Page 1 of 5

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Branch 22
General Santos City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 21-34742

Plaintiff,

- versus - - for -

ALLAN DEXTER MANUEL Violation of Sec. 5, Par. (I), RA

ALLEJO, @ALLAN, 9262
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x

COMMENT
(to the Motion to Defer Arraignment dated March 18, 2022)

Private complainant Clairegie Marie T. Llido, through the

undersigned counsel as private prosecutor, and before this Honorable Court,
most respectfully submits this Comment to the Motion to Defer Arraignment
filed by the accused, and in support thereof, avers THAT:

1. The private complainant Clairegie Marie T. Llido (Clairegie for

brevity) received from the accused a copy of their Motion to Defer
Arraignment along with an attached copy of their Petition for Review
before the Department of Justice (DOJ);

2. Private Complainant respectfully opposes the Motion to defer

arraignment on the following grounds:

a) The filing and the service of the accused’s motion to defer

arraignment is defective for failure to follow Section 17, Rule
13 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Court;

b) There is no showing that the Petition for Review was actually

filed;

c) And even Assuming arguendo that the accused’s petition for

review was timely filed, the 60-day period within which the
arraignment may be suspended has already lapsed.

Discussion
 Page 2 of 5

The Filing and Service of the Motion is Defective

3. Under Rule 13, Section 16 of the 2019 Amended Rules of Civil

Procedure,

Proof of filing. – The filing of a pleading or any other court

submission shall be proved by its existence in the record of the
case.

a) xxxx

b) If the pleading or any other court submission was filed by

registered mail, the filing shall be proven by the registry
receipt and by the affidavit of the person who mailed it,
xxxx

4. Additionally, under Rule 13 Section 17,

Proof of service. - xxxx

a) Registered mail. – Proof shall be made by [the] affidavit

mentioned above and the registry receipt issued by the
mailing office.

b) Accredited courier service. – Proof shall be made by an

affidavit of service executed by the person who brought the
pleading or paper to the service provider, together with the
courier’s official receipt or document tracking number.

5. As can be seen from the motion and even on the accused’s Petition for
review before the Department of Justice, there is no showing of the
requirements laid down under the Rules as to Proof of Filing and Service;

6. The Petition for Review before the DOJ as attached to the motion to
Defer Arraignment lacks proof that it was actually filed except on the
mere say so of the accused;

7. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty as to when the 60 th day period of

suspension should have begun;

The 60-day Period of Suspension has already Lapsed

 Page 3 of 5

8. Under Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, upon motion,

arraignment shall be suspended if a petition for review of the
Prosecutor’s resolution is pending either with the DOJ or the Office of
the President. Provided, that the period shall not exceed 60 days from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing office1;

9. Thus, while the pendency of the Petition for Review is indeed a

ground for suspension of arraignment, the deferment of the arraignment
is limited only to 60 days. Rule 16, Section 11 provides, to wit:

Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper

party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following
cases:
xxxx
c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the
President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not
exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition
with the reviewing office.

10.As what the Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Crespo vs
Mogul 2, “…once an Information has been filed in court, the court is the
best and sole judge on how to dispose of the criminal case. Whether the
accused had been arraigned or not and whether there is a review by the
Secretary of Justice resulting in a motion to dismiss filed with the Court,
the Court may either grant the motion or proceed with the criminal case.
The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before
it”;

11.Furthermore, in Trinidad vs. Ang, 641 SCRA 214, G.R. No. 192898
January 31, 2011, the Court explained that while the pendency of a
petition for review is a ground for suspension of the arraignment, the
aforecited provision limits the deferment of the arraignment to a period
of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the reviewing
office. It follows, therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the
trial court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer
arraignment;

1
Trinidad vs. Ang, 641 SCRA 214, G.R. No. 192898 January 31, 2011
2
GR L-53373, 30 June 1987
 Page 4 of 5

12.As stated by the accused in their Motion to defer arraignment, they

had only until March 23, 2022 to file their Petition for Review with the
DOJ. Assuming arguendo that their Petition was filed within that time,
then the 60th day is on May 22, 2022;

13.The Court has been clear and has emphasized that “the right of an
accused to have his arraignment suspended is not an unqualified right.” 3
Thus, after the expiration of the said period, the Honorable Trial Court is
bound to arraign the accused or even deny their motion to defer
arraignment4;

14.In conclusion, as admitted by the accused himself in his defective

motion to defer arraignment, they only had until March 23, 2022 to file a
Petition for Review with the DOJ. Even if we reckon the 60 days from
March 23, 2022, that would have already elapsed; as of this writing, it is
already June 29, 2022. Therefore, the motion to defer the arraignment
must be denied, more so because there is already an order by the
Honorable Court to arraign the accused on July 7, 2022.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, private complainant Clairegie

Marie Tiongosn Llido, through counsel, respectfully prays before the
Honorable Court to DENY the Motion to Defer the Arraignment.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

General Santos City, Philippines. June 29, 2022.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

VLO LAW & NOTARIAL OFFICES

Door 7, 2nd Flr, Yusepeng Bldg.,
National Highway, General Santos City
9500 Philippines
(083) 825-1389/ (+63)9173103624

3
Supra Note 1
4
Supra Note 3; Hao vs. People, 735 SCRA 312, G.R. No. 183345 September 17, 2014
 Page 5 of 5

clvlaw@yahoo.com

CARMELO L. VALENZUELA, JR.

Roll No. 55045
PTR No. 0034527-JAN-4-2022-GSC
IBP No. 196261-JAN-5-2022
GENERAL SANTOS CITY CHAPTER
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0021400
(April 11, 2019)

Copy Furnished:

HON. CITY PROSECUTOR

City Prosecution Office,
General Santos City

ATTY. CLINT L. ESTANDARTE

Counsel for the Accused
Gonzales Batiller Bilog Leabres & Reyes
Unit B, 7th Floor, ALPAP I Bldg.,
140 L.P. Leviste St., Salcedo Village
Makati City