Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Republic of the Philippines

12th Judicial Region


MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Hall of Justice
Midsayap, North Cotabato

PEOPLE OF THE PHIIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 10857-18


Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

SAMUEL ENTORUM, ET. AL,,


Accused.
x---------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHIIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 10858-18
Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

MACMAC ENTORUM, ET. AL,,


Accused.
x---------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHIIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 10859-18
Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

SAMUEL ENTORUM, ET. AL,,


Accused.
x---------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHIIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 10860-18
Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

JEFFORD ENTORUM, ET. AL,,


Accused.
x---------------------------------------x

OMNIBUS COMMENT ON THE ACCUSEDS’


MOTION TO QUASH

1
COMES NOW, the People, through the undersigned government
prosecutor, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits his
comment on the Accuseds’ Motion to Quash and further avers:

GROUNDS

I. That the offenses have not yet prescribed; and


II. That the Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the offenses
charged

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The Offenses Have


Not Yet Prescribed

Anent the ground posited by the defense, the undersigned humbly


submits that the two-month prescriptive period for the prosecution of the
said offenses have not yet lapsed but was effectively interrupted on two
separate instances. Firstly, it was tolled when a complaint was lodged
before the barangay for confrontation/mediation proceedings. The same
period was again suspended at the time they were endorsed for filing at the
prosecutorial level for investigation.

The running of the prescriptive period of an offense stops from the


moment the same is brought under the Katarungang Pambarangay. It will
continue to run after the Certification to File Action or the Certificate of
Repudiation is issued. The period of an offense is suspended temporarily
once the complaint is filed before the Barangay Chairman under the
Katarungang Pambarangay.1

As can be gleaned from the records, the complainants lodged a case 2


against the herein respondents before the Office of the Punong Barangay on
January 17, 2018, or a day following the alleged incidents complained of.
The confrontation/ mediation proceedings were terminated 3 only on
January 29, 2018.
1
Section 410, R.A. 7160.
2
See attached copy of Barangay Blotter/ Complaint and Summons dated dated January 17, 2018.
3
See attached copy of Certification to File Action dated January 29, 2018.

2
Thereafter, the complainants endorsed the regular filing of the
corresponding complaints before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Sub-Office in Midsayap on March 19, 2018 which was subscribed and
sworn to in the presence of the undersigned himself. The entire records
were thereafter forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in
Kidapawan for prompt action and disposition.

Evidently, the second tolling of the period happened on March 19,


2018. From the date of their alleged commission up to the filing of the same
before the prosecution office, a period of forty-nine 49 days had elapsed.
The period was held in abeyance pending investigation until it was
summarily resolved and filed on May 04, 2018.

The Court, in PANAGUITON v. DOJ4, citing SEC v. INTERPORT


RESOURCES CORPORATION, et al.5, held that the prescriptive period is
interrupted by the institution of the proceedings for preliminary
investigation against the accused, thus quoted:

“While it may be observed that the term judicial


proceedings in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before
investigation and punishment in the old law, with the
subsequent change in set-up whereby the investigation of
the charge for purposes of prosecution has become the
exclusive function of the executive branch, the term
proceedings should now be understood either executive or
judicial in character: executive when it involves the
investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial
and judgment stage. With this clarification, any kind of
investigative proceeding instituted against the guilty
person which may ultimately lead to his
prosecution should be sufficient to toll prescription .”
(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

4
G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008.
5
G.R. No. 185808, October 6, 2008.

3
In the afore-cited case, the petitioner filed his complaint-affidavit (for
violation of BP 22) with the Office of the City Prosecutor (24 August 1995)
which was resolved only after the aggregate period of nine (9) years had
elapsed.

In ratiocinating, the Court further stated that “Indeed, to rule


otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication
on account of delays that are not under his control. xxx Aggrieved parties,
especially those who do not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their
causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply
because of circumstances beyond their control, like the accuseds delaying
tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.” 6

As applied to the instant cases before this Court, due diligence and
haste were exercised by the private complaining witnesses in seeing to it
that they would have their day in court as borne from the records of this
case.

The Court Has Jurisdiction


Over the Offenses Charged

From the foregoing counter-arguments raised by the undersigned, it


is submitted that the Honorable Court has acquired jurisdiction over the
offense charged. The same being covered by the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure.

In summary, there is no merit on the ground for quashal relied upon


by the defense as the criminal complaints were timely filed well within the
period required by law which finds both compelling legal and
jurisprudential precedence. Prescription cannot be invoked as a catch-all
ground for quashal so as to unduly stifle the rights of the aggrieved.

PRAYER

6
Supra.

4
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the Motion to
Quash of the Accused on the ground of prescription be denied for
lack of merit.

Midsayap, Cotabato for Pigcawayan Cotabato, Philippines,


September 12, 2018.

______________________
Associate Provincial Prosecutor

NOTICE

TO: THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT


Municipal Trial Court
Sadaan, Midsayap, Cotabato

G R E E T I N G S:

Please take notice that the foregoing Omnibus Comment


on the Accuseds’ Motion to Quash will be submitted by the
undersigned for consideration of the Honorable Court.

_____________________
Associate Provincial Prosecutor

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ______________
Counsel for the Accused
Libungan, Cotabato

ATTY. SARAH JANE B. DITUCALAN


Public Attorney’s Office
Midsayap Cotabato

S-ar putea să vă placă și