REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 80 MUNTINLUPA CITY
x---------------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ,
Complainant ,
-versus-

CRIM. CASE NO. 54499

54500 For Falsification
Of Private Document
( 2 counts )

HERMES J. DORADO
Accused .
x---------------------------------------------------x
COMMENT
( To the Omnibus Motion of the Accused)
PRIVATE

COMPLAINANT

AMADO ANTONIO , by himself

and

unto the Honorable Court most respectfully submits this Comment to

the Omnibus Motion of the Accused and hereby state that :
1. The Omnibus Motion filed by the Accused is fatally defective
for non-compliance with the Omnibus Motion Rule. Under the Rules
of Court it requires that every Motion

should contain a Notice of

Hearing addressed to the Clerk of Court .On this score , the Omnibus
Motion should be denied .

2. The

consistent judicial holding is that Rules of Procedure

must be applied in every case .The Supreme Court

discussed this

at length in Tible & Tible Company Inc. vs. Royal Savings and Loan
Association ; G.R No. 155806 ,550 SCRA 562,580-581 where it said :
It must never be forgotten that, generally, the application of the
rules must be upheld, and the suspension or even mere
relaxation of its application, is the exception. This Court
previously explained:
The Court is not impervious to the frustration that
litigants and lawyers alike would at times encounter
in procedural bureaucracy but imperative justice
requires correct observance of indispensable
technicalities precisely designed to ensure its
proper dispensation. It has long been recognized
that strict compliance with the Rules of Court is
indispensable for the prevention of needless delays
and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of
judicial business.
Procedural rules are not to be disdained as
mere technicalities that may be ignored at will
to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law
is important in ensuring the effective enforcement of
substantive rights through the orderly and speedy
administration of justice. These rules are not
intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation
but, indeed to provide for a system under which a
suitor may be heard in the correct form and manner
and at the prescribed time in a peaceful
confrontation before a judge whose authority they
acknowledge.
It cannot be overemphasized that procedural
rules have their own wholesome rationale in the

orderly administration of justice. Justice has to

be administered according to the Rules in order
to
obviate
arbitrariness,
caprice,
or
whimsicality.
3. The Supreme
explained the

Court

in

its

disquisition in

one

case

rationale of the requirement of Notice of Hearing in

every motion :
These considerations to be sure did not erase the movants
duty to give notice to the adverse party of the date and time of
the hearing on its motion , the purpose of said notice being , as
already stressed , not only to give the latter time to oppose the
motion ,if so minded ,but also to determine the time of its
submission for resolution .Without such notice ,the occasion would
not arise to determine with reasonable certitude whether and
within what time the adverse party would respond to the motion
and when the motion might already be resolved by the court .The
duty to give notice is imposed on the movant ,not on the Court.
4. The Complainant

begs to disagree with the ratiocination of

the accused that the Metropolitan Trial Court ( MTC

) lacks

jurisdiction over the person of the respondent Engr. Hermes Dorado ,in
view of his status as Career Minister & Consul General xx and that
it is the Supreme Court that shall exercise original jurisdiction over
him .
5. No less than the Supreme Court in the case of Rodolfo A.

Schneckenburger

vs. Judge Manuel Moran ; G.R L-44896 July 31,

1936 stated that :

In this case Consul Rodolfo Schneckenburger was a duly
accredited Honorary Consul of Uruguay at Manila on July 11,
1934 .He was subsequently charged in the CFI of Manila with the
crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the
jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both under the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him. He
contended that under the Constitution the Supreme Court has
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors
,other public ministers ,consuls and such jurisdiction excludes
other courts .
xxx the case involves no question of diplomatic immunity .It
is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges
and immunity of an ambassador or minister but is subject to
the laws and regulations of the country to which he is
accredited (Ex Parte Baiz, 135 U.S, 403, 34 Law Ed. 2222 ).A
Consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violation
of the country where he resides ( U.S vs. Ravara , 2 Dall.,
297, 1 Law Ed. 388; Wheatons International Law ( 2d ed. ) 423 )
xx
xx
xx
It results that the original jurisdiction possessed and
exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was not
exclusive but concurrent with that of the Courts of First
Instance xxx
6. The accused Hermes Dorado moreover stated that he filed
an Appeal

