Upload
delys-inn
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 1/7
-*
-tltse
I1.
0FRIE
c0pr
TTIE
PEOPLE
OF
THE
P}IILPPINES
Plaintiff,
ERIIESTO
L.
DTLOS
SAr{TOS,
Accused
---x
1.
2.
(;
RtrPUBLIC
OF
THtr
PHILIPPINBS
First
Judicial
Region
Regional
Trial
Court
Branch
60, Baguio
City
Crim.
Case No.
32306-R
URGEITT
OMMBUS
MOTION
FOR
INHIBITION
TO DEFER
PROCEEDINGS
FURTHER
PENDING
RESOLUTIONOF'
THE
INSTANT
MOTION FOR
INHIBITION
Accused., ATTY.
ERNESTO
DE LOS
SANTOS, through
the
undersigned
counsel
and
unto
this
Honorable
Court,
most respectfully
states that:
1.
The
instant
case
was
originally
raffled
before
Branch 7,
Regional
Tria-l court of
Baguio
City
before
Judge
Lisa V.
'Iiongson-Tabora.
By
reason
of
an
Urgent
motion
to Recuse attributing
acts on the
pa,rt
of the
presiding
judge
of
alleged
"malevolent
disregard of a
settled
jurispruderee,
bordering on apparent
gross
ignorance
of
the law',
the lhen
presiding
judge
granted
the
private
complainalt's
Motion
to
Recuse
in
an
order
dated
Octolrer
OS,
ZOLZ;
2.
Private
complainant's
act of
filing a
Motion
to Recuse
seeking
to
inhibit a
non-negotiable
judge
of
publicly
known
independence
and
probity
Page
I
of6
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 2/7
/\
\-/
not
only
in
the
instant
case
but
in
all other
cases is
already
a
habit.
Proscribed
forum
shopping is
their
cup
of
tea;
3.
The
official counsel of
the
private
complainantnot
only
in the
instant
case
but in
all other cases
is
Atty.
Clarence
Villanueva.
A
previous
judge
of
the
Regional Trial
Court
of
Baguio
City
removed for
cause
but
whose
clout
and
influence
to
his
previous
allies and
friends remain;
4.
Recently,
the
accused
in
his
effort
to
interview
potential
witnesses,discovered
the
close
association of
Atty.
Clarence
Villanueva
to
the
presiding
judge
of
this
Honorable
Court.
This
explains
the act
of
Atfy.
Clarence
Villanueva
in
immediately
withdrawing his
appearance
as
counsel
for the
private
complainant
after the
re-raffle
of
the
instant case
to
thisHonorable
Court obviously
to conceal said
close
association.
In
no time,
said
withdrawal
was
granted
by
this Court
in
an
order dated
November,26,
2012;
5.
Without
casting
aspersion
on his
person
and any intention
to
'slight
the dignity
and
respect
due
the
presiding
Judge
of
this
Honorable
Court,
herein
accused
is
of the considered
view
that
his
capacity to try and
decide
the above-entitled
case
fairly
and
judiciously
has
beenobviously
compromised;
6.
The
close
association
of
Atty.
Clarence
Villanueva
to
the
herein
presiding Judge
will
certainly
result
to
acts
favorable
to
the
private
complainantor
acts
with
bias and
prejudice
against
herein accused,
considering
that Atty. Clarence
Villanr-reva
is
stitl the
counsel of
the
private
complainant
in
their
other
cases;
7.
In
fact, the accommodation
by the
Honorable
presiding
Judge
of
the
whims
of the
private
complainant
was
seen
in the
dubious
circumstances
surrounding the
issuance
of
this
honorable
Court's
Order
dated
December
7,
2012,
cancelling
the bail
previously
posted
by
the
accused;
Page
2
of
6
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 3/7
lri
\-./
8.
While
the said Order was
dated
December
07,
2012
(Friday),
it
wasnot
released
by the
Honorable
presiding
Judge on
the
same
day.
The
fact
of
its
non
release
was
confirmed
by
the
liason/secreta4r
of
Atty.
Rarang,
the
co-counsel
of
the
undersigned,
who went
to
the
court
in
the
late
afternoon
of
December
07,
2072
to inquire
about
the
status of
the
complainant's
pending
motions
before the
Court. The
Court
personnel
replied, however,
thatno court
orderhas
yet
been
released nor
any
progress
on
the case
was
given
as of
that morrlent;
9.
On the
following
business
d.y,
December
10,
2012, the
presiding Judge
of
this
Honorable
Court went
to his
office
in
the
morning
but after the
release
of
the
said Order cancelling the
accused's
posted
bail,
he
thereafter
left
the
office
and took
a
leave on the
same
day.
Accused
had
knowledge
of
this because
Atty.
Rarang,
the co-counsel of the undersigned
went
to
the Court
in
the
morning of
December
10, 2AI2
after
several
police
officers
went
to the
premises
of the accused;
10.
