Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH Judicial Region
Branch 16, Cebu City

WILTON T. UYKINGTIAN,
Plaintiff,

- versus - Civil Case No. CEB-39993

For: REPLEVIN
SUPT. ROMUALDO IGLESIA,
In his capacity as Regional Chief,
Highway Patrol Group, Region 7
Defendant.
x----------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant, represented by Police

Superintendent (PSUPT) ROMUALDO IGLESIA, Regional Chief,
Regional Highway Patrol Unit 7 (RHPU7)- Highway Patrol Group
(HPG), Philippine National Police (PNP), through counsel, unto this
Honorable Court, in answer to the complaint, respectfully alleged,
THAT:

1. On September 23, 2013, defendant through its

representativereceived the Summons of this Honorable Court dated
August 20, 2013 in relation to the above-entitled case directing him to
file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint attached therewith
within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof. Hence,defendant has
until October 8, 2013 within which to comply with the same.

2. Paragraph 1 of the complaint is partly admitted but only

insofar as the personal circumstances of the defendant herein are
concerned;

3. Defendant specifically denies for lack of knowledge as to the

truth or falsity of Paragraph 2 of the complaint claiming lawful
ownership or entitlementover the motor vehicle subject of this caseas
described thereunder as well as the authenticity and due execution of
the Deed of Sale LTO OR, CR and Macro-Etching Certificate
presented in support thereof, the truth of the matter being stated in
the Special and Affirmative Defenses of this Answer;

Page 1
 4. Defendant admits Paragraph 3 of the complaint that on July
10, 2013, along Capitol Site, Cebu City,the subject motor vehicle,
then driven by Plaintiff, was flagged down and apprehended by the
HPG Special Operating Team (SOT) for (a)not carrying a sticker for
the current year; (b)not carrying the LTO CR at the time of the
apprehension (ATTA) and (c)changed of color of the subject motor
vehicle from Black to Beige;

5. Defendant partly admits paragraph 4 of the complaint as to

the impounding of the motor vehicle subject of this case but
specifically denies allegations contained in thesubparagraphs
thereof for lack of knowledge or information as to the truth or falsity
thereof, the truth of the matter being stated in the Special and
AffirmativeDefenses of this Answer;

SPECIAL AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

THE COMPLAINT HAS NO BASIS AND CAUSE OF ACTION

6. Plaintiff is neither the owner of the motor vehicle subject of

this case nor entitled to the possession of the same;

6.1. To be candid, the owner of the motor vehicle subject of

this case cannot be determined considering that its
Engine Number,Chassis Numberand Production
Numberwere “TAMPERED”andcannot be restoredper
Physical Identification Report Number PIR-118-2013
dated July 24, 2013 signed by PO2 Danilo M.
Cabahug, Macro-Etching Technician, duly approved by
PCI RYAN ACE SALA, Head Physical Identification
Branch and noted by PSSUPT NESTOR APARECIO
SATOR, MD, Regional Chief, PNP-RCLO 7, a faithful
copy or reproduction of which is hereto attached and
marked as ANNEX “1” hereof;

6.2. Per Certification issued by MR. FERDINAND

MAGALZO, Group Retail Manager, Toyota Cebu City
Inc. dated September 4, 2013, the Conduction Sticker
attached to the subject motor vehicle numbered CS
No. AQ3427 is intended for Toyota Vios 1.3E Gas, a
faithful copy or reproduction of the Certification as well
as the pictures of the same while being attached to the
motor vehicle subject of this case are hereto attached
and marked as ANNEX “2”and ANNEX “3”hereof;

Page 2
 6.3. The subject motor vehicle does not exist in the
database of Toyota Motor Philippines Inc. per Vehicle
Verification Slip with Control No. LCO-08-045-2013
it issued dated August 24, 2013, processed and signed
by Arnold G. Sorneo, Specialist, Operations Group,
General Administration Division and noted and signed
by Christopher F. Tolete, Supervisor, Operations
Group, General Administration Division, a faithful copy
or reproduction of which is hereto attached and
marked as “ANNEX 4” hereof;

