Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

\i

,i]

RTPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CITY


BAGTIIO
REGIONAT TRIAT COURT OT

Branch 6O
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

Plaintiffs,
Crim. Case No. 323O6-R

-versus-

URGENT OIUNIBUS MOTION


24 September 2013
For ReconsiAeration of the ilier dated
For: Second Motlon for Inhibitlon
ToDeferProceedlngsPeadingtheResolutionofthelnstantSecond
Motion for Inhibitlon
SAI{TOS'

Cot\'tES NOW, accused Atty' IRNESTq "DELOS


unto this' Honorable Court'
through the undersigned counsbl and
*"tt-i. -Pectfulit utu'i*" that :

1-onoctober2,20lS,theaccusedreceivedaco|Y!fth"
t!is- Honorable court'
issued'by
2013
24,
er
septemb
dated
order
of ten (10) days from
rr9lr-."O""aiUf"
Peloi
*
accused
rhe
giving
and the
receipt of

the;iJ6

witfrin wfrictr

a"cuse.l's witnesses' judicial

affidavits;

file the accused's

2,Thedispositiveportionofwhichreads,..thus:

.WIIEREFORE,
,

all the

foregoing
tfre

pr.*i""* "orr.ia*r{, .th,,e Sraver 9f


Santos t9. P!
l"."r.a Ernesto gelo.oallowed to submit the his Judicial
Aina*rit and that of the other "rritnesses
for the *""r""a i* QRANTED' Th:

periSd
*""r*"d. is given a non-exl**a"U]9
(10) ;avs from ttq?Pt 9f this order
'

"ii."
io fiIe itre'saia judicial aflidavits''
r
r,

I :l;n.su

[)
t,tl

SO ORDERED."

3.

The ;aforequoted order *pprr*rrtty S;arrt*O the ,accused


his optuon to belatedly submit his judicid allidavit. But the.ultimate
intent of the Court to deprive herein accused of his . Iegally
mandated right to submit his judicial affidavit under AM No. Lz-g8-SC can not be disguised whrn it merely granted the accused an
INEXTENDIBLE period of ten (10) days within #trictr to submit the
same;

4.

worse, the court peffnErnently deprived the accused of


his constitutional right to speedy disposition; of his case and
ordered waiver on tJre part of the accused in this wise, thus:
,"

*)e(r(

if he fails to file:, he will,present


his witnesses in the ususal manner to
,the detriment of his right to the speedy
I

disposisition of his case'

5.

under A.M. 12-8-B-sc, otherwise


'-.- known as the Rule on
Judicial Aflidavit, the following are the satient points:'
I,

a'

As provided under the fourth (4th) whereas clause of the

law, the purpose of the rule is to treduce the time


needed for completlng the testimonies of the witness

in cases under litigation;

b.

The rule on Judicial Affidavit shall only, apply to criminal


actions if the aceused agrees, irrespective of the penalf5r

"'

involved;

a
,,i

c-

The prosecution shall submit the Judicial Affidavit not


less than five days before pre-trial tmd Nq frrfther
shalt be admitted at the

trial;

d.

The accused has the sole OfflON to submit his Judicial


Aflidavit within ten tl0) days from; receip[ of ' the

e.

The rule on Judicial Aflidavit is a technical rules on


procedure to avoid case congestion i and dqlays as
provided under the first (lst) whereas clause of the law
but was'never legislated to defeat the constitutional right

,,.

of the accused to speedy

trial;

,i

,i
'l

zlPrge

\J

ti

scheme to defeat
pre-meditated
Court's
The
'
6.
and, impartial
f*'
r""a
."t
the
of
nglrts
constirutional
.,, "t1*:
the

seenl
trial can no longrr be prevented fri:m being

T.First,inthecontestedorderdgtedseptember24''2911'
of the fact'
the court openly declared and is therefore cognizant
i

ntrial court must take heed that in


criminal casea the waiver of the riqr-tt t9

;;;;i
,be

evidence and be heard should not

consiA.r"J n"pnazardly, perfunctoftY'


,lightly or trivially, because the right 1:
i., d.t. irott"*,'but musJ at alt
times be scrutinized by means of a test
that. t{e
*a procedure to aicertain knouringly
walvei was dose voluntarily,

iff#"i

and intetligentlY with


its
- awareness of
circumstances and

sufficient

relevant
' likelY

consequeDces."

