ongoing criminal investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Motion For Reconsideration Xinchuang

    Uploaded by

    Vladichael
    6 views5 pages
    This document discusses a motion for reconsideration of a court order granting the release of seized items. The motion argues that the plaintiff was not properly notified of the original motion and their due process rights were violated. It also argues that the requirements for releasing the items have not been met as there is still an ongoing criminal investigation.

    Original Title

    Motion for Reconsideration Xinchuang

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a motion for reconsideration of a court order granting the release of seized items. The motion argues that the plaintiff was not properly notified of the original motion and their due process rights were violated. It also argues that the requirements for releasing the items have not been met as there is still an ongoing criminal investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views5 pages

    Motion For Reconsideration Xinchuang

    Uploaded by

    Vladichael
    This document discusses a motion for reconsideration of a court order granting the release of seized items. The motion argues that the plaintiff was not properly notified of the original motion and their due process rights were violated. It also argues that the requirements for releasing the items have not been met as there is still an ongoing criminal investigation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Republic of the Philippines

    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


    NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
    OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE JUDGE
    Las Piñas City
    Email address: [email protected]
    0936095445396/09666944542

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
    POLICE
    ANTI-CYBERCRIME GROUP
    Plaintiff/Movant,

    WSSECD Nos. SW-LP-23-007 to


    - versus - WSSECD Nos. SW-LP-23-011 and
    Search Warrants Nos. 23-012 to
    Search Warrants Nos. 23-018

    ALIAS “QUIHA LU”,


    “LIANGFEI CHEN”, JIMMY
    LIN, ABBEY NG, AND/OR THE
    OWNER, MAINTAINER,
    FACILITATOR, MANAGER OF
    BUILDINGS “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”,
    “E”, “F”, AND “G” OF
    XINCHUANG TECHNOLOGY,
    INC. MS. DANICA ANDRES
    MENSAH, MR. OLIVER ONG,
    MS. DIVINA TRILLANES
    VIDAL, AND DAISY CORDERO,
    INCORPORATORS OF
    XINCHUANG NETWORK
    TECHNOLOGY, INC.
    FORMERLY “HONG TAI”,
    LOCATED AT 501 ALABANG
    ZAPOTE ROAD, ALMANZA
    UNO, LAS PIÑAS, METRO
    MANILA 1750.
    Respondents.
    x------------------------------------------x

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


    TO THE ORDER DATED APRIL 19, 2024

    COMES NOW, the Plaintiff-Movant through the undersigned, unto


    this honorable court, respectfully states the following:
    1. On April 23, 2024, Pat ___________, personnel of the Philippine
    National Police Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP ACG) (Plaintiff-
    Movant) opened an email, through email address [email protected],
    from RTC Branch 202 Las Pinas City, through email address
    [email protected], with subject: “Order dated 19 April
    2024 – Search Warrant Nos. 23-012 to 23-018 and WSSECD Nos. 23-
    007 to 23-011, (PNP ACG v. Alias “Quiha Lu”, et al.);

    2. The subject email contained the following message hereto quoted in


    verbatim:

    “Re:
    Entry of Appearance with Motion for the Release of Seized Items

    Good morning. Please see attached file and acknowledge receipt


    hereof. Thank you.”

    3. However, there was no file attached to the said email. Pat _______,
    then replied informing the sender that there was no file attached and
    requested that the file be sent;

    4. On the same date, the Women and Children Cybercrime Protection


    Unit (WCCPU) of the PNP ACG received via email an Order dated
    April 19, 2024 issued by ELIZABETH YU-GURAY, Executive
    Judge, Regional Trial Court, Las Pinas City, granting the Motion for
    the Release of Seized Items (subject Motion) filed by Xinchuang
    Network Technology (Xinchuang) and its incorporators/officers
    Danica Andres Mensah, Oliver Ong, Divina Trillanes Vidal, Daisy
    Cordero, Quiha Lu, Liangfei Chen, Jimmy Lin, and Abbey Ng
    (Incorporators/Officers);

    5. The grant of the Motion was subject, however, to the submission (not
    later than seven (7) days from notice) by Xinchuang Network
    Technology and its Incorporators/Officers, through their counsel on
    record, of a certified true copy of DOJ’s resolution dismissing the
    case/s filed against them by the herein Plaintiff-Movant;

    TIMELINESS

    6. Considering that the undersigned received the Court Order on April


    23, 2024, herein Plaintiff-Movant has until May 8, 2024 to file a
    Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, this Motion is timely filed;

    PROCEDURAL MATTERS

    7. At the outset, herein Plaintiff-Movant was neither furnished nor


    notified of the Motion for the Release of Seized Items filed by
    Xinchuang and its Incorporators/Officers prior to the issuance of the
    Page 2 of 5
    subject Court Order. It was only on April 26, 2024, or seven (7) days
    after the Order granting the said Motion was issued by the Court, that
    the Plaintiff-Movant was able to receive a soft copy (pdf) of the
    Motion via email;

    8. By this fact alone, the right to due process of herein Plaintiff-Movant


    was severely violated. Thus, it is only proper that the Order granting
    the release of seized items should be invalidated;

