Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Municipal Trial Court in Cities

Branch 3
Hon. Carolyn N. Casino-Damasing
June 9, 2017, Friday, 8:30am

1. People v. Jefrey Torres Traffic Violation Information was read in open


Baldonade (Arraignment) court. The accused pleaded not
guilty. Preliminary conference
was set.
2. People v. Joseph Walter Traffic Violation Information was read in open
Sandigan y Loking (Arraignment) court. The accused pleaded
guilty.

The court sentenced the


accused to pay a fine of P3,000
plus P30 for court expenses.
3. People v. Freddie Balundro Traffic Violation Accused was not present. The
(Arraignment) court warned that if the
accused will be absent on the
next setting for arraignment, a
warrant of arrest shall be issued
against him.
4. People v. Allan Dumdum Traffic Violation Information was read in open
(Arraignment) court. The accused pleaded not
guilty. Pre-trial was set.
5. People v. Rizaldy Naguita y Direct Assault Upon an Agent of The accused has no lawyer. He
Baa a Person in Authority requested for the services of
(Arraignment) the Public Attorneys Office. The
same was granted.

The accused was arraigned.


Information was read in open
court. The accused pleaded not
guilty.

The complainant manifested


that he is willing to go for
mediation. The case was
referred to the Philippine
Mediation Center.
6. People v. Ansare Dimakuta y Graver Oral Defamation The accused has no lawyer. He
Mahurom, et al. (Arraignment) requested for the services of
the Public Attorneys Office. The
same was granted.

The accused was arraigned.


Information was read in open
court. The accused pleaded not
guilty.

The court that the case will be


set for mediation. The case was
referred to the Philippine
Mediation Center.

The court issued warrant of


arrest against co-accused of the
case.
7. People v. Ansae Dimakuta y Grave Threats (same as number 6)
Mahurom, et al. (Arraignment)
8. People v. Jayfe Amihan y Reckless Imprudence Resulting Counsel for the accused
Clapano in Less Serious Physical Injuries manifested that the accused
(Pre Trial) sought to withdraw his earlier
plea. The accused was re-
arraigned. He pleaded guilty.

The court sentenced the


accused for imprisonment of 1
month and 20 days including
payment of actual damages.

The prosecution presented


receipts of medical expenses
incurred by offended party.
9. People v. Mark Aracane Traffic Violation The prosecution presented the
Ocaya (Initial Presentation of arresting traffic enforcer as its
Prosecutions Witness) lone witness. Documentary
evidence such as the affidavit
and citation ticket were
marked.

The traffic officer testified that


he apprehended the accused
since the later made a U-turn at
J.R. Borja Street, near Ororama.
The counsel for the accused has
established doubt as to the
actual spot where the accused
was apprehended. On the traffic
enforcers affidavit, it was said
the accused was apprehended
on the middle of the road.
While on cross-examination, the
traffic enforcer testified that he
apprehended the accused at the
side of the road fronting a
bakeshop near Ororama.

After the testimony of the


traffic enforcer, the prosecution
rested its case. Formal offer of
evidence was made.

The defense presented the


accused as its lone witness. The
accused testified that he was
apprehended at the side of the
road fronting the bakeshop
beside Ororama. He insist that
he was not making a U-turn. He
was merely trying to park his
motorcycle near Ororama.

After the testimony of the


accused, the defense rested its
case. Formal offer of evidence
was made.

The case was deemed


submitted for decision.
10. People v. Marie Cinco Violation of BP 22 Prosecution counsel was not
(Inhibition from Branch 1, Initial present. The complainant
Presentation of Prosecutions manifested that he was
Witness) informed by his counsel to
request for resetting of the
case. There was no objection
from the opposing party. The
motion was granted. Case was
reset.

