Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURTs

__th Judicial Region
Branch 121
_______ City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE No. 122416 and

Plaintiff, 122417

- versus -

LOUIE LEGAS y BADASS, FOR: VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 and

Accused. 12 of ART. II OF R.A. 9165
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - /

OPPOSITION
COME NOW Accused, through the undersigned counsel and
unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits her
OPPOSITION and in support thereof avers that:
On October 10, 2017, undersigned counsel received a Formal
Offer of Exhibits on the Petition for Bail.

Accused vehemently opposes the submission of the same on

the ground that the Prosecution had already deemed to have waived
their right to offer the same considering the lapse of more than three
(3) months from the time the Prosecution rested for the bail hearing
and submitted the same for the Resolution of the Petition for Bail.

It must be remembered and the transcript would bear the

Accused out, the Prosecution never mentioned that it would offer any
exhibits for the Petition for Bail.

The Prosecution never lifted a finger when the Honorable Court

stated that the said Petition would be resolved by the Honorable
Court.
Further, it must be remembered that the Petition for Bail is
summary in nature.

"[T]he hearing of an application for bail should be summary or

otherwise in the discretion of the court. By 'summary hearing'
[is] meant such brief and speedy method of receiving and
considering the evidence of guilt as is practicable and
consistent with the purpose of the hearing which is merely to
determine the weight of the evidence for the purpose of bail. In
such a hearing, the court 'does not sit to try the merits or to
 enter into any nice inquiry as to the weight that ought to be
allowed to the evidence for or against accused, nor will it
speculate on the outcome of the trial or on what further
evidence may be therein offered is admitted.' . . . 1

When the prosecution failed to move to offer their exhibits after

they have rested on July 4, 2017 and acceded to having the Petition
for Bail submitted for resolution, they have waived their right to offer
their evidence.

To allow the Prosecution to formally offer their exhibits this late

in the day (three months late) would further delay the resolution of the
Petition, violate the rights of the accused and the nature of the
proceeding.

In a People v. Villanueva2 the Honorable Supreme Court has

said:

Our ruling in Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Parocha is instructive, thus:

The rule on formal offer of evidence is not a trivial

matter. Failure to make a formal offer within a considerable
period of time shall be deemed a waiver to submit
it. Consequently, as in this case, any evidence that has not
been offered shall be excluded and rejected.

xxxx

The Rules of Court [provide] that the court shall

consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. A
formal offer is necessary because judges are mandated to
rest their findings of facts and their judgment only and strictly
upon the evidence offered by the parties at the trial. Its
function is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or
purposes for which the proponent is presenting the
evidence. On the other hand, this allows opposing parties to
examine the evidence and object to its
admissibility. Moreover, it facilitates review as the appellate
court will not be required to review documents not previously
scrutinized by the trial court.

xxxx

Thus, the trial court is bound to consider only the

testimonial evidence presented and exclude the documents

1 GO vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS et al G.R. No. 106087. April 7, 1993.

2 GR No. 181829, September 1, 2010
 not offered. Documents which may have been identified
and marked as exhibits during pre-trial or trial but which
were not formally offered in evidence cannot in any
manner be treated as evidence. Neither can such
unrecognized proof be assigned any evidentiary weight
and value. It must be stressed that there is a significant
distinction between identification of documentary evidence
and its formal offer. The former is done in the course of the
pre-trial, and trial is accompanied by the marking of the
evidence as an exhibit; while the latter is done only when the
party rests its case. The mere fact that a particular document
is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it
has already been offered as part of the evidence. It must be
emphasized that any evidence which a party desires to
submit for the consideration of the court must formally be
offered by the party; otherwise, it is excluded and rejected.

We reiterated the above ruling in Dizon v. Court of Tax

Appeals where one of the issues presented was whether the
Court of Tax Appeals and the CA gravely abused their
discretion in allowing the admission of the pieces of evidence
which were not formally offered by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. In finding the case impressed with merit, the Court
held that:

Under Section 8 of RA 1125, the CTA is categorically

described as a court of record. As cases filed before it are
litigated de novo, party-litigants shall prove every minute
aspect of their cases. Indubitably, no evidentiary value can be
given the pieces of evidence submitted by the BIR, as the
rules on documentary evidence require that these documents
must be formally offered before the CTA. x x x

xxxx

x x x [T]he presentation of the BIRs evidence is not a

mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded
considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may
ascertain and verify the truth of BIRs claims against the
Estate. The BIRs failure to formally offer these pieces of
evidence, despite CTAs directives, is fatal to its cause. Such
failure is aggravated by the fact that not even a single reason
was advanced by the BIR to justify such fatal omission. This,
we take against the BIR. (citations omitted)

Under this principle laid by the Supreme Court, the Accused

strongly opposes the allowance of the Offer of Exhibits presented by
the Prosecution.
 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully
prayed before this Honorable Court, that after due consideration, an
order shall immediately issue disallowing the admission of the Offer
of Exhibits offered by the Prosecution and that the Petition for Bail be
resolved. Accused further prays for other such relief, just and
equitable under the prevailing circumstances.

Respectfully submitting this Urgent Motion before the

Honorable Court this 17th day of October 2017.

Anthony Marvin G. Ponce de Leon

Counsel for the Accused
The Barn Building
# 83 Corrales Avenue, Cagayan de Oro City
Roll of Attorney No. 40561
PTR No. 2696001 A; 12-16-15
IBP Lifetime No. 07385; 04-02-07
TIN No. 189-955-108
MCLE COMPLIANCE No. V- 24022; 09-29-16

cc:

Pros. HELEN E. TENCHAVEZ

Deputy City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Oroqueta City

EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE

This Motion is being served on the opposing party by LBC and

registered mail due to lack of material time and the distance to effect
personal service. This explanation is given pursuant to Section 11,
Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.

ANTHONY MARVIN G. PONCE DE LEON