6.4. The actual color of the subject vehicle at the time of

the apprehension (ATTA) is Beige instead of Black as
appearing in the LTO OR presented by Plaintiff bearing
the number 345328373 and dated June 28, 2013.
Meanwhile, in the Macro-Etching Certificated, Annex C
of the complaint, the color of the subject motor vehicle
is indicated as “S. GRAY”;

7. The motor vehicle subject of this case was not unlawfully

detained by the defendant;

7.1. On July 10, 2013, the subject motor vehicle was

flagged down along Capitol Site, Cebu City for initial
violation of not bearing the sticker for the current year.
Plaintiff’s assertion that the LTO has not issued
stickers for the current year as confirmed by the LTO
Regional Director does not hold water for want of
documentary evidence to support the same. The claim
that his counsel “talked” to the LTO Regional Director
about the same in the latter’s office is self-serving and
devoid of evidentiary value;

7.2. Plaintiff failed to present the LTO CR at the time of the

apprehension (ATTA) and such is indicated in the
Impounding Receipt and Temporary Operator’s Permit
No. 142906993 dulyacknowledged by the Plaintiff by
affixing his signatures thereon, copies of which are
hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “5” and
ANNEX “6” hereof;

7.2 As already stated, the color of the subject motor

vehicle at the time of the apprehension (ATTA)
isBEIGEand not BLACKas appearing in the OR
presented by the Plaintiff. His claim that such is a
clerical error andcan be corrected at the LTO office is
purely conjectural. On the other hand, contrary to
Plaintiff’s claim, insofar as thecolor of the subject motor
Page 3
 vehicle is concerned, the OR prevails over the CR
considering that such information can only be found in
the former.For such an issue, there is no point of
comparison between the two documents.

7.3. Plaintiff’s failure to carry the subject motor vehicle’s CR

ATTA is in violation of Section 15, R.A. 4136, while the
changing (repainting) of the color of the same, of
Section 2, R.A. 6539 and further classified as
impoundable offenses in DOTC-LTO Memorandum
Circular No. 89-105;

8. The motor vehicle subject of this case was properly placed

under custodialegis upon the filing of criminal complaint against the
Plaintiff and a certain Renan Garcia for violation of Section 3
(Registration of motor vehicle engine, engine blocks and chassis) and
12, R.A. 6539 (Defacing or tampering of serial numbers of a motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis), or R.A. 6539, Section
12-A of PD No. 1911 and Section 31 (imitation and false
representation of Tag/s or sticker/s) of R.A. 4136, before the Office of
the Prosecutor, copies of the Referral and the Joint Affidavits of the
apprehending officers including its annexes are hereto attached and
marked as ANNEX “7” and ANNEX “8” hereof;

9. The motor vehicle subject of this case is subject to seizure

and forfeiture in favor of the government. As mentioned above, its
engine, chassis and production numbers are “tampered”. Worse, their
original numbers cannot be restored resulting in the motor
vehicle’sloss of identity and thus calls for the application of Section 3
and Section 12-A of R.A. 6539 as amended, to wit:

“Section 3.Registration of motor vehicle engine, engine block and

chassis. Within one year after the approval of this Act, every owner or
possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts thereof in knock
down condition shall register with the Land Transportation
Commission the motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in his
name or in the name of the real owner who shall be readily available
to answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
and chassis not registered with the Land Transportation Commission
shall be considered as untaxed importation or coming from an illegal
source or carnapped, and shall be confiscated in favor of the
Government.

x xx

Sec. 12-A. All carnapped or stolen motor vehicle, recovered and

impound by law enforcement agencies which after a period of three
(3) months from the date of its seizure/recovery have remained
unclaimed or whose real owners could no longer be determined or

Page 4
 established because the original numbers of the motor engine or
chassis numbers could no longer be determined and restored, are
considered as abandoned motor vehicles and shall be sold and
disposed of by the Chief of Constabulary of his authorized
representative in a public auction; x xx”