11. Spouses Ma. Luz L. Unlawful Detainer/Damages Court ordered for the issuance
Ancog/Divino P. Ancog v. (Motion for Execution) of writ of execution. The
Ronald Erwin Uy defendant is given 15 days to
remove the structure from the
subject property of
complainant. If the order is not
complied, the defendant
promised to remove the
structure at his own cost.
12. BPI Family Savings Bank Inc. Replevin and/or Sum of Counsel for the prosecution
v. Rammys A. Mamainte, et al. Money/Interests/Damages etc moved for the issuance alias
(Motion for Issuance of Alias summons for the accused. The
Summons) motion was granted. The judge
ordered that if the accused is
not available, substituted
service can be made. If the
latter is not possible, the
prosecution may amend its
pleading.
Regional Trial Court
Branch 39
Hon. Marites Filomena B. Rana-Bernales
June 9, 2017, Friday 2:00pm

1. Ramon del Puerto v. Sps.


Racines (Pre Trial Conference)
2. Adzhar Hussein & Ma.
Rodelisa Hussein (Initial Hearing)
3. Engr. Rolando Go Petition for Issuance of New
Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT
4. Radiowealth Finance Corp v.
Allan Inting, et al. (Hearing on Motion)
5. Florista Berdon, et al. v. Heirs Judge inhibited from the case
of Florencia Pacana on the ground that she is a
relative to one of the
defendants.
6. Doro Land Realty v. Jerry
Jumamil (Hearing on Motion)
7. Doro Land Realty v. Jerry Traffic Violation
Jumamil (Preliminary Conference)
8. Erlinda Dacet v. National
Home Mortgage Finance Corpo. (Hearing on Motion)
9. Natasha Solangee Lee- Declaration of Heirship, etc.
Galarita, et al. v. Remick Krisna (Pre Trial Conference)
Siy Lee-Ara, et al.
10. Artemio Balansag Buna, et Accion Publiciana and
al. v. Alfonso Decenilla, et al. Cancelation of Tax Declaration,
etc.
(Hearing on Motion)
11. Sps. Rulin and Julie Patlunag Recovery of Possession and
v. Cecile G. Valmores Damages
(Status Hearing)
12. Cooperative Bank of Recovery of Possession, etc
Misamis Oriental v. Cagayan de
Oro Press Club
13. Heirs of Homobono Quieting of Title, etc
Zambrano Dahino v. Manuel P.
Cabulosan, et al.
Municipal Trial Court in Cities
Branch 1
Hon. Cesar Merlas
June 13, 2017, Tuesday, 8:30am

1. People v. Alfe S. Bibello Illegal Possession of Bladed Counsel for the accused made a
Weapon manifestation that the accused
(Arraignment) intended to withdraw his plea.
The prayer was granted by the
court.

The accused was re-arraigned.


He pleaded guilty.

The court sentenced the


accused to pay a fine of P200.
2. People v. Mark Johnson C. Direct Assault upon Agent of a Information against the accused
Lahinaw a.k.a. Koykoy Person in Authority and was read in open court. The
Concealment of Bladed Weapon accused pleaded not guilty.
(Arraignment)
Pre-trial was set.
3. People v. Jether V. Opema Traffic Violation Information against the accused
(Arraignment) was read in open court. The
accused pleaded guilty.

The court sentenced the


accused to pay a fine of P3,000
plus P30 as cost of litigation.
4. People v. Ronilo C. Suello Traffic Violation Information against the accused
(Arraignment) was read in open court. The
accused pleaded guilty.

The court sentenced the


accused to pay a fine of P3,000
plus P30 as cost of litigation.
5. People v. Kim Young Sook, et Violation of Section 144 of the Information against the accused
al. Corporation Code was read in open court. The
(Arraignment of co-accused Kim accused pleaded not guilty.
Young Sook)
The case was referred to the
Philippine Mediation Center for
mediation. If the parties cannot
agree to a settlement, the case
shall be set for Judicial Dispute
Resolution.
6. People v. Rodolfo A. Traffic Violation Prosecutor manifested that the
Pamatong complainant/traffic enforcer
(Preliminary Conference / was no longer part of the RTA.
Hearing on Motion) In effect, there would be
difficulty in proving the guilt of
the accused. Thus, prosecutor
recommended for the dismissal
of the case.

