Urgent Omnibus Motion Oct 21 2013

7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibus Motion Oct 21 2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibus-motion-oct-21-2013 1/12

\i

i]

THE

PEOPLE

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

Plaintiffs,

-versus-

Motion for

Inhibitlon

CITY

Crim.

Case

No.

323O6-R

RTPUBLIC

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

REGIONAT

TRIAT

COURT

OT

BAGTIIO

Branch

6O

URGENT

OIUNIBUS

MOTION

For

ReconsiAeration

of

the

ilier

dated

24

September

2013

For:

Second

Motlon

for

Inhibitlon

ToDeferProceedlngsPeadingtheResolutionofthelnstantSecond

Cot\'tES

NOW,

accused

Atty'

IRNESTq

"DELOS

SAI{TOS'

through

the

undersigned

counsbl

and

unto

this'

Honorable

Court'

*"tt-i.

-Pectfulit

utu'i*"

that

:

1-onoctober2,20lS,theaccusedreceivedaco|Y fth"

order

dated

septemb

er

24,

2013

issued'by

t is-

Honorable

court'

giving

rhe

accused

*

rr9lr-."O""aiUf"

Peloi

of ten

(10)

days

from

receipt

of

the;iJ6

witfrin

wfrictr

d

file

the

accused's

and

the

a"cuse.l's

witnesses'

judicial affidavits;

;

i

2,Thedispositiveportionofwhichreads,..thus:

.WIIEREFORE,

all

the

foregoing

pr.*i""*

"orr.ia*r{,

.th,,e Sraver

9f

tfre

,

l"."r.a

Ernesto

gelo.o-

Santos

t9.

P

allowed

to

submit

the

his

Judicial

Aina*rit

and

that

of

the

other

"rritnesses

for

the

*""r""a

i*

QRANTED'

Th:

*""r*"d.

is

given

a

non-exl**a"U]9

periSd

'

"ii."

(10)

;avs

from

ttq?Pt

9f

this

order

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-g-

8-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

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;

I

-

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

,i

'l

zlPrge



\J

ti

6.

The

Court's

pre-meditated

scheme

'

to

defeat

the

constirutional

nglrts

of

the

."t

r""a

.,,

"t1*:

f*'

and,

impartial

trial

can

no

longrr

be

prevented

fri:m

being

seenl

, .

T.First,inthecontestedorderdgtedseptember24''2911'

the

court

openly

declared

and

is

therefore cognizant

of

the

fact'

i

ntrial

court

must

take

heed

that

in

criminal

casea

the

waiver

of

the

riqr-tt

t9

;;;;i

evidence

and

be

heard

should

not

,be

consiA.r"J n"pnazardly, perfunctoftY'

,lightly or

trivially,

because

the right

1:

iff#"i

i.,

d.t.

irott"*,'but

musJ

at

alt

times

be

scrutinized

by

means

of

a

test

*a

procedure

to

aicertain

-

that.

t{e

walvei

was

dose

voluntarily,

knouringly

and

intetligentlY

with

sufficient

-

awareness

of

its

relevant

circumstances

and

'

likelY

consequeDces."

g.

on

the

face

of

the

above

declarations,;lhe

court

had

the

temeriry

to rule that

if

the

accused

failed

to

s,trbmit

his

iudicial

affidavits

within

the

time

giv;

Uy

tt

"

loryt,

the

accused

shall

no

ronger

be

allow.a

to

submit

irirl"ai"iar

affidavits

and

that

he

will

present

his

witnesses

in

the

usual

mallner

to

the

detri:ment

of

his

"-.

8'0nthefaceofsuchd.eclaration,theCourtisverymuch

aware

that

th-;;;;;a

ro**

.rot

tr,*

Ieast

intent

t0

waive

his

right

to

;b"rtff;.;rai"i*t

aflidavit

by

declaring

in

the

same

order'

thus:

I

uEvidentlY,

the

accused

iDt

.Los

\

santos

inten'ds

to

rebut't{e

_Tg":lions

of

the

prosecution, absent

anJr

express

waiver

on

his

part.

