Municipal Trial Court
Tanauan, Leyte
Presiding Judge: Hon. Sarah Lentejas-Dapula
Date: October 17, 2017
Session: 10:00 AM
CASE
PP of the Phil. vs. Richie Tondo
Criminal Case No. 2017-02-7300
For: Viol. of Art. 148 of RPC
PP of the Phil vs. Waren D. Villegas
Criminal Case No. 2016-09-7272
For Serious Physical Injuries
PP of the Phil vs. Earl Joseph Parilla
Civil Case No. 668
For: Petition to Enforce Agreement
Reached at the Barangay
PP of the Phil. vs. Gemma Cinco
Criminal Case No. 2017-01-7296
For: Malicious Mischief
PP of the Phil vs. Jordan Avila
Criminal Case No. 2015-08-7211
For: Light Coercion
PP of the Phil. vs. Antonio Sarino
Civil Case No. 664
For: Recovery of Possession
INCIDENT REMARKS
Both counsels moved for a
deferment of the case
considering that the witness
Hearing who was supposed to be
present was not yet prepared
to testify and the accused was
also absent.
When the case was called, the
prosecutor informed the court
that there is already an
affidavit of desistance
Clarificatory executed by the private
Hearing complainant wherein he was
placed on the witness stand
where he affirmed and
confirmed the contents of the
said affidavit of desistance.
Counsels moved for a
resetting considering that they
have not yet prepared the
Pre-Trial compromise agreement as
(Continuation) they are still waiting for the
map/subdivision plan to
ascertain the area of the
property in question.
Private complainant in this
case in the person of Julita
Adao was presented. She has
Hearing completed her direct and cross
examination. The case was set
for continuance on November
21, 2017.
First prosecution witness in
the person of Josephine Rios
was presented for direct
examination but considering
Hearing that there was other document
to be identified and be marked
that she failed to bring with
her to court asked for
deferment of the case.
In hearing of the case, parties
failed to submit the
compromise agreement as
Pre-Trial
promised in the previous
setting. It was likewise
concurred in the defense

PP of the Phil. vs. Nenita Arcena
Civil Case No. 661
For: Recovery of Possession with
Damages
PP of the Phil. vs. Jose Corrales
Alias Pepe
Criminal Case No. 2016-03-7254
For: Slight Physical Injury
counsel that no compromise
agreement was arrived at by
the parties and that the pre-
trial shall proceed.
For failure to appear without
justifiable reason, the court is
constrained to require the
counsel to pay the
Continuation of
postponement fee in the
Pre-Trial
amount of 50.00. Parties are
required to be ready with the
preliminary conference on the
next setting.
In the hearing of this case,
parties failed to submit the
compromise agreement as
promised in the previous
setting. Plaintiffs counsel
manifested that her client
Hearing
failed to bring the documents
supposed to be marked and
likewise asked for the
resetting of the case which
was set on November 21,
2017.
 Municipal Trial Court
Tanauan, Leyte
Presiding Judge: Hon. Sarah Lentejas-Dapula
Date: September 28, 2017
Session: 2:00 PM
CASE
Martin F. Perez vs. Delina Piando
Civil Case No. 665
For: Recovery of Possession with
Damages
PP of the Phil vs. Wenceslao Redona
Criminal Case No. 2017-09-7315
For: Serious Resistance etc.
PP of the Phil. vs. Jeroen De Valk
Criminal Case No. 2016-09-7272
For: Serious Physical Injuries
PP of the Phil. vs. Estelita Cinco
Criminal Case No. 2017-01-7296
For: Malicious Mischief
PP of the Phil vs. Nicandro Molon
Criminal Case No. 2015-05-7168
For: Grave Coercion
INCIDENT REMARKS
Plaintiffs counsel Att. Claro Robert
Morante did not show-up and
considering his absence the court
Pre-Trial
was constrained to reset the case to
October 17, 2017 with the warning
that no postponement is allowed.
Before the accused was arraigned,
his counsel manifested that said
accused is entering a Plea
Bargaining Agreement and wanted
to plead guilty to a lesser offense of
simple resistance under Article 151
Arraignment
of the Revised Penal Code and be
meted to penalty of find of 100.00
which was granted by the court and
upon payments of fine of 100.00
imposed by the court, the accused is
ordered release from detention.
When the case was called, the
private complainant did not appear,
the prosecutor asks for a resetting
and intimated to the court that if in
the event of the next hearing the
Hearing
private complainant would not
appear, it is construed that he is not
anymore interested in the further
prosecution of the case and he
moved for the dismissal of the case.
Since the counsel who appeared for
the prosecution was only the
representative of the newly hired
lawyer who has no authority yet
Trial from the public prosecutor to
prosecutor, he moved that the case
be reset and was not objected to by
the defense counsel and was
granted by the court.
The hearing was for presentation of
defense evidence but counsel for
Hearing the accused, Atty. Asterio Villero
(Presentation of was absent despite his knowledge
Defense Evidence) of the setting, the court gives him
another chance to present his
evidence.