    9. The subject motion is a litigious motion as it prejudices not only the


    right of herein Plaintiff-Movant but also the right of the State and the
    Filipino people to prosecute the Respondents for their crimes. Under
    the Rules, all motions shall be served by personal service, accredited
    private courier or registered mail, or electronic means so as to ensure
    their receipt by the other party.1

    10.Although the subject Motion was received by herein Plaintiff-Movant


    on April 26, 2024, it was already too late to file an opposition to the
    subject Motion since the Order granting the same was already issued
    on April 19, 2024 and was received by herein Plaintiff-Movant on
    April 23, 2024. Hence, the filing of an opposition to the subject
    Motion would already be moot;

    11.Furthermore, herein Plaintiff-Movant did not consent to the service of


    motions through electronic means. Under the Rules, service by
    electronic means shall be made if the party concerned consents to
    such mode of service.2 Consequently, the service of the subject
    Motion via email to herein Plaintiff-Movant is also invalid;

    12.The Court indeed granted the subject Motion of Respondents but it is


    not without condition. Based on the Court Order, Respondents must
    submit a certified true copy of DOJ’s resolution dismissing the case/s
    filed against them by the herein Plaintiff-Movant not later than seven
    (7) days from notice of the Court Order. Until now, herein Plaintiff-
    Movant has not yet received notice from the Court as to whether or
    not the Respondents complied with the said condition.

    13.Be that as it may, Respondents could not possibly comply with the
    condition given by the Court for the simple reason that at present,
    there is a pending criminal complaint filed against them with the
    Department of Justice (DOJ).

    SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS

    14. Xinchuang and its Incorporators/Officers tried to trick this Honorable


    Court by alleging that the case filed against them had already been
    1
    Rule 15 Sec. 5(b) Rules of Court
    2
    Rule 13 Sec. 9 Ibid.

    Page 3 of 5
    dismissed. This declaration in their motion to release the seized items
    is beyond the truth. The case dismissed by the DOJ was entitled “PNP
    Anti-Cybercrime Group represented by PCpl Christopher F Salarda
    vs. LI JIancheng @ “Li JIachang,” Xiao Liu @ “Xioa Lin,” Yan Jia
    Ying @ “Pan Wen Jie,” Duan Haozhuan and Li Hongkun @
    “Liyang;”

    15.This Honorable Court is correct in its eagle-eye observation that


    Respondents Xinchuang, et al. were not the same persons/respondents
    in the above-mentioned dismissed case. This only shows that
    Respondents’ ploy to hoodwink and bamboozle this Honorable Court
    was doomed from the very beginning;

    16.As a matter of fact, a criminal complaint with NPS Docket Nos. XVI-
    INV-24C-00072 for Violation of Sec. 4 (f)(2), Sec. 7 (a)(c), Sec. 8 (a)
    (f)(g)(l) & Sec. 9 (a)(c)(o) of RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons
    Act of 2003), Art. 267 (Serious Illegal Detention) of the RPC against
    the Respondents is pending at the DOJ. Attached herewith is the
    _______ as Annex “A”.

    17.For the information of this Honorable Court, the Business Permits and
    Licensing Office, Las Piñas City issued a certification that Xinchuang
    Network Technology Inc. was not the only occupant of Buildings
    “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” located at 501 Alabang Zapote
    Rd, Almanza Uno, Las Piñas City. Attached herewith is the
    Certification from Business Permits and Licensing Office, Las Piñas
    City as Annex “B”. Logically, the seized monetary items were not
    exclusively owned by Xinchuang Network Technology Inc. since
    during the confiscation and inventory of the said items, it was
    recovered to different vaults distributed to the mentioned buildings
    where other entities also occupy.

    18.Since there is a pending case before the DOJ for a preliminary


    investigation that has yet to be resolved, the release of the monetary
    seized evidence would defeat the very purpose of the seizing of the
    same. Would the resolution of the DOJ and eventually by a judgment
    of the court tilt in the herein Plaintiff/Movant favor, said confiscated
    and seized monetary evidence will fall within the concept of proceeds
    derived from the commission of the crime 3, thus, it will be subject for
    forfeiture in favor of the government. In addition thereto, Section 10
    of RA No. 11862 amending Section 15 of RA No. 9208 states that:

    “Sec. 10 Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9208 is hereby


    amended to read as follows:

    “Section 15. Trust Fund. – All fines imposed under this Act and
    the proceeds and properties forfeited and confiscated pursuant
    3
    Sec. 14 of RA No 9208

    Page 4 of 5
    to Section 14 hereof, as well as those collected by the AMLC,
    shall accrue to a Trust Fund to be administered and managed
    by the Council to be used exclusively for programs that will
    prevent acts of trafficking and protect, rehabilitate, reintegrate
    trafficked persons into mainstream of society.4

    19.Given the foregoing, the herein Plaintiff/Movant beseeches the


    understanding of the Honorable Court that the monetary seized
    evidence is proceeds derived from the commission of the crime and
    should remain in the custody of the former pending resolution of the
    DOJ to the criminal complaint filed against the incorporators of
    Xinchuang Network Technology Inc.

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of


    this Honorable Court that the Order dated April 19, 2024 granting the
    Motion for the Release of the Seized Items be reconsidered and other relief
    be granted as shall be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

    Las Pinas City, May 6, 2024

    4
    RA No. 9208 as amended by RA No. 11862

    Page 5 of 5

    You might also like