with the Department of Justice . However, a

perusal of the pleading which he filed shows

that

careful

it was in the

form of a letter and not through a Petition for Review as required

under NPS

Circular 70 . In the complainants Comment before the

Department of Justice , he stated that the pleading filed by the

Accused should be jettisoned as it is a mere scrap of paper for the
Accused failure to state when he received a copy of the Prosecutors
Resolution and failure to comply with the form prescribed under NPS
Circular 70.
7. The contention likewise of the accused Dorado that there was
grave error in indicting him of two counts of falsification instead of
Estafa

without the required preliminary investigation is off-tangent ,

fallacious

and

misplaced

because

as

correctly

ruled

by

the

Assistant Prosecutor Pineda :

In addition the prosecutor is not bound by the qualification of
the crime but by the evidence presented during the preliminary
investigation ( Orquinaza
vs. People G.R No. 165596 ,
November 17, 20015 )
Xx

xx

xx

Considering that preliminary investigation is not required in this

case , the undersigned in his discretion provided the same to
the parties .Thus the opportunity to be heard on the part of the
respondent as part of due process is satisfied . The essence of
due process is reasonable opportunity
7. The High Court further stressed this point in the Orquianza
case citing the ruling of the lower court thus:

It need not be overemphasized that public prosecutors have

the option to ascertain which prosecutions should be initiated
on the basis of the evidence at hand. That a criminal act may
have elements common to more than one offense does not rob
the prosecutor of that option (or discretion) and mandatorily
require him to charge the lesser offense although the evidence
before him may warrant prosecution of the more serious one.
Conversely, this holds true if the prosecutor found, after
conducting the preliminary investigation, that a lesser offense
should be filed instead. As to limit this authority would
eventually undermine the authority of the prosecutor and
impose an intolerable burden on the trial court. x x x
8. From a legal point of view , and in a very real sense it is of
no concern to the accused what is the technical nature of the crime
of which he stands charged .It in no way aids him in a defense on
the merits xxxx that to which his attention should be directed and in
which

he above all things else should be most interested are the

facts alleged. The real question is not did he commit the crime given
in the law some technical and specific name , but did he perform the
acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set
forth xxxx. If he performed the acts alleged in the manner stated the
law determines what the name of the crime is , and fixes the
penalty therefor xxxx. If the accused performed the acts alleged in
the manner alleged , then he ought to be punished and punished

adequately whatever may be the name of the crime which those

acts constitute ( United States vs. Lim San ; 17 Phil 273 ).
9. Indeed , citing the Resolution of Assistant Prosecutor Bernard
Pineda Preliminary Investigation in criminal cases is not a creation of
the Constitution ; its origin is statutory and it exists and the right
thereto can be invoked only when so established and granted by law
( Marcos vs. Flores 68 Phil 96 ) . Rights conferred upon accused
persons

to

participate in preliminary

investigations

concerning

themselves depend upon the provisions of law by which such rights

are specifically

secured rather than upon the phrase due process of

law ( People vs. Abjuela , 38 SCRA 324 ) .

PRAYER
WHEREFORE

, premises

considered

the

complainant

respectfully moves and prays that this Comment to the Omnibus

Motion of the Accused

filed by the complainant

be duly

NOTED

to form part of the records of the case . Further the Complainant

prays that the Omnibus Motion of the Accused be DENIED for utter
lack of merit .

Such

other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

___ October 2015 , Muntinlupa City .

AMADO ANTONIO
Emerald Hills , Victoria
Homes Subdivision ,
Tunasan, Muntinlupa City

Copy Furnished :
Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 80 , Muntinlupa City
Office of the City Prosecutor
Muntinlupa City
Engr. Hermes J. Dorado
No. 129 Sparrow Point ,
Diamond Park , Victoria Homes
Subdivision , Muntinlupa City
EXPLANATION OF NON-PERSONAL SERVICE
Copy of the forgoing pleading is sent to the adverse party thru
registered mail due to distance and lack of messengerial service .
AMADO ANTONIO