8'0nthefaceofsuchd.eclaration,theCourtisverymuch
t0 waive his right to

th-;;;;;a ro** .rot tr,* Ieast inintent


;b"rtff;.;rai"i*t aflidavit by declaring the same order' thus:
I uEvidentlY, the accused iDt .Los
\
santos inten'ds to rebut't{e _Tg":lions
aware that

anJr express
waiver on his part. Secondly, his intent

of the prosecution, absent

if
t;-_ submit Judtcial affidavits
manifested by his filing of the Urgent
Motlon for tn* flHng of 6is' Judlcial
'
aflidavit. :ooctx"

court had the


on the face of the above declarations,;lhe
failed to s,trbmit his iudicial
temeriry to rule that if the accused
the accused shall no

g.

affidavits within the time giv; Uy tt " loryt,


affidavits and that he will
ronger be allow.a to submit irirl"ai"iar
to the detri:ment of his
present his witnesses in the usual mallner
"-.

3lPage

\l

t:

j"

section ? (1
10. The rule on Jud.icial Affidavit, particularty
option orla right to
(2), explicitly granted the accused a nllviftge of
choose

whether'th; rule on Judiciat nfnairit Ut made applicable.to


by the

covered
him or otherwise. The *."r*rd opted or chose !o ,"F." <rf such rule
-speedrly
rule because of=* *irr""r. belief that the application.
dispose of his
would
such
as
him
to
would be favorable
case;
I

o! the
But by reason of the court's deliberate 'misreadingprivate
of the
law which ob#""ly f*ored'-the-*t i**. and caprice
favorable to the
complainant, the law which was conceived to be
of his priceless
accused i* ,ro*-U"i"g used as a tool t9 degrive him
.of
constitulional right to speedy disposition his caie;
I

t.

a privilege
12. An option of the accused which w1s -origrnaltyperpetr-rally
is now a sword iof Damocles in the hands of thg.iourt
t' lsse1t his
hanging over the head of the accused as he dare:

of the
prerogative and constitutional rights- The court's'misreading
tJ ttre rule that criminal i laws are

law is und,oubtedly contrary

construed in favor of the accused;

yttfin
Section 9 (b) explicitly prgvi{edjh.e
also
and
rvhich the proseeutlon shall *,ru*it its iuoicial':aflidaviq
indicating
explicirly provided the penalty lor.lon toqnti*.:* .by trial;
that no further juaicial allidavit *t utt be admillgdiduring

{*t

13. Second,

,t

|4.Thelawexplicitlyimposedwaiveronthepartofthe
during trial
judiciar

allidavit
prosecution to submit any uJaitio"al
no such
in case of failur.e to comply within the period given but

the phrt of
Had the law intended t'9q sjmilar felalty on
'it but
tqd
inser
easilj;.
have
the accused, th; legislator's could
obviously, the f*grtlafirs intended otherwise; I

15.

t,,

,l)

law even

In fact, instead of penalizing the accused, the


choose, UnfortunatelY,
affordecl the acmsed the sole privilege to

16.

,t.
lil
::

4lPage

t*-j

{i
i/

:the court imPosed. such


legislators'
the
of
iqtent
the
to
contra.ry
to,sPeedY
fr**t penalty defeating in effect the right 'of the accused
trial;
order'
as recognized by the court in its contested
-hisaccusations of the Prosecution'
the accused intends to rebut the
part. The court also declared
absent any express waiver on
his judilial affidavits is
that the accused.'s intent t" .*tirtlt
Motion for ttre filing of
manifested by his filing of the instant urgent
Judicial Affidaviti

17. Third,

ls.Consideringtlneacclrsed'sexplicitintentionasrqcognized
on the part, dr ure
by the courr, trr* *iu"r imp;;*J u-y ll" court
contrar.y !.o his
accused of hi= righi-to ".n ffiit 3uJi"ial aflidavits
unconstitutipnal;
intenrion to avail of his righito speedy trial is
l

the court
The obvious motive and consistent behavio".:f
and,p*ii*Tg- P-,:'-T-',1
Lrtt' yr^vssv '-'--i*^*-,
III lavurrrrB inl
ri
trend in

19.

