Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch __, _____________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

versus Crim. Case No. 00-92083

___________________ et al.
Accused.
x-------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION

Accused, unto this Honorable Court, by way of opposition to the

Prosecution’s Motion to allow the Prosecution to present Albert Francisco before
formally offering its evidence, most respectfully avers:

1. Prior to the above-mentioned motion by the prosecution an Order was

issued by this Honorable Court on March 8, 2006 for the provisional dismissal of
the case since Albert Francisco failed to appear on the said date to testify despite
a notice sent to him.;

2. On March 13, 2006 another order was issued by this Honorable Court
giving the prosecution 15 days to submit its formal offer of evidence. The
prosecution also filed a motion for clarification on the same date;

3. On April 5 this Honorable court set aside the order for provisional
dismissal of the case and the prosecution was given another 30 days to formally
offer its evidence;

4. Prior to the absence of Albert Francisco on March 8, 2006 he was also

absent on several occasions that he was supposed to be presented as a witness
by the prosecution thus causing unreasonable delay to the case which has been
on trial for 5 years already;

5. The repeated absence of the intended prosecution witness Alberto

Francisco belies his claim in his affidavit that he is very much interested in the
prosecution of the case and that his absence is not intentional;
 6. The repeated postponement of the case in order to afford the
prosecution an opportunity to present Albert Francisco was vigorously objected
to by the undersigned counsel;

7. Despite the opportunities and warnings given by the Honorable Court,

the prosecution still failed to present Albert Francisco thus prolonging the case to
the prejudice of the accused;

8. That to allow the motion of the prosecution would be extremely

prejudicial to the accused who is a detention prisoner since it would further delay
the proceedings and would be in violation of his constitutional right to speedy
trial;

9. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of People vs. Jardin 124 SCRA
167: “That the accused is free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays
is important. Its salutary objective is to assure that an innocent person may be
free from anxiety and expense of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his
guilt determined within the shortest possible time compatible with the
presentation and consideration of whatever legitimate defense he may
interpose”;

10. Considering the unjust delays in the trial brought about by the constant
absence of prosecution witness Alberto Francisco, who was supposed to take
the witnessed stand as early as July 22, 2002, the prosecution should not be
allowed to present further witnesses as it would violate the constitutional right of
the accused to speedy trial and instead the prosecution be directed to formally
offer their evidence or in the alternative, the case be ordered dismiss on the
ground of violation of accused constitutional right to speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed, that the

instant Opposition be NOTED and that the Prosecution’s motion to present Albert
Francisco before formally offering their evidence be DENIED.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, May 10, 2006.

 By:

___________________________
Counsel for the Accused

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE CLERK OF COURT

RTC __, ________

Greetings! Please take notice that the undersigned shall submit the
foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt hereof.

Copy furnished:

ACP __________________
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR