DIGEST/ ANDRINO / RONALD GERALINO M. LIM and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners vs. EDWIN M. LIM, Respondent/2019

 

Facts:

Ronald Geralino M. Lim (Ronald) filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor a Complaint for grave threats against his brother Edwin M. Lim (Edwin). Acting favorably on the Complaint, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information against Edwin before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City.On arraignment, Edwin pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

The case was then referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for mediation. But due to the parties' failure to reach a settlement, the case was referred back to the court.  On August 12, 2013, the case was set for pre-trial.1âшphi1 However, because of Ronald's and his counsel's absence, pre-trial was reset to September 5, 2013.  After Edwin's counsel had filed a Motion for time to submit a counter-affidavit, pre-trial was again reset to October 17, 2013. On October 17, 2013, the defense counsel moved that the hearing be set at 10:00 a.m. However, because the private prosecutor was unavailable and the prosecution needed time to submit their judicial affidavits, pre-trial was reset to November 21, 2013 at 8:30 a.m.  At the pre-trial on November 21, 2013, the prosecution, among others, moved that they be allowed to submit the Judicial Affidavits of Ronald and their witnesses later that day. It explained that it had completed the Judicial Affidavits earlier, but "for whatever reason," was not able to submit them. Despite the defense counsel's insistent opposition, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities granted the Motion and gave the prosecution until 5:00 p.m. that day to submit the judicial affidavits.

Aggrieved, Edwin moved for reconsideration. He argued that the prosecution was deemed to have waived its right to submit its Judicial Affidavits when it failed to submit them at least five (5) days before pretrial. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits.

Ruling:

the Municipal Trial Court in Cities committed grave abuse of discretion in blatantly disregarding the clear wording of A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, or the Judicial Affidavit Rule. The Rule is explicit: the prosecution is mandated to submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five (5) days before pre-trial. Should they fail to submit them within the time prescribed, they shall be deemed to have waived their submission. Section 9 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule provides:

SECTION 9. Application of Rule to Criminal Actions. - (a) This rule shall apply to all criminal actions:

. . . .

(b) The prosecution shall submit the judicial affidavits of its witnesses not later than five days before the pre-trial, serving copies of the same upon the accused. The complainant or public prosecutor shall attach to the affidavits such documentary or object evidence as he may have marking them as Exhibits A, B, C, and so on. No further judicial affidavit, documentary, or object evidence shall be admitted at the trial.

. . . .

SECTION 10. Effect of Non-Compliance with the Judicial Affidavit Rule. - (a) A party who jails to submit the required judicial affidavits and exhibits on time shall be deemed to have waived their submission. The court may, however, allow only once the late submission of the same provided, the delay is for a valid reason, would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court.

Nevertheless, if the belated submission of judicial affidavits has a valid reason, the court may allow the delay once as long as it "would not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more than P5,000.00, at the discretion of the court."71

Here, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities allowed the prosecution's belated submission of their Judicial Affidavits despite the repeated postponements of the scheduled pre-trial. To recall, the pre-trial was reset thrice: from August 12, 2013 to September 5, 2013, then to October 17, 2013, and finally, to November 21, 2013. In spite of that, the prosecution failed to submit their Judicial Affidavits within the time prescribed by the Rule. Its excuse-"for whatever reason"-cannot be considered sufficient to allow the belated submission of the Judicial Affidavits.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more