Secondly,

his

intent

t;-_

submit

Judtcial

affidavits

if

manifested

by

his

filing

of

the

Urgent

Motlon

for

tn*

flHng

of

6is'

Judlcial

aflidavit.

:ooctx"

'

3lPage



t:

\l

j"

10.

The

rule

on

Jud.icial

Affidavit,

particularty

section

?

(1

(2),

explicitly

granted

the

accused

a

nllviftge

of

option

orla

right

to

choose

whether'th;

rule

on

Judiciat

nfnairit

Ut

made

applicable.to

him

or

otherwise.

The

*."r*rd

opted

or

chose

o

,"F."

covered

by

the

rule

because

of=*

*irr""r.

belief

that

the

application.

<rf

such

rule

would

be

favorable

to

him

as

such

would

-speedrly

dispose

of

his

case;

I

I

t.

But

by

reason

of

the

court's

deliberate

'misreading

o

the

law

which

ob#""ly

f*ored'-the-*t

i**.

and

caprice

of

the

private

complainant,

the

law

which

was

conceived

to

be

favorable

to

the

accused

i*

,ro*-U"i"g

used

as

a

tool

t9

degrive

him

of

his

priceless

constitulional

right

to

speedy

disposition

.of

his caie;

12.

An

option

of

the

accused

which

w1s

-origrnalty

a

privilege

is

now

a

sword iof

Damocles

in

the

hands

of

thg.iourt

perpetr-rally

hanging

over

the

head

of

the

accused

as

he

dare:

t'

lsse1t

his

prerogative

and

constitutional

rights-

The

court's'misreading

of

the

law

is

und,oubtedly

contrary

tJ

ttre

rule

that

criminal

i

laws

are

construed

in

favor

of

the

accused;

13.

Second,

Section

9

(b)

explicitly

prgvi{edjh.e

{*t

yttfin

rvhich

the

proseeutlon

shall

*,ru*it

its

iuoicial':aflidaviq

and

also

explicirly

provided

the

penalty

lor.lon

toqnti*.:*

.by

indicating

that

no

further

juaicial

allidavit

*t

utt

be

admillgdiduring

trial;

,t

|4.Thelawexplicitlyimposedwaiveronthepartofthe

prosecution

to

submit

any

uJaitio"al

judiciar

allidavit

during

trial

in

case

of

failur.e

to

comply

within

the

period

given

but

no

such

15.

Had

the

law

intended

t'9q

sjmilar

felalty

on

the

accused,

th;

legislator's

could

have

easilj;.

inser

obviously,

the

f*grtlafirs

intended

otherwise;

I

the

tqd

,

phrt of

'it

but

16.

In

fact,

instead

of

penalizing

the

affordecl

the

acmsed

the

sole

privilege

to

t,,

,l)

accused,

the

law

even

choose,

UnfortunatelY,

5

,t.

lil

::

4lPage



contra.ry

to

the

iqtent

of

the

legislators'

fr**t

penalty

defeating

in

effect

the

right

trial;

t*-j

r

:the

court

imPosed.

such

'of

the

accused

to,sPeedY

{i

i/

17.

Third,

as

recognized

by

the

court

in

its

contested

order'

the

accused

intends

to

rebut

the

accusations

of

the

Prosecution'

absent

any

express

waiver

on

-his

part.

The

court

also

declared

that

the

accused.'s

intent

t"

.*tirtlt

his

judilial

affidavits

is

manifested

by

his

filing

of

the

instant

urgent

Motion

for

ttre

filing

of

Judicial

Affidaviti

:

ls.Consideringtlneacclrsed'sexplicitintentionasrqcognized

by

the

courr,

trr*

*iu"r

imp;;*J

u-y

ll"

court

on

the

part, dr

ure

accused

of

hi=

righi-to

".n

ffiit

3uJi"ial

aflidavits

contrar.y

.o

his

intenrion

to

avail

of

his

righito

speedy

trial

is

unconstitutipnal;

l

19.

