Cited Laws
accordingly act on the pending Motion to Plea Bargain. However, there is nothing in the case records which shows that accused filed any Motion to Plea Bargain. Notwithstanding, the subject court issued the Order dated 4 September 2018, directing the accused to undergo a drug dependency examination despite the absence of any corresponding Motion to Plea Bargain, and granting that the said Motion was filed, the said Order was issued prior to the ruling of the same. 23 14-141-G Pp. vs. Roy Sereno 8-7-14 Prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits for the Petition for Bail was filed on 6-25-15. Order dated 4-28-16, admitting the said Formal Offer of Exhibits, and submitting for resolution the Petition for Bail (defense waived the presentation of its evidence). Motion for Reconsideration on the Order dated 4-28-16 was received on 6-3-16, regarding the proper marking of exhibits on the formal offer. Order dated 6-10-16, granting the said Motion for Reconsideration. Order dated 3-20-17, denying the Motion for Bail. There was inordinate delay of almost one (1) year in the issuance of the ruling on the prosecution's Formal Offer of Exhibits. Likewise, there was also inordinate delay of close to a year in resolving the Petition for Bail which was submitted for resolution on 28 April 2016, but was only decided on 20 March 2017. 24 19-123-C Pp. vs. Jannelo Bulandres 6-19-19 Motion to Release Impounded Motorcycle to its Registered Owner was filed on 7-26-16. Order dated 7-29-19, granting the said Motion. There was inordinate delay of three (3) years in resolving the said Motion. 25-26 04-051-G and 04-052-G Pp. vs. Vicente Vergara 6-24-04 Motion for Reduction of Bail (from P200,000.00 to PI00,000.00) was filed on 9-24-04. Order dated 12-2-04, denying the said Motion. A copy of the saic Order was personally received on 12-10-04 by Atty. Jasper Adrian P. Cadelina, counsel of record of the accused. Accused's Motion for Reconsideration on the Order dated 12-2-04 was filed on 3-21-05. Order dated 3-22-05, granting the said Motion for Reconsideration. Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration was filed by public prosecutor Eleccion on 4-8-05. Motion for Further Reduction of Bail (from P100,000.00 to P60,000.00) was filed on 8-11-05. Order dated 10-11-05, granting the said Motion. Upon perusal of the case records, it reveals that the public prosecutor on record was public prosecutor Ethyl B. Eleccion who was the one furnished a copy of the Motion for Reduction of Bail that she receivec on 2 Decembei 2004. She was also the public prosecutor during the arraignment of the accused, as well as during the conduct of the Pre-Trial and the initial trial. However, in resolving the said Motion for Reduction of Bail, the said public prosecutor was not required by the subject court to submit her Comment/ Opposition thereon. Interestingly, in the hearing on the said Motion for Reconsideration on 22 March 2005, public prosecutor Eleccion was not present. In her stead was public pros
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 - CESINA EBALLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ESTRELLITA M.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365
CaseA.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
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1426
CaseA.M. No. RTJ-17-2503 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, VS. HON. FERNANDO F. FLOR, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 28, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAYOMBONG, NUEVA VIZCAYA.
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2503