* *ln,u'

-;;ffi;^;;*ffiant

can no lottg"i b. countenanced' TfLe ?T::q\9*,^^u


titiO,Tnt'
-iust ?u.'ry
iunsprudenceis to ffird

n,n,tta
ample

the
';;;;;;i;;"
Lt"v rwvedetermin*': :{ hf :*: *'^{:::,
oppurLurllLg Jvt
fr; t-he
rule,
iins*afnts of tecll,lnlcalltgul' Contrary fu
, this , establiilwd
r isht
t^
nnnnAtt
-i-i^r ta speeds
i;:";;;';n;or;;h.";;;;za oi nii "oiotitutionat
triat bg mere reasoru of technicalitg;

20.Further,timeandagain,thesupremelourthq*'hefd
trre, trtrth'
that court litigations are dJsigned to search for Justlce

Technlealities,

qI
ln the approprirate -. tangulg-e
ortte sttuallon" ;

*o"ffi;,Et;rd si; *.ii;

dhe reaHtres

'lr'

21.

InthecaseofMoslaresUs.CaurtofAppeols,theCourt

held:

145945, June 27;:2006


rPeople of the Philippines v8' Victor Subida' G'R' No'
i

August
Urbayan vs. Caltex, G'R !'{o-, L-i5379'
26,1998
. C.n. No. 1297aa, June

3l'

t962

I
I

StPage

ti
*rhe rights o{ '1 ::::::1, .*";;;*'i.
,i}Jilt'"I-f'1
rl;*?'":,1i.'#;x;l lji',1'.1;1[-,'
*lt.Li -

:'l:

u I ti'*
." .otrrlst]r il:X'ilfll,i
"t'igi''io
a.rl
irimsc,lI
i:y
;'il;rJ
ti'::"t-:#it':;1'J
"]rL-iii-,ii",i
is .etctt *J'J,'i"';;'J;i .'llbt''-'tr'::"flX'ilJ;;
has
'iqlrt
right
,i*"ff TIris o'i*''lb--utte sure that justice

r.i,,;J- -r;',''

t t'

esrahlishc'r i"
;; ,Irl;. to tire accused'

'.1

tl''"
'
ti
the ' const itt"tt iotr;rl right
'
iu itr"'iolatc
ol
,,,,,,r',l.l",ll'll;'il^"ii" i'i*'r"ri".,'n'
ultttlct" oLrr sYstcm
o[;;'*;t
('otlrl
Nrr
ileprivc him .f tliat
n-'il"li'l-*;;'it'
uovc'ltrlr,.,L
I I t SCRA 515
,'iiot',r- (Pcople
;

ill;;ii

"*'"lul-"'gut:','lt"'
iri'upr"'is sr-tPplictr)

22. Faurth, [his

Cor-trt urr-tst- no!

t[1t
;linclect'''of the ferct
llel't
1;" *ftt"'

has
hisi Lra:i{t l'rr:n:i its i'-"'*pt*""

irrcgr-ilert

1t

b'3e

impregnat

les:

]3,TlreirrstantCt}Se{clroltalilii:clTtreltclocketeclt-ttlcterCase
Cjitv ntosecutor or
u*ror*'iill'liin-Nenita
N. rNv.i r o riss rirecrctismisseJ
r-ro"*ui'ft Prose"utor
by
B;igr-ric, ,t'** n'igil'ratly
20li tor'lack of proba'le

:ilk

o,iarn. ir-r a R*solrrtio,.' aur*li*j'.,t,


(';

"'

I It I SiL' :

i,:.