The

obvious

motive

and

consistent

behavio".:f

the

court

*

*ln,u'

inl

-;;ffi;^;;*ffiant

and,p*ii*Tg-

P-,:'-T-',1

II

lavurrrrB

Lrtt'

yr^vssv

'-'--i*^*-, ri trend

in

can

no

lottg"i b.

countenanced'

TfLe

?T::q\9*,^^u n,n,tta

ample

iunsprudenceis

to

ffird

?u.'ry

titiO,Tnt'

the

';;;;;;i;;"

fr;

t-he

-iust

determin*':

:{

hf

:*:

*'^{:::,

oppurLurllLg

Jvt

Lt"v

rwve

fu

this

establiilwd

rule,

iins*afnts

of

tecll,lnlcalltgul'

Contrary

,

,

r

-i-i^r

t^ nnnnAtt

i;:";;;';n;or;;h.";;;;za

oi

nii

"oiotitutionat

isht

ta

speeds

triat

bg mere

reasoru

of

technicalitg;

20.Further,timeandagain,thesupremelourthq*'hefd

that

court

litigations

are

dJsigned

to

search

for

trre,

trtrth'

Technlealities,

ln

the

approprirate

-.

tangulg-e

qI

Justlce

*o"ffi;,Et;rd

si;

*.ii;

dhe

reaHtres

ortte

sttuallon" ;

'lr'

21.

held:

InthecaseofMoslaresUs.CaurtofAppeols,theCourt

rPeople

of

the

Philippines

v8'

Victor

Subida'

G'R'

No'

145945,

June

27;:2006

i

t962

z

Urbayan

vs.

Caltex,

G'R

'{o-,

L-i5379'

August

3l'

.

C.n.

No.

1297aa,

June

26,1998

I

StPage

I



ti

*rhe

rights

o{

'1

::::::1,

,i}Jilt'"I-f'1

rl;*?'":,1i.'#;x;l

lji',1'.1;1[-,'

.*";;;*'i.

:'l:

I

r.i,,;J-

-r;',''

r

"t'igi''io

u

I

ti'*

."

t

t'

*lt.Li

-

il:X'ilfll,i

;'il;rJ

i:y

irimsc,lI

a.rl

.otrrlst]r

"]rL-iii-,ii",i

r

'iqlrt

is

.etctt

*J'J,'i"';;'J;i

.'ll-

ti'::"t-:#it':;1'J

,i*"ff

TIris

right

has

bt''-'tr'::"flX'ilJ;;

esrahlishc'r

i"

o'i*''lb--utte

sure

that

justice

;;

,Irl;.

to

tire

accused'

,

'.1

'

the

'

const

itt"tt

iotr;rl

right

ti

'

tl''"

,,,,,,r',l.l",ll'll;'il^"ii"

i'i*'r"ri".,'n'

iu

itr"'iolatc

Nrr

('otlrl

o[;;'*;t

ultttlct"

oLrr

sYstcm

ol

uovc'ltrlr,.,L

n-'il"li'l-*;;'it'

ileprivc

him

.f

tliat

,'iiot',r-

(Pcople

"*'"lul-"'gut:','lt"'

I

I

t

SCRA

515

ill;;ii

;

iri'upr"'is

sr-tPplictr)

:

;linclect'''of

the

ferct

t[1t

22.

Faurth,

[his

Cor-trt

urr-tst

no

llel't

1;"

*ftt"'

r hisi

Lra:i{t

l'rr:n:i

its

i'-"'*pt*""

-

has

b'3e

n

impregnat

irrcgr-ilert

1t

les:

]3,TlreirrstantCt}Se{clroltalilii:clTtreltclocketeclt-ttlcterCase

N.

rNv.i

r

o

riss

rirecr

u*ror*'iill'liin--

:ilk

Cjitv

ntosecutor

or

B;igr-ric,

,t'**

n'igil'ratly

ctismisseJ

by

r-ro"*ui'ft

Prose"utor

Nenita

o,iarn.

ir-r

a

R*solrrtio,.'

aur*li*j'.,t,

"'

20li

tor'lack

of

proba'le

(';

I

It

I

SiL'

:

i-

,:.