The court dismissed the case.


7. People v. Rogelio O. Madjos II Traffic Violation Counsel for the accused
(Preliminary Conference) manifested the intention of the
accused to withdraw his plea.

The accused was re-arraigned.


Information against the accused
was read in open court. The
accused pleaded guilty.

The court sentenced the


accused to pay a fine of P3,000
plus P30 as cost of litigation.
8. People v. Marjorie M. Dacer Violation of BP 22 The court promulgated
(Issuance of Probationary sentence against the accused.
Order) The accused was found guilty of
the offense charged. The clerk
of court read the dispositive
portion of the order.
9. People v. Edsel Z. Kabingue Falsification of Public Document The counsel for the accused
(Initial Presentation of waived to present evidence. He
Defenses Evidence) prayed to file memorandum 15
days after receipt of notice. The
motion was granted.
10. People v. Roy Bustamante Violation of BP 22 Counsel for the accused
(Judicial Dispute Resolution) manifested that the parties
agreed to settle the civil aspect
of the case. However, the
records from the Philippine
Mediation Center was not yet
submitted to the court. Thus,
the court ordered the Philippine
Mediation Center to submit the
records of the settlement
between the parties to the
court.
11. People v. Osric A. Cdigal Violation of BP 22 Counsel for the accused
(Judicial Dispute Resolution) manifested that the parties
have agreed to settle the civil
aspect of the case. The accused
initially paid the complainant
P14,000. The balance shall be
paid monthly at P2,000 until
fully settled.

The court asked the parties to


reduce the agreement into
writing.

The case was called for the


second time. Here, the parties
have already prepared a written
agreement, signed by the
parties.

The case was provisionally


dismissed.
12. People v. Andres T. Caballes Theft The prosecution failed to
prosecute the case within the
reglementary period provided
by law. Prosecution manifested
that the complainant is no
longer interested to pursue the
criminal aspect of the case.

The court dismissed the case.

June 14, 2017


Municipal Trial Court in Cities
10th Judicial Region
Cagayan de Oro City
Branch 3
Hon. Carolyn Damasing - Presiding Judge
Maria Estella L. Vasalio Clerk of Court

The proceedings started late because the Public Prosecutor Batbatan was very late. The private
prosecuting attorney is present but the judge said that the private prosecutor must secure a
written authority to prosecute on behalf of the public prosecutor.

Criminal Cases
1. Pp. vs. Olivia E. Babao for Traffic Violation
For Arraignment but the case is reset because the accused cannot be located in the
given address. Private complainant is directed to provide the specific address of the
accused otherwise the case will ordered archived. An order if given to notify private
complainant.
2. Pp. vs. Marcelino Caling for Traffic Violation
For Arraignment but the case is reset because the accused cannot be located in the
given address. Private complainant is directed to provide the specific address of the
accused otherwise the case will ordered archived. An order if given to notify private
complainant.

3. Pp. vs Mary Ann Layasan Romez for Traffic Violation


For Arraignment but the case is reset because the accused is not in court. The subpoena
was received by the neighbor. The judge ordered to issue another subpoena and a
warning to the accused to appear in court or a warrant of arrest will be issued against
him.

4. Pp. vs Chand Ray Saguing for Traffic Violation


For Preliminary Conference/Pre-trial - Hearing is reset because both parties are not
around. The judge ordered to issue a subpoena to private complainant with instructions
to draft his Judicial Affidavit otherwise the case will be dismissed

5. Pp. vs Harold Germil Mabao y Gallogo for Traffic Violation


For arraignment- The accused pleaded guilty and is sentenced to pay a fine of 3000
pesos plus 30 pesos cost.

