Order Crm Case 320306-r 21 May 2014

7/24/2019 Order Crm Case 320306-r 21 May 2014

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/order-crm-case-320306-r-21-may-2014 1/3

i

,i

RTFUSTIC CIF

THE PI.IILIFPIHTS

NTCTfiU*T

TN]A[

COURT

OF BAGUIO

CITY

r|ft$T

JUDICIAL

flTSMN

Erenntr

Sfi

THT

PfOPLf

T}fi

THE

PHILIFPINE''

Flaintiffs,

-

vefsu$

-

f, rrr.

g*{urJTfi

trftffi

'$s#lri}$}

Aeru*sd.

l(.

t;

..

.

i i F

+

$ r

e

.

* , i *

* *

-

*

.

* *

X

f,rlm.

eir*a

hla.

il2t&fi.

ft

$*R

Q*stlfiad

?hgft

At

t*rlay's

h**ring, the

Caurt

$ten*graph*r

sh*w*rl

t*

ths

P're*i#ng

Judge

an

a-rnailed

c*py

of

an

Urgant Motion

T* Rrstt

Hearing,

which

rrffis'd*liuered

by

a

lady,

urho

repr*sented

har.E*lf

tc

hc

tfr* S*cretary

*f

Atty"

Rnxann* Earang,

th*

call*horatirq

e*unsel *f

Atty. Judith

l-*is,

stating

th*reln

thet

they

are

praying

for the

cuncellaflon

*f

qoclat's

h*arlng,

as

well

fl$,

on May

26, ?*14

ans{ that

the

preuiously

set h6aring*

he

rnaintainet{

firr further

proceerlings.

Atty.

S'lvin

f,mullo

appaured

and

manifestsr{

thet

they

havc

a

p*nrtrln$

motisn

tfl

re-sB*,n tha

pre-trial

for

the

reasons

stgted

in

th* said

motlon.

Up*n

lnquiry

frunr

th*

s*iel

cnunsal,

tha f;rlctrt

nofes fi'orn

t?r* ree*rd

of

thfs ease

that

thers

s/a* n$ esnm*nt

suhmittsd

ffi

ths

said

mnti*n

hy

the

aczused.

**nsiderin6n

hcweveri

tha,t

the

f*urt h*s

lutt

resslved

the

thlrd Mnticn

For

lnhibition

hy

the

acnrse.d

yesterdsy

ln

view

of

the

Presiding

}rrlge l*ave

of

ahsence,

*nd

which

Sr'der

will he

rdeasad

today,

th+

flourt

resrlv*s

tn

runcal

t$dfit's h*nrin6,

as ur*ll as,

th*

haaring *n

Msy

?6,

?014.

UfHE*ESOfiE,

th* hearings

today

and

nn

May

2$,

1S14

sre

harehy

cancdled

and

reset

to

Juns

4, 16

a*d 1?,

2014

mll at *:30

o'*lock

i* the mmning,

urith*ut

prej*dicu

tn any

resolutir*r

*f this

folrrt

*n

the

pendingrincfdent

submltted

loy

the

prosecuti0n.

$O ORDTNED.

DOITIH

tN

OPEFI

COURT,

ttris

t#h

day

of

May,

eS14,

at

Bagui* City, PhitippiR*s.

u${r6[h$.&E-

SgeruEn

EDITBERTCI

T. CLARAVALT

FresidingJudge

21

MAY

zUt+

HTCleqrc



,,$i..,lfft\U",

t'

,--: \

I

',,1

CR.

CASE

NO.32306-R

FOR

SUALIFIED

THEFT

X-

ORDER

Submitted

for resolution

is an

Urgent

Omnibus

Motion

for

lnhibition

and

the

Deferment

of

Proceedings

pending

the

resolution

of the

Motion

for

lnhibition

filed

by

the accused

Ernesto

Delos Santos.

The

accused

anchored

his third

Motion

for

lnhibition

on

the following

allegations:

1.

The court

knowingly

rendered

an unlawful

and unjust

order.

2. The

court

shows

flagrant,

shocking

and

notorious

display

of

extraordinary

partiality

in

favor

of

an

adverse

party

utterly

offensive

not

only

to

the

accused

and to

the

integrity

of

the

presiding

judge

himself

but

to the esteemed

legal

Profession.

3,

The

issuance

of

a

dubious

Court Order

unknown

and

not

sent to

the

parties

but was

very much

known

to the

counsel

for

the

private

complainant.