A,lI'afC.lnartVfiteeiaMcrtiotrforlteconsicleratiorr.ancl

Zq

-ll're

Aclversc

Pa:"tY

i\rnencrcrJ

M,rion.

for

Recor-iJJ'rni"i.

seekirig

th'e

reversal

of

t'e

saicl

Rcso

rr_rrinn

aur*cl

Juty

'#,'

;;i

1

*r.1^

rtT*

-

ort**ecl

's

counsel

iireci

a,.r

cippo*iiio,,

ri-u,,r*to

rrsi#oi

ti

t-*:l-H

M;t

;i-september

22,

20

t

I

a*cl

als'

b],

r*i:-

p.tl*o,-,,r,

s-';i;t'rqi

the

office

of

the

cirv

prrst::curorrof

Bagprro

""'

"0.0,-;;i;;t

'26

'

}otl;

l

2011

'

c'r

1x-a.1:ll:':',i

l-.,'l

"nl,ri**

was

:15

On

Setrrtettrber

'3'

?:?,1.1'

cl:'

111:"t'

onE

(t)

clay

after

the

ma*ing

of

*c.c-usecys

"pp-J;;;:

a

Resotltion

o11

Rt

,'.,,-,r1i1rt:il

obviousty

in

"''*i#."by

l''ouitt'to';t

Rola*clo

Vergara

rcrrersi'g

rtre

r:eso1ur1c,1

"l

-P;;;utlr

N+,"tt"

opt**

clespite

other

ir

u

cir

o I

cle

r

agecl

do

cke

ts

"t:;il"-"'

;**ttecl

:or

:-:::

j:4

'.,,i

11

r,

u[io*

on

fr.evrerv

rvir_h,ttre

accompanylttg

,)*,

[n

fact,

szuri

t{esal

,I-r-

"rg.*ay

rou*arded,to

iii3'ts:*,f

3il1,'T;il:3*:f;*

.''lHtl:[,

'r'*

o"rn"r

':'i

'r'*

citv

1:r'ose

curt.r'

of-'nugt'io

=1

.'i'r'"

";i;:i:'t:-]';";L

Qpposition

to

the

,r.Jr,*,'**

par-ty'$

Arnencled

Ntotion

lor

n**o"Jia*taiiti-t;

j

:

,:rr

6lpage

I



ti

t+

ti

;

il

el

i.l

\--/

'j'

27.

The

case

even

underwent

a

special

Raffle.forrno

valid

reason

which

culminated

to

,h;;;"Oi"tt

i-*"*tAe

of

a

warrant

of

arrest;

i

'

le,

the

accused

r,vas

already.arrested

pursuant

to

the

said

Resolution

on

Review

u"i

f"fo'*utiot'

issued

in

cOnnection

therewitt,

"r"r,

U*for"

said

contested

Resolution

.'on

Review

dated

septemb

er

23',

io

i r

had

;;;

*ailed

by

the

office

of

the

citv

pro*""*tor

of Bagpio

to

the

parties

concerned;

:

:

'fr"r,

the

records

of

the

preliminary

investigation

and

Informatio,

*rre'

Jready

forwarded

io

ttrl

Honorable

Court

even

before

said

contested

Resolution

on

Review'

wa1

-f{:}tl

promulgated

uy

tt.

ofIiry

ollhe^cjty

Prosecritor

of

Baguio

u1

bratant

vioration

of

secdo;

ss-"r

trre

ltvtanual'for

Prosecutor's,

thus:

,

.

I

sectionSs,ManuatforPrOsecutor$states.,towit:

:

,section55.Promulgatlonofresolutlon..ThE.reeult

of

-th;

preumitrG

iniestigation

shiru

.

ue

Prornuftated

Uy

.furnirhtng

th;

'partles

or

their

cou;t;lt

coPY

oi

the

resolution

bY:

:

a)

Personal

***it*;

i

ut

neeili"tro

**il

with

rerurn

card

ro

the

complainant,

and

by

ordinary

mail

to

the

responde.nt'

if

the

resolutlon

is

for

the

dismissal

of

the

comptill:L--

c)

