Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region
Angono, Rizal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case Nos. 19-074

Plaintiff, and 19-075

---versus----

PAULINO CRUZ, ET.AL.,

Accused.
x……………………………………..x

COMMENT TO THE LETTER OF OSCAR LEON

COMES NOW, ACCUSED, through counsel and to this Honorable Court

respectfully states:

1. On 20 February 2020, Accused received a copy of the Resolution

issued by the Honorable Court dated 14 February 2020.

2. The fallo of the Resolution states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Voluntary

Inhibition is DENIED while the Motion to Quash Amended
Information is GRANTED. Criminal Cases Nos. 19-074 for Simple
Slander and 19-075 for Unjust Vexation are ordered DISMISSED.”

3. Without furnishing a copy to the Accused and, obviously, without any

conformity from the Honorable Public Prosecutor Edwin Infante, private
complainant OSCAR LEON filed a letter manifesting his disagreement
with the Resolution even as he “apologize and plead for understanding
for any impropriety or discourtesy, and I leave to the Public Prosecutor
to make final decision on the disposition of this personal Appeal, to
discard or amend or have it properly recognized by the Court.

4. During the clarificatory in-court hearing on 14 July 2020, the Honorable

Court invited the attention of the prosecution and defense to the letter of
Oscar.

5. When pressed by the Court, the public prosecutor manifested that he has
not received a copy of the letter. He, however, is adopting Oscar’s letter

1
 as the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 14 February 2020
Resolution.

6. In view of the position of the prosecutor, Accused asked for a period of

ten (10) days to submit a comment to the letter.

7. Hence, this Comment.

ISSUE

8. In the main, the issue in this case is whether or not the letter merits a
reversal of the February 14, 2020 Resolution of the Honorable Court
granting dismissal of the twin cases.

9. Accused respectfully submits that the letter of Oscar Leon deserves scant
consideration.

ARGUMENTS,
DISQUISITION AND CONFABULATION

The Resolution has long become final and

Oscar’s letter does not conform to the rules as it
is a mere scrap of paper which does not
effectively tolled the fifteen-day period within
which the state may file a motion for
reconsideration.

10. Under the Rules, the State must file a Motion for Reconsideration within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of the assailed Resolution

11. Unfortunately, in these cases, there was no proper motion nor appeal that
was filed by the public prosecutor when he received a copy of the
Resolution. It is beyond cavil that the Resolution is a final order which
effectively disposed of the cases, their dismissal being grounded on
prescription.

12. The records are bereft of any Motion for Reconsideration seasonably
filed by the public prosecutor.

2
13. May the unverified letter cum manifestation by private complainant be
considered a proper substitute for the required formal Motion for
Reconsideration?

14. The answer is a big NO.

15. Else, we will be violating a truckload of the provisions of the Rules of

Court and the fundamental tenet of the right to due process of law
afforded to the Accused in criminal proceedings.

16. The letter of Oscar Leon miserably fails to impress.

17. Any written motion, under the rules must comply with the mandatory
requirements laid under the rules which demand a notice of hearing.

18. The aforesaid provision requires that every motion shall be addressed to
all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing.
A reconsideration being a litigated motion, the aforesaid rule should
have been complied with. Its noncompliance renders it defective.

19. The Rule is settled that a motion in violation thereof is pro forma and a
mere scrap of paper.

20. The Letter of Oscar Leon filed on Ferbruary 28, 2020 presents no
question which the court could decide upon. In fact, and with due
respect, the court has NO reason to consider it let alone set it for
clarificatory hearing; neither does the clerk of court have the right to
receive the same.

21. Palpably, the unverified letter which does not even bear the conformity
of the public prosecutor is nothing but a mere scrap of paper deserving
no judicial cognizance. Hence, the motion deserves a short shrift and
peremptory denial for being manifestly defective.

22. As such, it does not toll the running of the reglementary period thus
making the assailed Resolution final and executory.

23. Considering that the control and prosecution of the case lies with the
Public Prosecutor, even his belated manifestation of conformity last July
14, 2020 could no longer cure the defect so as to have the letter
effectively suspended the finality of the Resolution.

3
24. As a matter of fact, even on July 14, 2020, the honorable fiscal faulted
Oscar for failing to see him at his office when the Resolution was issued
and for them to discuss their appropriate remedy.

