A.M. No. MTJ-02-1426 - ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAXWEL R. ROSETE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 58, SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, his cash bond was confiscated in favor of the government. The motion to quash was then declared submitted for resolution; [4] c) From May 21, 1998 to July 14, 1998; [5] July 14, 1998 to September 23, 1998; [6] September 23, 1998 to October 26, 1998 [7] By agreement of the parties, the hearings on these dates were postponed; d) From October 26, 1998 to December 9, 1998 The accused Lim was indisposed and the hearing was cancelled without any objection from the prosecution; [8] e) From December 9, 1998 to February 3, 1999 The accused were given the opportunity to settle the civil aspect of the case. The trial court granted the prosecutions request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum to the Bureau of Customs, through its authorized representative, to testify and to bring to the court the complete records of the importation made by Toys for the Big Boys, involving a 1997 Ford Expedition vehicle (#1043), black color, VIN # 1FMFL 186 VLB 73056, which was covered by a bill of lading issued by Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line (NYK) under Doc. No. BOI N-2966 TWRA 107. [9] f) From February 3, 1999 to May 4, 1999 There was no proof that the representative of the Bureau of Customs received a copy of the notice of trial; [10] g) From May 4, 1999 to June 8, 1999 The hearing was cancelled due to the absence of both accused Lim (who was sick) and Barrameda (who was out of town) without any objection from the prosecution; [11] h) From June 8, 1999 to July 19, 1999 Another postponement was made by agreement of the parties and their counsels and because Pairing Judge Leodegario C. Quilatan had to attend to an official business; [12] i) From July 19, 1999 to September 13, 1999 The hearing was cancelled at the instance of the defense because of the possibility that the accused would settle the civil aspect of the case, without any objection from the prosecution; [13] j) From September 13, 1999 to October 18, 1999 Both the prosecution and the defense jointly moved for the postponement of the trial ; [14] k) From October 18, 1999 to December 8, 1999 The hearing was again postponed upon motion of the defense without any objection from the prosecution. Moreover, upon motion by the defense, the District Collector of the Bureau of Customs, MICP, North Harbor, Manila, was directed to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court for his non-appearance during the hearing; [15] l) From December 8, 1999 to February 9, 2000 The District Collector of the Formal Entry Division of the Manila International Container Port in Manila failed to appear despite notice. As a consequence, the subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum were served anew. [16] On February 9, 2000, the private prosecutor, with the approval of the public prosecutor and without any objection from the defense, moved for the postponement of the trial to April 12, 2000. In granting the same, respondent said: On motion of Atty. Ricard