Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

Branch 3, Manila
RODELIA ZARAGOSA MUSNIT,
Rep. By her Attorney-in-Fact,
ISAGANI C. MUSNIT,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 173058-CV

FOR: Ejectment

CORAZON DEL PILAR AND

ELIZABETH DEL PILAR,
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION
TO THE MOTION FOR EXECUTION
COME NOW, DEFENDANTS, for and by themselves and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the foregoing pleading in
compliance with the ORDER of the Honorable Court dated April 29, 2005
which was received by defendants on May 5, 2005, the reglementary
period within which to file the same expires on May 15, 2005 and in
support thereof avers:

1.

That plaintiffs counsel filed a Motion for Execution dated

April 25, 2005 in the above-entitled case;

2.

That a perusal of the records in the case at bench would

show that both plaintiffs representative, Attorney-in-Fact ISAGANI

MUSNIT and a certain ROMINA SAN JUAN have no legal personality to
represent the plaintiff there being no Special Power of Attorney executed
by the plaintiff clothing any of the two (2) personalities aforementioned
with such power or proper authority to initiate and prosecute the instant
complaint;

3.

That it is crystal clear that the due execution, genuineness

and validity of the aforesaid Special Power of Attorney anchored upon by

plaintiffs representative ISAGANI MUSNIT is highly questionable due to

its fraudulent and spurious character. Neither ROMINA SAN JUAN could
initiate the instant case of ejectment nor prayed for its execution since a
perusal of the records would show that she too has no legal personality
to represent the principal in the instant case there being no Special
Power of Attorney executed by the principal clothing her with such power
and authority;

4.

That this argument finds support in Section 2 and 3, Rules 3

of the Rules on Civil Procedure, to wit:

Sec. 2. Parties in interest. A real party in interest

is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party in interest.
Sec. 3. Representatives as parties. Where the
action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a
representative or someone acting in a fiduciary capacity, the
beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall
be deemed a real party in interest. A representative may be
a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor or
administrator, or a party authorized by law or these
Rules. An agent in his own name and for the benefit of an
undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the
principal except when the contract involves things belonging
to the principal. UNDERSCORING OURS
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that the prayer of the plaintiff for issuance of Writ of
Execution be DENIED for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed
for.
May 12, 2005, City of Manila.

CORAZON DEL PILAR

ELIZABETH DEL PILAR

Copy furnished:
ATTY. RESTITUTO R. MANINGAS, JR.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Springville, Cavite

EXPLANATION
Due to time constraints, the undersigned are constrained to serve
a copy of this pleading to plaintiffs counsel by registered mail.

CORAZON DEL PILAR

ELIZABETH DEL PILAR

Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 3, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus-

CRIM. CASE NO. 357958-SA

357959-SA
FOR: Malicious Mischief & Assault
Upon a Person in Authority

LOUI UMALI y LASLAS,

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

COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTIONS
FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS
COMES NOW, ACCUSED LOUI UMALI y LASLAS, thru counsel
and

unto

this

Honorable

Court

most

respectfully

register

his

comments/opposition to the prosecutors formal offer of evidence and in

support of its opposition avers:

Exhibit A and its sub-markings which are the Medico-Legal

Report of Severo Belicario issued by the Gat Andres Bonifacio Memorial
Medical Center dated November 14, 2004.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is hearsay since the medical
doctor who allegedly treated and examined P/C Severo Belicario was not
presented in court to testify, identify and confirm the veracity of the
aforesaid exhibit.
Exhibit B and its sub-marking which is Sworn Statement of
Severo Belicario and his signature.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is self-serving and uncorroborated
by any credible witness hence inadmissible in evidence.
Exhibit C and its sub-marking which is the Identification
Card of Severo Belicario issued by the DILG, and the City of Manila.
- Defense admits the existence of the aforesaid exhibit.
Exhibit D and sub-marking which is the Booking Sheet and
Arrest Report of accused Loui Umali and the signature of SPO4 Crispin
Sarmiento, Investigator-on-case.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is hearsay since the person who
prepared the same was not presented in court to testify, identify and
confirm the veracity of the aforesaid exhibit.

Exhibit E and sub-marking which is the Referral Letter to the

City Prosecutors Office of Manila indicating herein the disposition of said
office, to wit: File cases as charged. Suspect was caught in hot pursuit.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is hearsay since the person who
prepared the same was not presented in court to testify, identify and
confirm the veracity of the aforesaid exhibit.

Exhibit F and sub-marking which is the Sworn Statement of

Arturo Cruz and his signature.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is self-serving and uncorroborated
by any credible witness hence lack probative value and inadmissible in
evidence.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that the admission of the foregoing documentary exhibits of the
prosecution be DENIED for LACK OF MERIT because it is SELFSERVING and HEARSAY hence inadmissible in evidence.
Respectfully submitted.
May 17, 2006.
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Manila District Office
4/F Godino Bldg.,
350 Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila
By:

ROGEL F. QUIJANO
Public Attorney III

NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court
Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 3, Manila
HON. FERDINAND D. TAGUBA
Asst. City Prosecutor
Manila
G R E E T I N G S:

Kindly submit the foregoing pleading Comment/Opposition to

Prosecutions Formal Offer of Exhibits immediately upon receipt thereof
for its kind consideration and approval of this Honorable Court.

ROGEL F. QUIJANO

Copy furnished:
HON. FERDINAND D. TAGUBA
Asst. City Prosecutor
Manila

Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 3, Manila
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CRIM. CASE NO. 356161-63

ILUMINADO SACRAMENTO,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------x

COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTIONS
FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS
COMES NOW, ACCUSED ILUMINADO SACRAMENTO,

thru

counsel and unto this Honorable Court most respectfully register his
comments/opposition to the prosecutions formal offer of evidence and in
support of its opposition avers:
Exhibit A and its submarking which is the Complaint Affidavit
of Edison Abella; A-1 page 2; A-1-A - Signature of Complainant.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is self-serving.
Exhibit B and its sub-markings which is the Deed of Sale
executed by and between private complainant Edison Abella and accused
Iluminado Sacramento; B-1 Signature of accused Sacramento; B-2
Signature of private complainant; B-3 Date of purchase on June 11,
1999.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that the aforesaid document was not
notarized hence bereft of probative value.
Exhibit C and its sub-markings which is a Letter dated
December 3, 1999 sent by private complainants brother Roben Abella
addressed to accused Sacramento; C-1 Signature of accused
Sacramento showing actual receipt of said letter.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is hearsay since the letter-writer
himself was not presented in Court to identify and confirm the due
execution and genuineness of the aforesaid document.

Exhibit D and its sub-markings which is the Unionbank

Check No. 3112781 dated August 17, 1999; D-1 Unionbank Check
No. 3112782 dated September 17, 1999; D-2 Unionbank Check No.
3112783 dated October 17, 1999
- Defense admits the existence of aforesaid document.
Exhibit E and its sub-markings which is Check Return Slip for
Unionbank Check No. 3112781 issued by International Exchange Bank;
E-1 Check Return Slip for Unionbank Check No. 3112782 issued by
International Exchange Bank; E-2 Check Return Slip for Unionbank
Check No. 3112783 issued by International Exchange Bank.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibit on the ground that it is hearsay since the bank
representative of drawee bank did not testify to identify and confirm the
veracity of the notation reflected in the aforesaid document.
Exhibit F and its sub-markings which is Demand Letter signed
by Atty. Eleazar S. Calasan dated February 29, 2000; F-1 name and
signature of accused Sacramento.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibits on the ground that accused denied having received the
aforesaid document.
Exhibit G and its sub-markings which is the Receipt dated
November

7,

2003;

G-1

handwritten

promised

of

accused

Sacramento.
- Defense admits the existence of the aforesaid
document.
Exhibit H and its sub-markings which is Affidavit of Nilo
Casimero; H-1 second page; H-2- Signature of Nilo Casimero; H-3
Signature of ACP Renato P. Gonzaga.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibits on the ground that accused denied having received the
aforesaid document.

Exhibit I and its sub-markings which is the Unionbank

Account Ledger of accused Sacramento and/or Statement of Account; I1 Account No. 001-006857-0.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibits on the ground that it is hearsay since no bank
representative testify on the aforesaid document.
Exhibit J and its sub-markings which is the Request for
printing of Statement Records of accused covered by Current Account
No. 00-001-006857-0; J-1 Name of the requesting party.
- Defense objects/opposes the admission of the
aforesaid exhibits on the ground that it is hearsay since no bank
representative testify on the aforesaid document.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that the admission of the foregoing documentary exhibits of the
prosecution be DENIED for LACK OF MERIT because it is SELFSERVING and HEARSAY hence inadmissible in evidence.

Respectfully submitted.
November 21, 2005.
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Manila District Office
4/F Godino Bldg.,
350 Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila
By:

ROGEL F. QUIJANO
Public Attorney III
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court
Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 3, Manila

G R E E T I N G S:
Kindly submit the foregoing pleading Comment/Opposition to
Prosecutions Formal Offer of Exhibits immediately upon receipt thereof
for its kind consideration and approval of this Honorable Court.
ROGEL F. QUIJANO
Copy furnished:
ATTY. ELEAZAR S. CALASAN
Private Prosecutor
10th Floor, Manufacturers Bldg.,
Plaza Sta. Cruz, Manila
HON. FERDINAND TAGUBA
Public Prosecutor
Manila
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 3, Manila
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CRIM. CASE NO. 04-230770 to

04-230777
FOR: Estafa

EDWIN ONDOY,

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

COMPLIANCE
COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court in compliance with the verbal order of the Honorable Court dated
September 2, 2005 hereby submits the AUTHORITY TO APPEAR of the
undersigned counsel in the above-captioned cases dated September 9,
2005 as approved by the District Public Attorney of Manila. (A copy of the
aforesaid document is hereto attached and marked as Annex A).

October 6, 2005, Manila

Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE
Manila District Office
4/F Godino Bldg.,
350 Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila
By:

ROGEL F. QUIJANO
Copy furnished:
The Honorable Public Prosecutor
RTC Branch 3, Manila
ATTY. ONOFRE G. GALITOS, JR.
Private Prosecutor
ATTY. ROMMEL CHRISANTE AGBAYANI
Public Attorneys Office - Manila

Public Attorney III