6. Pp. vs. Rizaldy Naguta y Baa for Direct Assault Upon An Agent of A Person in Authority
After referral to the PMC , a compromise agreement was presented to the Judge for the
settlement of the civil aspect of the crime. The private complainant signified that he is
not willing to proscute and testify. The motion was granted and the case is dismissed .
The bond is ordered cancelled and released. The Judge made a comment that next time
, the private complainant must make an affidavit of desistance.

7. 10. Pp. vs. Rocky Sales for Slight Physical Injuries


Malicious Mischief
Slight Physical Injuries
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
For Settlement- After referral to the PMC , a compromise agreement was executed by the
parties indicating a successful settlement.the Judge noted that there is a defect in the
compromise agreement because it contains an admission of liability which will become a
judicial admission once the compromise agreement is approved. The private complainants
were called to the witness stand to be confronted with the compromise agreement.The judge
only approved the terms stating that the private complainants have forgiven the accused and
that the accused will pay the damages. The rest are disapproved for being contrarty to law ,
public policy and good customs. The case is dismissed and the bond is ordered released minus
the payment for the damages.

11. PP. vs Kristel Rose Bonalos y dela Cerna for Malicious Mischief
Preliminary Conference The prosecution submitted its Judicial Affidavit but the opposing
counsel pointed out that the documentary evidences are not attached. The Judge noted that
the documents may be photocopied from the court records with the assistance of the court
staff and attached to the Judicial Affidavit. The case is set for Pre-trial but the parties are
directed to appear before the court on an earlier date for possible settlement via a JDR
proceeding.

12. Pp. vs Elias Flores for Perjury


Pretrial - The private prosecutor is absent. The judge noted that under the Revised Continuous
Trial , the only excuse is Force Majeure. This is also the second time that the private
complainant is absent. The case is reset for the last time. The public prosecutor was ask to be
ready next hearing incase the private prosecutor will be absent.

13. Pp. vs. Roy Bustamente y Abragan for Violation of Section 266 of NIRC
Pretrial The defense counsel informed the court that they cannot submit their Judicial
Affidavit because their documentary evidence is in their shop which was closed by the building
owner following a case of estafa between the defendant and the building owner.

14. Pp. vs Elena dela Victoria for Grave Oral Defamation


Presentation of last witness The witness was called to the witness stand to identify his Judicial
Affidavit. He was sworn to an oath and was made to state his name , age , civil status , address ,
highest educational attainment and occupation. Public Prosecutor delegated the conduct of
direct examination to the private prosecutor. After identification , the Judicial Affidavit is
formally offered as documentary evidence and the prosecution rested its case.

15. Pp. vs. Margie Ognir for Grave Oral Defamation


Presentation of last witness The records of the case were already reconstituted except for the
information. Private Prosecutor asks for more time to reconstitute the information. The judge
noted that the order for reconstitution was given in 2015 and the prosecution had ample time
to reconstitute the information and that period has already prescribed. The private prosecutor
asks for a consideration in the interest of justice. The judge granted 5 days for the parties to
take appropriate action.

16. Pp. vs Erwin Bryan See et.al for Falsification of Pubic Document
Hearing Defense asked for more time to comment on the amended information and made a
manifestation that the DOJ granted their appeal and found no probable cause. The judge asked
for an official copy of the decision. Within 10 days , the court will issue a resolution and will
proceed to the arraignment next hearing.
June 14, 2017
Regional Trial Court
10th Judicial Region
Cagayan de Oro City
Branch 39
Hon. Bernales - Presiding Judge
Clerk of Court

Civil Cases
1. Quieting of Title
Judge informed the petitioner and his counsel that the defendant is her aunt so she
would have to inhibited but she assured the parties that the case will be reraffled next
week.
2. The case is reset for hearing because their was a confusion between the 2 defendants.
The 1st defendant filed a motion to dismiss while the 2nd defendant filed an answer. The
judge said she will have to rule on the motion to dismiss first.
3. The case is reset because the defense counsel is not around. His opposing counsel
informed the court that his son has a seizure while he is on his way to the hearing.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen