REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH Judicial Region

Branch 96, Barili, Cebu

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

PLAINTIFF, CRIM. CASE NO. CEB-BRL-6252

-versus- for: FRUSTRATED MURDER

JUNREY GINGOYON AFRICANO,

ACCUSED,

x-----------------------------------------/

Prayer for implementation of R.A. 8493 “SPEEDY TRIAL Act of 1998” and other,
I MARK EDWARD P. OROPEZA of legal age, is the same person whose name appeared in the
information and as private complainant as Mark Panoy Oropeza, a resident of Sitio Ilaya, Brgy.
Matutinao, Badian, Cebu. Do hereby pray before the honorable court to implement R.A 8493
“Speedy trial act of 1998”.

On ground of on-going adjudication of judgment of this case, lengthy trials already

prolonged my agony as victim of frustrated murder, as well as damaged to my farm with great
losses, and a sore experience for the dispense of justice due to undue delay personally in this court.

While a traumatic experience is a lifelong burden,

Grounds for prayer of speedy trials,

1. That the main issue is undue delay as evident on the record of this case.
2. Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. 02-2-07 SC (Prosecution of Criminal
cases under the direction and control of the Public Prosecutor) – as long as Rule 119 exist
the prosecutor(public/private) still cannot reason out undue delay of prosecution by reason
of congested docket and calendar of cases.
Rule 119 states shorter period of trials or as authorised by the Court.– but the court has to
ensure that it would not cripple the end of justice by delay. 180 days time limit...Sec.6. of R.A
8493
3. Rule 119 sec.3, there is no evidence that such exclusion be seen anywhere in the record of
this case, that may exempt delay.
4. There is nowhere in the law, circulars other than 180 days, that a reset be made because
there is no more time.
5. That there is evidence of tardiness of the former public prosecutor (Atty. Joyce Adlao)
without stating her reason of tardiness.
6. There is an evidence of deliberate forum shopping and the court noted that manifestation of
the defendant counsel Atty. Olegario Sarmiento Jr. (It took six months of delay).
 7. There is a frequent postponement and resetting of the dates for various reason, so that it
took a gospel of two years before disposal.

In MURPHY CHU/ATGAS TRADERS and MARINELLE P. CHU, vs. Assisting Judge Capellan (A.M. No.
MTJ-11-1779), Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that judges
should administer justice without delay.It opines that the (respondent Judge) should have facilitated
the prompt disposition of the subject case and refrained from postponing and resetting the case for
preliminary conference several times.

Briones, J.:

[Sound practice requires a judge to remain, at all times, in full control of the proceedings in
his courtand to adopt a firm policy against unnecessary postponements. In numerous occasions, we
admonished judges to be prompt in the performance of their solemn duty as dispensers of justice
because undue delay in the administration of justice erodes the people's faith in the judicial system.
Delay not only reinforces the belief of the people that the wheels of justice in this country grind
slowly; it also invites suspicion, however unfair, of ulterior motives on the part of the judge. Judges
should always be mindful of their duty to render justice within the periods prescribed by law. ]

.........,

Such law can be enforced as stated in Sec.6, Of R.A 8493 “Speedy trial act of 1998”. -...the
justice or judge shall, after consultation with the public prosecutor and the counsel for the accused,
set the case for continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible
time so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred eighty
(180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court pursuant to Section 3, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

Other prayer,

In my present condition I lost so many opportunities with competent benefits/salaries to

apply back as an OFW, I have been working for five years in Middle East (UAE, KSA).

Wherefore a prayer to be included this petition as well as granting speedy disposition of this
case in the record, for reference in raising this matter to the Supreme Court with purely question of
law, should a grant be denied and why R. A 8493 is not in effect as basis of undue delay and prompt
disposition of the subject case.

I hereby affixed my signature this 15 th of December 2022, to ask for relief and other prayer.

Mark Edward P. Oropeza

Private Complainant/ Witness