25. The public prosecutor disclosed that even up to the date of clarificatory
hearing, he has no copy of the letter of Oscar. Here, we cannot allow a
mere witness for the state acting as a very loose cannon and doing things
the way he sees fit in these twin cases.

26. Verily, more than fifteen (15) days have long lapsed prior to the
clarificatory hearing made on July 14, 2020 for the prosecution to
resuscitate and attempt to breathe life to a very late reconsideration
thereof.

A REFUTATION
OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT’S ARGUMENTS

27. In his own words, Private complainant claims that there are
“circumstances and matters that may not be known or the significance
perhaps overlooked” by the Honorable Court in issuing the 14 February
2020 Resolution.

28. In a jumbled sort of way, Private Complainant went on to state these so-
called circumstances and matters which in his estimation were not
known or the significance thereof were overlooked.

“ Firstly …Private Complainant Oscar Leon has timely brought

the matter to the Barangay Lupon. Hence, the tolling of the
prescriptive period took effect on said time.”

29. We have no quarrel with Mr. Leon’s submission that the very act of
filing of the complaint before the Lupon tolls the prescriptive period.
However, it is with equal force and consideration to state and underscore
that there is likewise no dispute that the very legal provisions creating
and vesting powers to the Barangay to conduct conciliation proceedings
as a pre-condition to filing complaints before the Prosecutor’s Office
clearly limit the suspension or tolling of the period only within a period
of sixty (60) days and not forever.

4
30. Oscar portrays himself as helpless and that he has no control with the
delay in the barangay level. He attempts to pass the buck and absolves
himself of any blame for the delay of the proceedings in the barangay
which ultimately caught up with the sixty-day period, ratiocinating in
this wise:

“ Allow me to aver that I am obliged by law to file the necessary

complaint/information to the Barangay Lupon having
jurisdiction…I am at a loss that the deadlines for the barangay to
finish cases within 60 days is a burden with the complainant, who
has no control over it, and that he could also be made
answerable.”

31. Based on the above, Complainant blames the Lupon for the delay which
he claims has not control of the process. Complainant however cannot
just simply plead ignorance of the time bar and time limitations when he
filed his complaint. It behooves him to know these time limitations as he
himself has voluntarily filed serious accusations against accused before
the Barangay. For him to now plead ignorance of the rules is totally
unacceptable.

32. True, complainants are precluded from filing the complaint immediately
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal without resorting
first to the Barangay. However, this is not an iron-clad rule and admits of
exceptions. One such exception is when the offense complained of is
about to prescribe.

33. Here, Oscar is not entirely powerless. The law allows him to dispense
with the proceedings before the barangay and he is in fact encouraged to
file his complaints before the Prosecutor on the ground that the delay put
his complaints within the pale of the exceptions- that the offenses
complained of is about to prescribe. This he did not do.

34. Oscar claims he has no knowledge of the prescription period and the
judicial process has not found it necessary to so inform litigants. This is
a creative defense but not entirely novel. The courts have had numerous
occasions to state that ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance thereof. Especially in cases involving mandatory provisions
on institution of offenses and statutes of limitations, Oscar is presumed
to know the law and cannot conveniently feign ignorance whenever it
suits him.

35. As a complainant charging several serious accusations against another,

the filing of a complaint is not a leisurely stroll in the park but a very
serious affair. Complainant is required to take upon himself the duty of

5
 informed himself on all the legal nuances arising from his act of filing a
complaint and it is not for him to lay blame on the judicial process for
failing to give litigants the heads-up.

36. In fine, Oscar submitted the letter actuated with improper motive. In
reality, he cannot just simply accept defeat and he has filed these cases
merely to vent his spleen in connection with his perceived long-running
albeit petty grievances against accused.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, and for

utter lack of merit, it is hereby prayed that the Honorable Court will now please
have the letter be STRICKEN OFF THE RECORD for being a mere scrap of
paper and the reconsideration sought be DENIED.

OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable, under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED at Makati City, Philippines for Angono,

Rizal, Philippines this 20th day of July 2020.

__________________________________________
ATTY. JORICO F. BAYAUA
Counsel for both Accused

Copy furnished:

ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR EDWIN INFANTE

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal
Cabrera Road, Barangay Dolores
Taytay, Rizal

OSCAR LEON
38 Avocado Street, Aurora Subdivision
Barangay Kalayaan, Angono, Rizal

EXPLANATION WHY PERSONAL

SERVICE WAS NOT AVAILED OF

Affidavit of Verification