Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Angeles City, Branch 56
Province of Pampanga

Alvin L. Cuason,
Petitioner,

~ versus ~ SCA Civil Case No. 07-206

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

and HONORABLE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT OF ANGELES CITY,
BRANCH 3,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Comment

PETITIONER-ACCUSED, through counsel, most

respectfully alleges that:

1. Grave abuse of discretion is easily

inferred from the flip-flopping decision of the
respondent court, ultimately depriving the
petitioner-accused of his Constitutional rights.
Private prosecutors insistence that the discretion
was not abused because it is within the ambit of
judicial discretion to relax the rules of
technicalities, is out of context. We are praying
for the respondent court as well as this Honorable
Court to afford petitioner-accused his
Constitutional right and to render justice.

2. The irregularities which private prosecutor

failed to see is the fact that the petitioner-
accuseds confidence with the respondent courts
independence has been eroded due to the undue delay
of the criminal proceedings and for seemingly being
controlled by the private prosecutor.

3. Petitioner-accuseds statement in paragraph

3 of the petition for certiorari is true.
Petitioner-accused never received a subpoena from
the respondent court. The address indicated
therein is not the true address of the petitioner-
accused. It is quite impossible for the
petitioner-accused to have a copy of the subpoena
when his address indicated therein is erroneous.

4. During the hearing of the insolvency case

sometime in November 2005 by RTC Branch 58, Atty.
Augusto G. Panlilio gave petitioner counsel a copy
of the said subpoena. In fact, the trial court
judge of RTC Branch 58 instructed the undersigned
counsel to call petitioner to determine exactly his
whereabouts and address, showing that as of that
date, the respondent court had failed to serve the
subpoena.

5. Petitioner-accused, in the petition for

certiorari, simply narrated the summary of facts in
the respondent courts criminal cases 05-1026 and
05-1027. Petitioner-accused never intended to
mislead this Honorable Court by omitting the reason
for the cancellation of the hearing but pointed out
that B.P. 22 is summary in nature, and the

2
proceeding was not only being unusually prolonged
but also taxing to the accused, contrary to the
concept of the speedy trial act.

6. Petitioner-accused had been religiously

attending his trial dates (from the 1st arraignment
date up to the last). True, the minutes of the
trial dated January 5, 2007 (5th arraignment) were
not signed by the petitioner nor his counsel
because petitioner and counsel were already there
as early as 7:00 a.m. coming from Manila.
Petitioner and counsel were simply informed by the
court personnel that the Judge was absent due to an
important agenda at the Supreme Court. In fact the
calendar outside the court made such announcement.
Eager to come back to Manila, petitioner and
counsel could not wait until 8:30 a.m. for the
court to open and sign the attendance sheet.

7. Due to the many cancellations of the

arraignment schedule, the petitioner and counsel
deemed it wise to call the respondent court a day
before the sixth arraignment set on March 16, 2007
to save money, time and effort going to Pampanga. A
court personnel informed us again that the trial
set for March 16, 2007 was postponed due to the
absence of the Public Prosecutor. Further, the
court personnel told us that we will just receive a
notice of the next hearing date.

8. Although the law provides that it is the

public prosecutor who has control and supervision

3
of the criminal prosecution, it is evident that the
private prosecutor calls the shots and controls the
prosecution in the case.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this

Comment be noted and the Petition for Certiorari be
given due course and that judgment be rendered
nullifying the Orders of the respondent Judge dated
April 2 and September 28, 2007 and ordering the
Municipal Trial Court Branch 3 of Angeles City,
Pampanga to proceed with the Criminal Case no. 05-
1026 and 1027. Petitioner prays for other relief
just and equitable under the premises.

Makati City for Angeles City, February 23,

2007.

MRREYES & ASSOCIATES

Suite 501 One Corporate Plaza
845 Arnaiz Ave., Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

by:

JACK L. A. DE VERA
PTR No. 0988794; 1.7.08; Makati City
IBP Lifetime Membership No.05349
Attorneys Roll No. 51124

4
Copy furnished:

THE CLERK OF COURT

MTC Branch 3, Makati City

HON. PERCIVAL ATINAJA

Public Prosecutor
City Prosecutor Angeles City

ATTY. AUGUSTO PANLILIO

No. 7 Lachica Bldg., Diamond Subd.
Balibago, Angeles City

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari

are sent to the parties by registered mail,
personal service being impracticable in view of the
limited availability of a messenger and time
constraint.

Jack A. De Vera