Order and Notice of Arraignement

[Lucius]

OT: Sir Lucius, wag ka talaga lumapit kay Sir Shadow, lahat yata sila nadala niya sa ER...hehehehe...peace, Sir.

BTT: ang quitclaim naman or whatever instrument releasing you from any legal responsibility covers only the civil aspect. yung criminal di included yun, because you cannot waive a right belonging to the Republic of the Philippines. once it finds its way to the court, the quitclaim executed in your favor would just release you from the payment of damages arising from reckless imprudence.what the private complainant could do, if he was true in executing the waiver, is not to appear in any stage of the court proceedings. the other party (accused) through counsel may move for the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and invoke the speedy justice provision.

dito, once the dismissal gets final, the complainant cannot refile or revive the case as double jeopardy has already attached to the first indictment.

So you mean to say, possible na hindi na na nya finile ulit ung case? Ganon ba? Say kunwari tomorrow wala sya dun? Pano pag ako naman ang nag-no show?

Re: failure to prosecute and invoke the speedy justice provision -- lagpas one year na kasi, not sure lang kung nag-file nga ulit sya or kung kelan nag-file ulit

[ab_initio]

So you mean to say, possible na hindi na na nya finile ulit ung case? Ganon ba? Say kunwari tomorrow wala sya dun? Pano pag ako naman ang nag-no show?

ma issue ang warrant...may fiscal naman kasi kahit wala siya (ang private complainant)...remember sa crim case, witness na lang ang nabangga mo, ang complaining party na ngayon ang RP. kaya ang caption: Republic of the Phillipines v. Lucius...

[Lucius]

Ah so kahit walang ginagawa ung complainant ung fiscal na nagpapagalaw nito? Ung mom ko kasi kumakausap dun sa lawyer namin mamaya ko pa makukuha ung feedback

[ab_initio]

Ah so kahit walang ginagawa ung complainant ung fiscal na nagpapagalaw nito? Ung mom ko kasi kumakausap dun sa lawyer namin mamaya ko pa makukuha ung feedback

Yes, Sir...but then if he has no witness the prosecutor can't substantiate his claim. if he can't substantiate his claim, he can't prosecute. if he can't prosecute, you can move for the dismissal of the case based on the grounds i mentioned earlier. when it's dismissed with finality, he can't refile or revive the case as it is barred by the 2nd jeopardy.

[Lucius]

Ah nice, alam ko she mentioned something about this nga in the past eh. Na since nasa RTC na daw eh may mga ganito atang mangyayari. But ang alam ko dati inatras na talaga. Thanks ha! Update nalang ako later and tomorrow

[ab_initio]

^^basta appear ka lang para walang warrant...warrant of arrest is a coercive court process to compel your attendance, and a process that would prevent anyone to trifle with the court processes...and also to promote order.

cge, God bless you. isang mapayapang miyerkules ng gabi po, Sir.

[Galactus]

Hindi naman basta basta nag-iissue ang judge ng warrant. Arraignment pa lang naman yan, you or your lawyer will merely have to plead "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" after the charge/complaint has been read to you. More often than not, mare-reset lang yung arraignment to a later date kung wala ang accused or the complainant. Pag hindi pa rin pumunta on the scheduled date, then the judges typically grant the motion for the issuance of an arrest warrant. (Take it from me, I've attended dozens of court hearings already, pero as the private complainant ha, hehehe).

Kung wala ka pang lawyer, the PAO will automatically be appointed to represent you.

But it's important that you attend the arraignment. If you say na inurong na ng private complainant yung kaso, then you should present a notarized affidavit of desistance/ compromise agreement duly signed by the complainant and approved by the prosecutor. (Pero based on your posts, mukhang wala). This settles the civil aspect, pero the criminal aspect will most likely be dismissed as well, since pag walang nagco-complain, mahina ang kaso, and not worth prosecuting.

It takes some time for the public courts to submit a list of civil and criminal cases to the NBI, kaya siguro hindi pa nag-aappear yung case records. Malamang, next year or later this year pa nila mata-transmit yun, so chances are, may hit ka na sa NBI when you re-apply for a clearance.

[Lucius]

So sa madaling salita kahit inurong na nga ung case sakin talagang sa court na to? Kasi alala ko parang niremind ako ng complainant dati na kahit inurong na eh may ganito pa din.

Alam ko parang nagbigay sya ng acknowledgment letter dati na kasama nung mga bills sa hospital (ako nagbayad lahat, ung assistant lang nya nagcollect ng resibo para di na magulo) tas nasa insurance ko na lahat.