R"gt;;ild

mail

wirh

rerurn

card

to

the

respondent,

u"a'-ty-

orai"ury

mail

to

the

complainanti

if

the

re$otr-,1io"

is

for

tht

it'dittrnent

of

the

respondent'"

30,

The

instant

case

has

an

unendinq

irregplarities

since

its

inception

and

the

actions

being

dispalyed

V .ih*

Court

are

no

exceptions.

tf,e

court's

obvious

interest and

desire

to

hold

on fast'

cling,

clasp,

stay

on

*fot*

;ri;

to

this

case

iidesnite

palpable

grounds

for

irrhiUitiott

is

"

atr"eaiy

a

violation

'of

the

mandated

provision-

"f

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

i

ii

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

.

t

AM

No.

12-8-160

RTC,

Decemb

er

Lo'20L7'

Angplng

vs'

RoS

7[Page



l

__J

'.....:-,'

actedwithpartialityandmaliceGan]

llegation

of

onlY

negate

the

a

tmiropriety,

but

not

the

fPPearange

,of

tqpropri,ety.

ln

De

la

Cruz

u'

Judge',

nl)""*ira,i

this

Court

underscored

Ih"

need

to

show

not

only

the

fact

of

propriery

Urr,

afr"

appeararlce

of

propriety

itself'

I.

held

that'ifr.

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

activities."

i

32.Certainly,afutureadministrative""?Pplui"t,.yn'.nare

prompted

by

arUior"

actions

on

the

part

of.,th".-Pll:11i"*

judge

would

indubiLily-

-"r,o*

lack

of

faith

bv

*1-1":I::u

to

the

pr*iJit

g

maglstrate.

As

a

necessa4/

consequ"","ul-ol-:'oh

filing'

the

principle

thJ

ffigt"i*

are

entitled

to

nothing

le-ss

than

the

cold

neutrality

of

an

impartial

judge

would

already

b-e unav.arl4g'

After

such

filing,

the

actions

of

lhe

Inagistrate

will

no

longer

b9

flee

from

any

suspicion

;;

6

irr"it

fairnessl

imparti.ality

and

integritysi

33.

So

as

to

avoid

this

untoward

situation,.yt leilerlie

*

beg

the

Honorable

Court

to

ptease_

inhibit

from

the

instant

case'

reviving

in

.ff*"i-

trr*

public

conlidence

in

the

integrity

,of

the

judiciary;

34.

After

case

would

in

his

court;

all,

the

courth

act

of

inhibiting

from.

the

instant

facl

reduce

his

docket

and

will

eventually

unburden

35.

Finally,

the

rule

on

Judicial

Affidavit

grving

such

oPTIO.N

to

the

accused

is'clear

and

cannot

be

construed

otherwise'

It

is.in

k..pd

*iU,

the

State's

recognition

to

provide

irnportance

on

the

accused,s

constitutional

nghtio

life

and

lU:rty

-Yht1e

the

acbused

must

be

given

every

oppori*rrity

to

"ut*Ufiuf'

his

innocence

and

that

laws

be

construed

in

his

favor6;

l

i'

36.

Moreover,

the

supreme

court

has

ruled'tn

d9"

array

of

cases

that

Court

litigatiot"

*.

primarily,for

ttrelsearch

of.truth'

and

a

liberal

irra*rpr;ation

of

the

rules

by

whic*,',bqth

p.grtiq-s

xe

'tbid.

6

SlPage



38.

More

in

Point

Cheng

us.

SPs,

Wlltiam

is

the

more

recent

Sg

and

?essie

Sg,8

r"i

2009

..t"

of

Anltc

I

glFage

t

,,

f,l'

I

'

I

given

the

ferret

out

legitimate

i,l

,'"

fullest

opportunity

to

ad'd'uce

proofs

is

the

best

way

to

such

truth,

ftr"

ai*pensation

ofiustice-and

vindication

of

;i;;;es

should

not

be

barred'by

technicalitiesT;'

,

i

37.