A,lI'afC.lnartVfiteeiaMcrtiotrforlteconsicleratiorr.ancl
-ll're Aclversc
Pa:"tY
reversal of t'e
th'e
seekirig
Recor-iJJ'rni"i.
counsel
'#,'
i\rnencrcrJ M,rion. for
*r.1^ rtT* ort**ecl 's

Zq

;;i

Juty
1
M;t ;i-september
saicl Rcso rr_rrinn aur*cl
ti
rrsi#oi
ri-u,,r*to
of the
iireci a,.r cippo*iiio,,
p.tl*o,-,,r, s-';i;t'rqi the office
b],
'26
22, 20 t I a*cl als'
'
Bagprro
"0.0,-;;i;;t
prrst::curorrof
cirv
""'
after the
onE (t) clay
"nl,ri**
c'r
cl:'
2011
?:?,1.1'
was
' 1x-a.1:ll:':',i
o11 Rt
:15 On Setrrtettrber '3'
111:"t'
Resotltion l-.,'l
a
Rola*clo Vergara
ma*ing of *c.c-usecys
"pp-J;;;:
in "''*i#."by l''ouitt'to';t
other
,'.,,-,r1i1rt:il obviousty
N+,"tt" opt** clespite
rcrrersi'g rtre r:eso1ur1c,1ts"l -P;;;utlr
;**ttecl
cke
ir u cir o I cle r agecl do
:or
"t:;il"-"' fr.evrerv rvir_h,ttre
'.,,i 11 r,
accompanylttg
u[io* on
,)*, [n fact, szuri
rou*arded,to
,I-r-

t-*:l-H
}otl;

r*i:-

t{esal

:-:::

j:4

.''lHtl:[,

citv
"rg.*ay
o"rn"r
':'i 'r'*to the
'r'* Qpposition
iii3'ts:*,f 3il1,'T;il:3*:f;* ";i;:i:'t:-]';";L
curt.r' of-'nugt'io .'i'r'" lor n**o"Jia*taiiti-t;
1:r'ose
Arnencled Ntotion
,r.Jr,*,'** par-ty'$

=1

,:rr

6lpage
I

ti

i.l

\--/
'j'

Raffle.forrno valid
27. The case even underwent a special
i-*"*tAe of a warrant of
reason which culminated to ,h;;;"Oi"tt

arrest;

'

pursuant to the
le, the accused r,vas already.arrested
issued in cOnnection
said Resolution on Review u"i f"fo'*utiot'
dated
U*for" said contested Resolution .'on Review
therewitt,
office of the citv
23', io i r had ;;;
er"r"r,

*ailed by the
pro*""*tor of Bagpio to the parties concerned;
septemb

and
the records of the preliminary investigationeven
'fr"r,
Honorable Court
Informatio, *rre' Jready forwarded io ttrl
wa1
before said contested Resolution on Review' of -f{:}tl
Baguio u1
Prosecritor
promulgated uy tt. ofIiry ollhe^cjty ltvtanual'for
Prosecutor's,
bratant vioration of secdo; ss-"r trre

thus:

sectionSs,ManuatforPrOsecutor$states.,towit:
:

,section55.Promulgatlonofresolutlon..ThE.reeult
-th;
ue
preumitrG iniestigation shiru their
.
of
or
'partles
th;
Prornuftated Uy .furnirhtng bY:

cou;t;lt

coPY oi the resolution

a) Personal ***it*;
ut neeili"tro **il with rerurn card ro the complainant,
the
and by ordinary mail to the responde.nt' if
i

comptill:L-c) R"gt;;ild mail wirh rerurn card to the respondent,


the
u"a'-ty- orai"ury mail to the complainanti if
resolutlon is for the dismissal of the
re$otr-,1io" is for

tht it'dittrnent of the respondent'"

since its
The instant case has an unendinq irregplarities are no
Court
inception and the actions being dispalyed !V .ih*to hold on fast'
and desire
exceptions. tf,e court's obvious interest
iidesnite palpable
" ;ri; to this case
cling, clasp, stay on *fot*
mandated
is atr"eaiy a violation 'of the

30,

grounds for irrhiUitiott


provision- ;"d;#-;tl'i"",

ii

"f

31. In the case of Ang ping4 , the highest court declared'


thus:

,i:

A Judge should avoid imProPtitt-Y


and the appe&rauce of lmpr"ptli[Ijt

acttvtti**. bU* f;ailure "l llt pgtitioners


io ptu"*nt evldence that the repPondeqt

Lo'20L7' Angplng vs' RoS


AM No. 12-8-160 RTC, Decemb er

ti

t+

il

el

7[Page

__J

'.....:-,'

actedwithpartialityandmaliceGan]of

onlY negate the allegation


tmiropriety, but not the fPPearange ,of
tqpropri,ety. ln De la Cruz u' Judge',
nl)""*ira,i this Court underscored
Ih"
propriery

need to show not only the fact of


Urr, afr" appeararlce of propriety

itself' I.

standard of morality and


decenc5t required is exacting so ryuch so
that a iudge shoutd avoid impropriety- and
the appearance of impropriety in' all his

held

that'ifr.

'

activities."
i

32.Certainly,afutureadministrative""?Pplui"t,.yn'.nare
actions on the part of.,th".-Pll:11i"* judge
prompted by arUior"
-"r,o*
lack of faith bv *1-1":I::u to the
would indubiLilyfiling'
pr*iJit g maglstrate. As a necessa4/ consequ"","ul-ol-:'oh
le-ss than the cold
the principle thJ ffigt"i* are entitled to nothing
After

neutrality of an impartial judge would already b-e unav.arl4g'


b9 flee from
such filing, the actions of lhe Inagistrate will no longer
any suspicion

;; 6 irr"it fairnessl imparti.ality and integritysi

situation,.yt leilerlie *
the instant case'
beg the Honorable Court to ptease_ inhibit from
the
reviving in .ff*"i- trr* public conlidence in the integrity ,of

33.

So as to avoid this untoward

judiciary;

instant
After all, the courth act of inhibiting from. the
unburden
case would in facl reduce his docket and will eventually
his court;

34.

the rule on Judicial Affidavit grving such oPTIO.N


otherwise' It is.in
to the accused is'clear and cannot be construed
to provide irnportance on the
k..pd *iU, the State's recognition and
the acbused
accused,s constitutional nghtio life
lU:rty -Yht1e
innocence and
must be given every oppori*rrity to "ut*Ufiuf' his
l
that laws be construed in his favor6;

35. Finally,

i'

36.

Moreover, the supreme court has ruled'tn

d9"

array of

primarily,for ttrelsearch of.truth'


whic*,',bqth p.grtiq-s xe
and a liberal irra*rpr;ation of the rules by

cases that Court

litigatiot"

*.

'tbid.
6

SlPage

f,l'
I

'
I

r"i
,,

i,l
,'"

proofs is the best way to


given the fullest opportunity to ad'd'uce
vindication of
ferret out such truth, ftr" ai*pensation ofiustice-and
should not be barred'by technicalitiesT;'
legitimate
i

;i;;;es

37. In the case of Jose u' CA, the Court held:


't:

SurelY, the 'Rules

of Court Ytt:
to aid aldrnot-

conceiveO anA promulgated

io obstruct the proper adrninistration -of


justice, to set iottf, guidelines in - |h9
bind
ii"p.""ation of justicJ U.r1t not to
justice'

and chain the hand that dispense


for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves
to or robots of technical rules, shorn of
judicial discretion;

recent 2009
Cheng us. SPs, Wlltiam Sg and ?essie Sg,8

38.

More

in

Point

is the more

..t"

of Anltc

Court litigations are PrimarilY

designed t6 *.*"h for the truth,


and a liberat tnterPretation and

applicatlon of the rules which

wili gre the Parties the

fil'llest

@gau

to ferret out th? t1tth,


The dispensation of justice and
vindication of legitimate
grievances should not be barred
6yitechnicalities. For reasons of
justice rind equitY, as
"rbutrntial
the comPlement of the legal
jurisdiction that seeks to

di*p"trte justice where- courts of


laW, through the inflexibilitY of
their rules and want of Power to

t'

adapt their judgments - to the


speiiat circumstances of ctlses,

ffiinodelMundo,G'R'Nos.119964.69,September20,1996
tG.R
No. L74218,Iuly 7, 2oo9

glFage

'.-

-rJ

are incomPetent to do so, we


thus rule, Pro hac vice, in favor
of petitioner.(Emphasis supplisd)