It'is
indeed
surprising
that
in
the
early
morning
of
December
70,
2A 12,
police
officers
already
went
to
the
premises
of
the
accused seeking
to
serve the
warrant
of
arrest
already
issued
by
the Honorable
Presicling
Judge.
Indubitable
conclusion
follows
that the
private
complainant
had
a
fullrpriorand
exclusive
knowledge
of
not
only the
issuance
but also the
exact
time of release of
theOrder dated
December
O7,2OL2,
cancelling
the
bond
of
the
accused
and the simultaneous
issuance
of the
warrant
of
arrest;
11. The
case of
Pimentel a,
Salanga,
21
SCRA 760,
asit
lvas
reiterated inGutang
os. Court of
Appeals,
G.R.
No.
12476O,
Julg
B,
7998,
292
SCRA 76, is apropos,
thus:
"All
the
foregoing
nohuithstanding,
this slnutd
be a
good
occaslon
ds
crng
to
drana
attentlon
of
atl
Judges
to
appropriate
guldell.nes
ln a
situation
where
thelr
capacltg
to
try
amd declde a
case
fatrlg
and
Judlctouslg
colmes
to
the
fore
lry
utag
of
challenge
lrom
ang
one
of
the
pantles.
,4
Judge
mag
not
be legatlg
prohtblted
from
sitting
ln a
lttigation. But
when suggestlon ls made
of
record
that
he
might
be induced
to
act ln
fmtor
oJ one
partg
or with
blas
or
prejudiee
against a
Htlgant
arlsing
out
oJ
ctrcumstcl;nce[s]
reasonablg capable
aI
lnclting
such
a state
of
mind.,
he
should conduct
a
eareful
sef,f-
exqmlnatlon.
He should
exerclse
his
d.lscretlon
ln
a
wag
il
";-''
Page
3 of6
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 4/7
*,J
that the
people's
faith
in the
courts
of
justiee
is not
lmpaired-
A
sahrtary
norrn
is
that
he reflect
on
the
probabilitg
that
a
losing
partg might nurlttre
at
the baclc
of
his
mind
the
thought
that the
iudg*
unmeitoriortslg
tilted
the
scales
of
justice
against
him.
That
passion onthe
part
of
a
judge
mag
be
generated.
because
of
serious
charges
of
misconduct against
him
bg a
suitor
or
his
counsel,
if
nat
altogether
remote.
He
is
a
mnn
subiect
to the
frailties
of
other
men.
He
should,
therefore,
exercise
great care
qnd
cauti-on
before
making
up his
mind
to
act or
uithdraut
fram
a surt
where
that
partg
or
counsel
i.s inuolued.
He
could
ln
good
g"o.c,e
inhlbit
htmself
uhere
that case
could
be
heard
bg anotiher
Judge
and
uthere
flo
aptr reetahle
preJudice utould
be
occastoned
to
the
others
tntnlaed
thereln.On
the
result
oJ
hts
declslon
to
slt
or
not
to slt
mag depend
on
a
great
extent
the all
lmpottant
cotlfidence
ln the
lmpartlatltg
oJ
the
Judtctary.
I
after
reflection
he
should
resolae
to
"
aoluntarllg
deslst
from
slttlng
in d
c.rse
uthere
his
mothtes
and
Jalrness
mlght
he
serl.ouslg
tmpugned,
his
actlon
fu
to
be
lnterpreted
rzs
gtatng
meanlng
and
substance
to
the
second
paragrq.Ph of Sectlon
7,
Rule
737.
He
serues
the
co.use
oJ
tlr.e
lo;w
who
forestalls
ntlscrrrrlag
e of
i
ustlce.
"
12.
Obviously,
there
a-re
acts
on the
paft
of
the
presiding
judge
arising
out
of
circumstances
reasonably
capable
of
inciting
a state
of
mind
of
bias
and
partiality
against
the accused.
These
may be brought
about
by
the
presiding Judge's
close
association
with the
private compiainant's
counsel;
13.
Accused
would
like to
defeat
information
received
from
reliable
sources
that
valuable
considerations
are
involved
in
this
case
and
it
is
not
remote
that
the
private
complainant
tried
the
herein
magistrate's
soul.
To
eliminate
the
slightest
doubt
and
for
the
honorable
judge
to
be
freed
from
the
elaborate
anatomy
of
temptation
from corruption,
we
humbly
tleg and
seek
inhibition
in
the
corridors
of
this
Court;
L4.
The basis
of
the
instant
motion
is
apparently
not
"malevolent
disregard
of
a
settled
jurispruderce,
bordering
on
apparent
gf,oss
ignorance
of
the
lanr" as
coined by
the
counsel
for the private compiainant
in their
Motion
to
Recuse,
because
we
believe
that
those
a-re
words
unbefitting
an
officer
of
the
Court
and
more
importantly,
words
which
are
unacceptable
to
be
addressed
to
any
presiding magistrate
of
any
court-
Page
4
of
6
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 5/7
O*
i
ii
,;
PRAYER
WHREFORE,
premises considered,
respondents
most
respectfuily
prays
of
this
Honorable
Office:
1. TO
ISSUE
AN
ORDER
OF
INTIIBITION
iN
thc
iNStANt
CASC;
2.