4-

Extreme

pressure

was

imposed upon

the

counsel

for the

accused

with

the obvious intention

to

rush the termination

of the case.

The

court

finds

the first

allegation of the

accused

, ,*te

rehash

of

his

previous

arguments

as

to the application of

the Judicial Affidavit

Rule,

particularly,

Section

9

thereof.

The

court in its

previous

orders

has

extensively

ruled

upon the

said

matter.

ln

his second

allegation,

the

accused

asserts

that

the behavior

of

the

undersigned

judge

favors

the

prosecution.

The accused

points

out

that

during the

scheduled

Pretrial

"on

February

18,

2A14,

the undersigned unexpectedly

contradicted

his

own written orders

and

suddenly

recognized

the

option

of

the

accused

to

defer

submission

of his

affidavits

and subsequently

required

the

prosecution

to submit

additional

judicial

affidavits

of

their

witnesses

within

10

days

after

the conclusion

of

the Pre-Trial.

The

court

sees

no

reason why the

accused

construed

this circumstance

as

favoring

the

prosecution.

lt

is illogical

for

the

accused

to

fervently

argue

that

he be

given

the

"option"

to submit

his

judicial

affidavits

at

his

discretion

before

the

presentation

of

the

intended

witness

then

21

[4i{Y

Z0t4

il&erublft

of

rye mbtlfFriueg

REGIONAL

TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL

REGION

BRANCH

60

THE

PEOPLE OF

THE

PH]LIPPINES,

PlsinW,

-versus-

ERNESTO

M. DE

LOS

SANTOS.

Auused.



.i,

,".

fF

l&

rf

-\

CR No.32306-R

"J

People

vs.

ERNESTO DELOS SANTOS

ORDER

Page 2 of 2

when

the

court indirectly

granted

him his

prayer

he

again

claims

that the

same

is

an

indication

of

unfairness. The

court merely

acted in such

a

manner because the

proceeding

is

becoming

prolonged,

to the

detriment

of the

accused's

right

to

a

speedy

trial, by

reason

of

such issue.

Additionally,

when

the

court

granted

the

prosecution

the

1O-day

period

to

submit the

judicial

affidavits

of

any

additional

witnesses,

the

same

does not

mean any untoward bias

on

the

part

of the

court.

lt

must

be

pointed

out

that the

Pre

Trial

is designed

purposely

for the

parties

to

facilitate

the

smooth ftow

of the

trial

proper.

lnctuded

in

the matters that

should

be

taken

during the

Pre

Trial

is

the

number

of

witness. Logically,

if during

the

Pre

Trial,

the

prosecution

intends to

present

additional

witness,

they

must

also comply

with

the

Judicial

Affidavit

Rule

and

submit

these intended

witnesses'

respective

judicial

affidavits.

This is

harmoniously

interpreting and

correlating

the

rules

on

Pre

Trial

and

the

Judicial

Affidavit

Rute-

l\lloreover,

it

must

be

remembered

that

although

the interpretation

of

the

law

should

put

primacy

over

the

innocence

of the

accused,

the

element

of

justice

and

fair

play dictates

that

its

application

must

favor

both

of the

parties

as

the

rules

may

permit.

The third

allegation

of

the

accused is

completely

baseless.

lt must

be

pointed

out

that

the said

Order

dated

January

10,2014

was

already released

to

Atty.

Carullo,

the

private

prosecutor,

on

January

13,

2A14,

considering that

on that

day

a

hearing was

scheduled and

the

said counsel was

present.

Apparently,

the

accused or

his counsels

are

all absent.

Lastly,

the

last

allegation

of the

accused is

unmeritorious.

lt

is evident

from

the

transcript

of stenographic notes

of the

Pre

Trial

Conference

conducted

on

February

18,

2A14

that

the

scheduled trial

dates

were never mandatorily

imposed

by

the court

upon the

parties.

The

parties

agreed

thereto.

They were

given

leeway

to

agree

or

object

to

the

date suggested

by

the

court.

WHEREFORE,

all

premises

considered,

the

instant

Omnibus

Motion is

DENIED

for

lack

of

merit.

SO ORDERED.

DONE lN

CHAMBERS

this lgth day

of

May,

2014, at

Baguio

City,

Philippines.

Original Signed

EDILBERTO

T.

CLARAVALL

JUDGE

// _

d

Order Crm Case 320306-r 21 May 2014

Documents

Transcript of Order Crm Case 320306-r 21 May 2014