COUNTER CLAIM

10. Due to the unfounded and baseless complaint lodged by

the Plaintiff, the Defendant was constrained to secure the services of
the counsel from PNP Legal Service in the person of Atty. Juan E.
Alpuerto, Police Senior Inspector,or in his absence, his collaborating
counsel, Atty. Fidel S. Tutor, Police Senior Inspector both of PNP
Regional Legal Service 7, with office address at Camp Sergio
Osmeῆa, OsmeῆaBoulevard, Cebu City, thereby incurring initial
expenses in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) and
will continue to incur travel, accommodation, meal and other
miscellaneous expenses, to be shouldered by the PNP, in the amount
of more or less Ten Thousand (Php 10,000.00) Pesos per hearing,
until this case is finally terminated;

11. For dragging the good name of the Defendant in this

malicious prosecution and by way of correction for the public good,
the complainant should be ordered to pay the defendant an
exemplary damage in the amount to be determined by the court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing, it is most

respectfully prayed unto the Honorable Court, that an Order or
Judgment be issued or rendered:

a. for the DISMISSAL of the Complaint for failure of the plaintiff

to satisfy all therequirements ofSection 2, Rule 60 of the Rules of
Court; and

b. for the QUASHAL of the Order granting the Plaintiff’s prayer

for issuance of Writ of Replevin;

c. ordering the Complainant, upon the dismissal of this case,TO

PAYTHE DEFENDANTin the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (Php
5,000.00) as initial expenses and Ten Thousand (Php 10, 000.00)
Pesos per hearing of this case as actual damage as well as
exemplary damage in the amount to be determined by the court; and

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Page 5
In Cebu City, this __ thday of October 2013.

OFFICE OF THE PNP LEGAL SERVICE 7

Camp Sergio Osmeña Sr., Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City
(Counsels for the Defendant)

By:

PSINSP JUAN ESTRADA ALPUERTO (Atty.)

Roll No. 53212; Book No. XXII; Page 143; April 26, 2007
IBP No. 13012, February 6, 2013, Cebu City
PTR No. 27305, June 10, 2013, Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020844; June 17, 2013

ATTY. FIDEL S. TUTOR JR.

PTR No. 0016992 2-05-13
IBP No. 799884 12-28-12
Roll No.56196, TIN 183-162-543
MCLE III No. 0019821 Jan. 17, 2011

The Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 16
Cebu City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing for the consideration of the

Honorable Court upon receipt hereof.

Thank you very much.

Juan Estrada Alpuerto

Page 6
 EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing Answer was served to thecounsel for the

plaintiff through registered maid due to distance and lack of
personnel.

Juan Estrada Alpuerto

Copy furnished:

ATTY. FRITS V. QUINANOLA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Anecita Building, Capitol Site
Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City 6000 Philippines
Telefax No. 2541884
Email: fritzquinanola@hotmail.com

Page 7
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CEBU CITY ) SS.

I, PSUPT ROMUALDO IGLESIA, of legal age, Filipino,

bonafide member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), with
address at the Regional Highway Patrol Unit (RHPU 7), Camp
SoteroCabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state, that:

1. I am representing the defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Answer with Motion to Quash Writ of Replevin, and that the
allegations therein are true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge and authentic records;

3. I have commenced criminal complaints (Annex “7” and “8” of

the Answer) on September 12, 2013 against Renan Garcia and
Wilma Tia Uykingtianbefore the Office of the Prosecutor Cebu for
violation of Section 3 (Registration of motor vehicle engine, engine
blocks and chassis) and 12, R.A. 6539 (Defacing or tampering of
serial numbers of a motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis), or R.A. 6539, Section 12-A of PD No. 1911 and Section 31
(imitation and false representation of Tag/s or sticker/s) of R.A. 4136

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this 8th day of July 2013 in Quezon City, Philippines.

PSUPT ROMUALDO IGLESIA

Affiant/Defendant’s Representative

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of July

2013 in Quezon City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited his PNP I.D. No.
IIE200075 issued in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

Page 8