Thus, the allowance of the accused's motion. to lile his


jud,icial affid,avit ten (10) days before the presentation of his
witnesses would not'be unduly prejudiciat, As bcirne uy tlt
records, the threats upon the witneises of the accused is real, To
say thai the threats and pressures exerted on the accused and his
oth., witnesses are bereft of any factual bases is ta rattle the
bones oJ an a*lqua1tr.jd slceletow f,tomwl.lch o;ll semhlance of
antmotte ltfe has long since departed'e

39.

Cleady, this has been a case of persecution rather than


prosecution. Caies have been filed, Ieft and-rightl under the pretext
of pr.rrrving .rrd protecting the rights of the private complainant'
In fact not only is the acCused h?s been th; subject of several
prosecutions, uilt *1l those who get themselves involved including
the accused's witnesses and hiJ h.wyers, have been' bombarded
with different malicious and baseless ctiminat charges liled by the
private complainant;
t

40.

Considering :the actions of the Court manifesting bias,


partiality, misreading of explicit laws to favor adverse partSr, the
-accused would like to 'reiterate his plea for the'ho$orable presiding
judge to inhibit from the case pursuant to the' case of'Ang Ping'o,
thus:
itt

41.

nAs stated earlier, in Canon 2 of the


Code of Judicial Conduct, a ju4ge should

avoid impropriety and the appearance'of


impropriety in all his activities. A judge' is
not onty req.rired to be impartial; he must
also appear to be impartial. Publfc
confldence ln the Judlctary ls eroded byirrespoueible or improper conduct ,of
Judges.
e

Bachrach Motor Co. Vs. Summers, 4 Phil' 3

'o rbid.

l0 lPpge

7256 J. Victor St.,


Maka
Tel/Fa>r Nos.

Pio del Pilar

-4e-a9 1468-06- 12

ATTY.
z, LuIs
PTR No. 7651864 01: I 1- 13 / Quezon City
I.B.P, Lifetime
. 03951 Quezon,City
ROLL No. 38963
MCLE III Cornpliance No. IV-00 18666iiRp.it 26, 2OL3
Ivlobile Phone No. 09286247045
;

Notlce of Hearing and Copy furntshed:


ACP ELMER MAITUET S"AGSAGO
Handling Public Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecirtor
Hall of Justice
Baguio City

'tl

l[, tub

Ddlr'. ftlecr

ffi:

:ti

"?q?01

Fn& q6.re,,

hdqti

C6k4l

ATTY. ALVIil A. CARULTO


'18, ul',
Oahl btoLtr
Counsel for Respondent UM
Suite 1609 t6lF, Jollibee Plaz,a
Aousl
F. Ortigas Jr, Road (ex-Emerald Avenue)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605
frst opralcr idfa{i ofllal
P.O. Box No. 13143
Tel, Nos, (02) 631-7554 I laq 706-33i5

wt :

Dolr:
OFFICE OF THE COURT ANUII{ISTNATOR
SUPREME COURT
Padre Faura, Manila

$cloher

,(,

ffrf : rnbb
Fer 4pcc: llalrdr

Greetings:

;,xt,

Cefikdl
'

the foregoing Urgent Omnihus Mation'for the


consideration and approval of the Honorable Qourt upon ,receipt
'{i ;--,
hereof, without furthir oral arguments. '' \
Please submit

REGISTRY

REcEtpT

,08$

12

lPage

-::i--

.,.t-

l.
i::

ta.

I,
lr
t\

.11

ETTPIANATIOI{

,i

The foregoinfi Urgent Omnibus Mi,tb; has


served by registeied mail due to distance,
unpredictable trallic situation and lack of availa

cons[raints,
jr'i

il'.

,i

.l*t:,
oKx\t

uww

t7.'
|J-..na-f

,;

.{T, r tl

?)
#.
N

ala't

I
I

13

Page
i
l