A.M. No. RTJ-94-1209 - REYMUALDO BUZON, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO.

Ruling

accordingly recalled the warrant of arrest (Exhibit 5) on February 25, 1991 after the accused had posted the required bond. It is worthwhile stating that the Motion for Bail was granted without a hearing nor comment from the prosecution. Accused was subsequently arraigned on March 8, 1991 (Exhibit 6, supra) and trial was set for several postponed hearings at the instance of both the prosecution and the accused (Exhibits 7, 7-a, 8, and 8-a, supra). On February 10, 1992, the prosecution submitted a Motion to Cancel Bail Bond (Exhibit 10, supra) alleging, inter alia, that the Information filed was tampered because the Information originally stated No Bail Recommended. However, the word No was snowpaked and the figures P50,000.00 added after the word recommended, to read: BAIL RECOMMENDED: P50,000.00. The prosecution went further asserting that the offense of Murder is punishable by Reclusion Perpetua where bail is not a matter of right. Accused initially filed his opposition through his lawyer H. J. Pablo, III (Exhibit 11, supra). Later, Atty. Moises A. Samson posted a Notice of Appearance (Exhibit 12, supra) as co-defense counsel simultaneously requesting for time to submit supplemental opposition to the Motion To Cancel Bail and the postponement of the scheduled hearings of the case. The supplemental opposition was not at all filed (,) neither was the Motion to Cancel Bail Bond resolved by the respondent even until after the prosecution had rested its case on September 23, 1992 (Exhibit 24, supra). Alongside with (sic) the prosecutions resting its case, in open court the accused was granted leave of court to file a Demurrer to Evidence. Nonetheless, on October 5, 1992, what the accused filed was a formal Motion For Leave to File Motion to Dismiss By Way of Demurrer To Evidence (Exhibit 25, supra) which surprisingly was met by the prosecution with an Opposition to Demurrer to Evidence. Adding to the miscommunication, the respondent denied the Demurrer to Evidence in its Order of October 15, 1992 (Exhibit 27, supra). Anyway, on November 12, 1992, the accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Exhibit 29, supra) stating that: 1) he has not yet filed a Demurrer to Evidence as what he had submitted was only a simple Motion For Leave to file one (Demurrer to Evidence); and 2) that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to convict the accused. The prosecution opposed the motion claiming that the accused tried to put one over the court when he stated that he has not yet filed a Demurrer to Evidence and that the defense allegation that the prosecutions evidence is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is contrary to the facts on record. On December 2, 1992, (Exhibit 32, supra) the Motion for Reconsideration was granted in such a way that the accused was given ten (10) days to file a Demurrer to Evidence which was ultimately filed on December 19, 1992 (Exhibit 33, supra). Eventually, the Demur