So pano yun pag di ako umattend possible ba na damputin ako ng pulis like a criminal? :P Eh reckless imprudence ung case di naman ako nang-rape or something. Hassle sobra

[ab_initio]

di naman yun dahil sa reckless imprudence per se...dahil yun sa di mo pagsipot. that's the office of a bench warrant. ask your lawyer about it. he'll explain to you more clearly the things that we mentioned.

you have nothing to worry, Sir. sleep well tonight para gwapo ka during arraignment, baka kasi maganda ang clerk of court or ang stenographer or ang interpreter.

[tsupermario]

if the accused is notified of the date of the arraignment and he is absent, the fiscal will ask for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. if there is no notice the arraignment will be moved to another date.

[Galactus]

^^^ Usually, the PAO will ask for a re-setting. Judges don't act hastily on the fiscal's motion for an arrest warrant, and will normally give the accused another chance. Pag dun sa next re-setting hindi pa rin umattend, dun na lang pinagbibigyan ang motion ng fiscal for the arrest warrant.

I've wasted a lot of my time attending arraignments. We've sued a lot of people criminally (BP 22 and Estafa cases mostly, since I'm authorized to act as the private complainant in behalf of my employer). Bad trip talaga yung judges, especially in QC, kahit may notice yung accused at hindi sumipot sa arraignment. Kahit anung pilit ng private counsels namin, ayaw talaga ng mga judges, one more chance pa daw.

And in real life, yung mga fiscals na yan, they just sit on their chairs most of the time. The private lawyers of the complainants do all the work in the courtroom. The things you see in American legal dramas wherein the ADA's (the equivalent of our fiscals), do the direct/cross-examination and objections, do not happen here, and I've been attending hearings for almost 5 years in QC, Pasig City and Makati. Makes me wonder if our taxpayer's money is being squandered.

[jozef_10]

And in real life, yung mga fiscals na yan, they just sit on their chairs most of the time. The private lawyers of the complainants do all the work in the courtroom. The things you see in American legal dramas wherein the ADA's (the equivalent of our fiscals), do the direct/cross-examination and objections, do not happen here, and I've been attending hearings for almost 5 years in QC, Pasig City and Makati. Makes me wonder if our taxpayer's money is being squandered.

i have to disagree with you on this. you can check the calendar of cases of a regular trial court in a week and look at their list of criminal cases. you will see that majority of the cases are not handled by private prosecutors since most people cannot afford one or they forego the services of a private counsel.

the reason why you don't see the fiscal do the direct or cross is because the private prosecutor, if there is one, asked permission and authority from the fiscal to do it and the fiscal delegates the prosecution of the case. if the amount involved in estafa and b.p. 22 cases are substantial, it is likely that there will be a private prosecutor involved. but most criminal cases that clog the dockets of courts are not of these type.

[Galactus]

Well, to each his own. My experience firsthand is that the fiscals do relatively nothing. They may be good in drafting resolutions and the like, but litigation is an entirely different matter.

And you are wrong in saying that Estafa/BP 22 cases do not comprise the majority of criminal cases swamping the courts. AFAIK, 70% of all pending cases are of such type (I know I read it somewhere, I just can't remember).

And let me just reiterate that I've been attending court hearings in QC, Pasig City and Makati for almost 5 years, at least twice a month. And NOT ONCE in those hearings have I seen the fiscal do a direct or cross examination, even if the plaintiff has no private lawyer of his own.

In the RP, it really sucks to be poor.

[jozef_10]

AFAIK, 70% of all pending cases are of such type (I know I read it somewhere, I just can't remember).

that is quite a number

And let me just reiterate that I've been attending court hearings in QC, Pasig City and Makati for almost 5 years, at least twice a month. And NOT ONCE in those hearings have I seen the fiscal do a direct or cross examination, even if the plaintiff has no private lawyer of his own.

i attend hearings at least twice a week

[ab_initio]

^^there are about 720 RTCs all over the Philippines. the stat does not include the MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs. there are trial courts appointed by the Supreme Court to be hearing a majority of cases for estafa, drugs, domestic violence and marital squabbles, there are some courts assigned with judges trained to hear Intellectual Property cases. Now, we have courts appointed to hear or take cognizance over violations of environmental laws.

in fairness to the fiscals, i have known many of them to be defending and upholding the interests of the Republic of the Philippines. but for cases which present clearly the greater interest belonging to the private complainant, such as BP 22 or estafa arising from the transaction which led to the issuance of checks by the accused which caused the private complainant to part with his goods, in these cases, the prosecutor would gladly delegate the same to a hired lawyer and concentrate on other equally important cases.