To
DEFER
further
proceedings
in
the
instant
casepending
issuance
of
the Order
of
Inhibition.
Respondent
likewise
prays
for
such
other
measures
of
relief
and
remedies
which
are
just
and equitable
under
the
premises.
Makati
City
for
the
CitY
of Baguio.
JUDITH
ZARRAGA
LUIS
LAW
TIRM
Counselfor
Responderrt
7256 J.
Victor St.,
Brry.PiodelPilar,
Te1/Fax
Nps.
82
-4e-oe
/
JUDITH
GA LUIS
P.T.R
NO.
7651BS4Xp
1- 1
1- L3
I
Quezon
City
I.B.P.
Lifetimelltto.
03951
Quezon
City
ROLL
No. 38963
MCLE
Compliance
No.
IV-0018666;
April
26,2013
Tel/Fax
Nos.
822-
49Og
/
468-0012
Notice
of
Hearing
and
Copy
furnished:
TlrE
CLERTI
Or COURT
trffi
l0&3
(
Regional Trial
Coutt
/LloA
Branch
6O
Baguio
City
6-Zo-
l3
Page
5
of
6
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 6/7
$1
OFFICE
OF
THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
Supreme Court
of the Philippines
Old Supreme
Court
Bldg
Padre Faura St.
Manila
City
F,W
/0e3'l
/",,04-
6-
Lo-
t3
ATTY.
ALVIN
CARULLO
Counsel
for
the Private Complainant
L6Lg Jollibee
Plaza
Emerald Avenue,
Ortigas
Pasig
City
Greetings:
KR+
/0
s{o
l'1.0A
b-
7o-
13
Please
submit
the
foregoing
Omnibus
Mation fot
tJ;.e
consideration
of
the
Honorable
Courton
June
26,
2073
at
8:3O
o'elack
ln
the
os
the Court's
Calendar
mag
permit.
a.
Thank
you.
;ruDITII
Z.
LUIS
EXPLAI{ATION
The
foregoing
tlrgent
Omnibus
Motioriltas been
filed and
served
by
registered
due
to distance,
time
constraints,
unpredictable
traffic
situat4dfr-and
lack
of
available
messenger
to
personally file and
serve
the
same.
Z. LUIS
Page
6 of6
7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Jun 21 2013
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-jun-21-2013 7/7
+'
fi.
REPI.tsUC
OF
TI{E
PHIUPPIHES
REGIOITIAL
IRI.,AL
COURT
FIRST
JUDICI,AL
REGION
BftAt'ICH
60
BAGT'IO
CTTY
T}IE
PE{PI"E
SF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Flainffi
-
Versus
-
ATTY.
ERNE$TQ
OELSS
SANTOS,
Accused.
X---------"
----X
Crim,
Cgse
No. 323ff6-R
for:
Qualifi€d
Thefr
?R
Q-H
N
&t
todat's
p
*l
cen{crenceo
the
Court
notes
the
appearernce
of
a
privah
protecutor,
for
which,rftason,
tht
parties
are
dlreeM
to subrnit
thcir
respstive
prr-trial
briefe, ae
nryll
gs
th*
r*spuive
"ludcigl
S#ldavieg
sf
th$.ir
witnprrcs
whkh
shail
bc
fumishd
to
each
other
withh
fiv€
(5)
days before
flre actral prc-g,ial.
This
period
shal
h
strict{y
observed
by
H,re
pa* es.
,i
,
i
,i,,,,
r
---
--
-'--
,r
..,,1,.
W}{EREFORE,
Sle
pre-hial
corrfer*nea
tday
is
hereby
cancelH
ryrd
rEget
to
June
25, 2013
at
8:30
o'clock
in
he
moming.
The
parfics
ar€
dirocted
to
submft
thdr
reepactirie
pre-tri{l
brhf$
attadring
theraruith
tfuc
ludfg$
Affi&vib
of
their
wifrresseq,
which
pre-1gial
briefs
and
Judicial
Affidav$ts
shall be tumished
to
each oth+r
at
lmst five
(S),dil6
hdpro
thr
aforestated
d&
ef
pre-lrfl
eenfErerrce,
50
ORDEREB,
ffiSIE
IH
OPEF{
C*URT.
this
ts4e day of
AFdl,
m[],
*t
fi*guio:,City,
fh$ippirm,
.:a
"?IIIIEAI
8IGflg}
EDX
I.BCR:FO
T" dTARAYALL
Fr#idirqg
lrdge
b
U
APR
B'$lil
ETClsmw