Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Case 2013-001_Decision 12072013

Case 2013-001_Decision 12072013

Ratings: (0)|Views: 481 |Likes:
The Court's decision on the Consolidated Motion for a Bill of Particulars and for an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions filed by Andre Miko Alazas, Lead Counsel of Marvin Lagonera (Respondent)
The Court's decision on the Consolidated Motion for a Bill of Particulars and for an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions filed by Andre Miko Alazas, Lead Counsel of Marvin Lagonera (Respondent)

More info:

Published by: Ateneo Student Judicial Court on Dec 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
The 
 
C  J
 T
HE
O
FFICIAL
 J
UDICIAL
 A
RM
 
of the
S
 ANGGUNIÁN NG MGA
M
 AG
-A
 ARAL NG MGA
P
 ÁARALÁNG
L
OYÓLA NG
 A
 TENÉO DE
M
 ANILA
 
TUDENT UDICIAL OURT
 
S
 
ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola Schools Barangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS OF Case No. 2013-001 THE LOYOLA SCHOOLS Petitioner represented by
CHIEF PROSECUTOR
CLYDE Promulgated: MARAMBA,
PROSECUTORS 
 December 7, 2013 BEATRIZ BEATO, ROBERT MARI IBAY, JULIA DARYL LENARZ, MAGDALENA MARIE PINEDA, JIEGO MICHAEL TANCHANCO, CRISTINE MARIE VILLARUEL,
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
JAYVY GAMBOA, AND
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
PATRICK JOSEPH NG versus
SOSS SECRETARY-TREASURER
MARVIN LAGONERA Respondent
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
TO: Mr. Andre Miko Alazas,
 Lead Counsel for Mr. Lagonera (Respondent)
CC: Mr. Clyde Maramba,
Chief Prosecutor
 
 
2
The 
 
C  J
 T
HE
O
FFICIAL
 J
UDICIAL
 A
RM
 
of the
S
 ANGGUNIÁN NG MGA
M
 AG
-A
 ARAL NG MGA
P
 ÁARALÁNG
L
OYÓLA NG
 A
 TENÉO DE
M
 ANILA
 
TUDENT UDICIAL OURT
 
S
 
IN RE:
Consolidated Motion for a Bill of Particulars and for an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions
ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT DECISION 12072013
The facts of the case are as follows: On 2 December 2013, the Ateneo Student Judicial Court
(hereinafter referred to as “the Court” for
brevity), received a consolidated impeachment complaint from Mr. Clyde Maramba, Chief Prosecutor, et
al. (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioners”, containing six (6) impeachment charges against Mr.
Marvin Lagonera, SOSS Secretary-
Treasurer (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent”).
 
Article XIII Section 10a of the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools
 
(hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”) states:
 
Section 10.
Procedures on Accountability
(a) The Student Judicial Court shall order investigations of cases of impeachment and recall at its own discretion or on the basis of written complaints from any member of the student body
within seven regular school days
. The JC shall then decide whether to initiate impeachment or recall proceedings or not. Should the Student Judicial Court fail to meet this deadline, complaints shall be automatically dismissed.
 (emphasis ours)
implying that the Court is given until 11 December 2013 (counting Faculty Day, 6 December 2013 as a school holiday and Saturday, 7 December 2013 as a regular school day) to render a decision on acceptance or rejection of the consolidated impeachment complaint based on its judicial merits. On 4 December 2013, a summons notifying the Respondent of the consolidated impeachment complaint and a copy of the said complaint were officially delivered to the Respondent at 3:20 pm in Ricardo and Dr. Rosita Leong Hall, Room 407, as attested by the Affidavit of Service submitted by Clerk-of-Court Paolo Sta. Isabel.
Section 5.2.1 of the 2007 Rules of Court
 state that:
5.2.1 Acceptance of Petition
If the Student Judicial Court decides to accept the petition, the hearing on the petition, if the court decides to conduct a hearing, shall be held no later than seven days after the said decision. Before coming to a decision of whether to accept the petition for review or consideration, the court shall inform the parties named and from the time the parties are informed,
three days are to be given for any motions to the court
.
 (emphasis ours)
implying that the Respondent is given three days (72 hours) from official receipt of the complaint to file a reply and/or motions, that is to say until 7 December 2013 at 3:20 pm. The certified copies of the Appendices and Affidavits cited in footnotes throughout the consolidated impeachment complaint were not given to the Respondent.
 
 
3
The 
 
C  J
 T
HE
O
FFICIAL
 J
UDICIAL
 A
RM
 
of the
S
 ANGGUNIÁN NG MGA
M
 AG
-A
 ARAL NG MGA
P
 ÁARALÁNG
L
OYÓLA NG
 A
 TENÉO DE
M
 ANILA
 
TUDENT UDICIAL OURT
 
S
 
On 6 December 2013, the Court received a consolidated motion for a Bill of Particulars and an Extension of the Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions filed by Mr. Andre Miko Alazas, lead counsel for the Respondent.
The said consolidated motion prays for an “extension of the deadline
for at least five (5) days
for the filing of replies and other motions regarding the complaints
” in order to give the Respondent and his counsel “
ample time to prepare [their] defense, given the expected high volume of documents pertaining to the case
.”
 
The consolidated motion also prays “t
hat all documents pertaining to all parts of the case, such as, but not limited to, affidavits (including those submitted to the prosecutors but not cited in the main complaints), appendices, the Rules of Court of the Student Judicial Court, official documents used by the prosecution (such as its own copy of the 2005 Sanggunian Constitution, as well as its own copy of other public documents used in the main complaints), and evidence be furnished to him [the Respondent]
through his counsel.”
The case before us concerns only the Consolidated Motion for a Bill of Particulars and an Extension of the
Deadline for Reply and/or Filing of Motions, filed by the Respondent’s lead counsel, where he requests
that a copy of all the documents pertinent to the case be given to the Respondent, and that an extension of the deadline for filing replies and/or motions be granted on the grounds of giving the Respondent more time to prepare for his defense and examine the documents expected to be given to them. On the matter concerning the request for all documents pertinent to the case, and in the spirit of transparency and fairness,
it is the decision of the Court to furnish the Respondent soft copies of the following items in possession of the Court:
 
 
The 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools, Annotated (Constitution)
 
The 2007 Rules of Court (RoC)
 
The 2011 Ateneo Student Judicial Court Code of Internal Procedures (SJC CIP)
 
The 2013 Sanggunian Central Board Code of Internal Procedures (CB CIP)
 
Affidavit of Service submitted by Paolo Sta. Isabel, Clerk-of-Court The Court, however, cannot furnish some of the documents cited as evidence in the consolidated impeachment complaint, as is explained
infra
. The consolidated motion prayed for a Bill of Particulars. The motion asserts that the
Respondent “
has the right to read the allegations against him and the basis thereof
in full
, in accordance with his right to due
process.” Arguing that the right to read the allegations against the Respondent and the basis thereof in
full necessarily means receiving all documents cited as evidence in footnotes and appendices (evidence including but not limited to affidavits), the motion cites the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines, in GR. No. 149375,
Mercado vs. People,

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->