In

the

case

of

Jose

u'

CA,

the

Court

held:

't:

SurelY,

the

'Rules

of

Court

Ytt:

conceiveO

anA

promulgated

to

aid

aldrnot-

io

obstruct

the

proper

adrninistration

-of

justice,

to

set

iottf,

guidelines

in

-

|h9

ii"p.""ation

of

justicJ

U.r1t

not

to

bind

and

chain

the

hand

that

dispense

justice'

for

otherwise,

courts

will

be

mere

slaves

to

or

robots

of

technical

rules,

shorn

of

judicial

discretion;

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

"rbutrntial

justice

rind

equitY,

as

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

adapt

their

judgments

-

to

the

speiiat

circumstances

of

ctlses,

t'

ffiinodelMundo,G'R'Nos.119964.69,September20,1996

tG.R

No.

L74218,Iuly

7,

2oo9



'.- -rJ

are

incomPetent

to

do

so,

we

thus

rule,

Pro

hac

vice,

in

favor

of

petitioner.(Emphasis

supplisd)

39.

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

40.

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

41.

Considering

partiality,

misreading

-accused

would

like

to

judge

to

inhibit

from

thus:

e

Bachrach

Motor

Co.

Vs.

Summers,

4

Phil'

3

'o

rbid.

:the

actions

of

the

Court

manifesting

bias,

of

explicit

laws

to

favor

adverse

partSr,

the

'reiterate

his

plea

for

the'ho$orable

presiding

the

case

pursuant

to the'

case

of'Ang

Ping'o,

itt

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

by-

irrespoueible

or

improper

conduct

,of

Judges.

l0

lPpge



PTR

No. 7651864

I.B.P,

Lifetime

ROLL

MCLE

III

Cornpliance

Ivlobile

Phone

I

7256

J. Victor St.,

Maka

Tel/Fa>r Nos.

-4e-a9

1468-06-

12

ATTY. z, LuIs

01:

I

1-

13

/

Quezon

City

.

03951

Quezon,City

No.

38963

;

No.

IV-00

18666iiRp.it 26,

2OL3

No.

09286247045

Notlce

of Hearing and

Copy

ACP

ELMER

MAITUET

S"AGSAGO

Handling Public Prosecutor

Office

of

the

City

Prosecirtor

Hall

of

Justice

Baguio

City

furntshed:

'tl

l[,

tub

:ti

ATTY.

ALVIil

A.

CARULTO

Counsel

for

Respondent UM

Suite

1609

t6lF,

Jollibee

Plaz,a

F.

Ortigas

Jr,

Road

(ex-Emerald

Avenue)

Ortigas

Center,

Pasig City

1605

P.O.

Box No.

13143

Tel, Nos,

(02)

631-7554

I laq

706-33i5

Oahl

wt

OFFICE OF

THE

COURT

ANUII{ISTNATOR

SUPREME COURT

Padre

Faura, Manila

Greetings:

.

'

Please

submit

the

foregoing

Urgent

Omnihus Mation'for

the

consideration

and

approval

of

the

Honorable

Qourt

upon

,receipt

hereof,

without

furthir

oral

arguments.

''

\

'{i

;--,

12

lPage

Pio

del

Pilar

Ddlr'.

ftlecr

ffi:

"?q?01

Fn&

q6.re,,

hdqti

C6k4l

b€toLtr

'18,

ul',

:

Aousl

frst

opralcr

idfa{i

ofllal

Dolr:

$cloher

,(,

;,xt,

ffrf

:

rnbb

Fer

4pcc:

llalrdr

Cefikdl

REGISTRY

REcEtpT

,08$



:

l.

i::

ta.

I,

lr

t\

.11

ETTPIANATIOI{

,i

The

foregoinfi

Urgent

Omnibus

Mi,tb;

has

served

by registeied

mail

due

to

distance,

cons[raints,

unpredictable

trallic

situation

and

lack

of

availa

I

-::i--

r

I

l

.,.t-

jr'i

il'.

,i

*

,;

,

|J-..na-f

t7.'

.l*t:

.{T,

r

tl

oKx\t

uww

\

#.

?)

ala't

N

I

13

I

L

I

I

Page

i

l

Documents

Urgent Omnibus Motion Oct 21 2013