REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 92 City of Marikina
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant, Criminal Case No.: 18-69340 18 -69340 For: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property
-versus-
ROWELL SABENICIO,
ALFARAS
Accused. x------------------------------------------x
COMMENT/ OPPOSITION (Re: Urgent Motion for the Release of Vehicle) COMPLAINANT RONALD DIAZ AVISO , through the undersigned counsels and to this Honorable Office, most respectfully submits this Comment/Opposition:
1.
On 08 March 2018, accused, through counsel, filed an Urgent Motion for the Release of Vehicle to the Court which contained the request of Party-Movant LUZ ASIS TING and EDWIN MATIONG TING to release the subject vehicle in this criminal case of Reckless Imprudence resulting in damage to property.
2.
The Party-Movant did not furnish any copy to the complainant of the Urgent Motion for the Release of the Vehicle. As a matter of fact, the complainant went directly to the Court to obtain a copy of the Urgent Motion for the Release of Vehicle.
3.
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provide that: Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. – Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant. Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice. Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. – The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (Emphasis ours)
4.
As stated in the case of Cabrera vs. Ng (G.R. No. 201601, March 12, 2014) The general rule is that the three-day notice requirement in motions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. It is an integral component of procedural due process. "The purpose of the three-day notice requirement, which was established not for the benefit of the movant but rather for the adverse party, is to avoid surprises upon the latter and to grant it sufficient time to study the motion and to enable it to meet the arguments interposed therein." "A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act upon." "Being a fatal defect, in cases of motions to reconsider a decision, the running of the period to appeal is not tolled by their filing or pendency."
5.
The Subject Vehicle cannot be released as it is the subject of the Complaint.
6.
In the case Bagalihog v. Fernandez ,( G.R. No. 96356, June 27, 1991), the Court said that: It is true that property held as evidence in a criminal case cannot be replevied. But the rule applies only where the property is lawfully held, that is, seized in accordance with the rule against warrantless searches and seizures or its accepted exceptions. Property subject of litigation is not by that fact alone in custodia legis. As the Court said in Tamisin v. Odejar, A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has been and is subjected to the official custody of “
a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his execution of a legal writ. Only when property is lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is it considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.”
7.
As a rule, in the exercise of sound discretion and in the greater interest of justice and fair play, the court requires a cash bond for the release of the police-impounded vehicle to answer for damages by way of subsidiary liability in case of accused s insolvency. The requirement of a bond for the release of impounded vehicles involved in reckless imprudence cases is practiced throughout the country. ’
8.
Finally, the Accused has not in any way settled or paid for the damages it caused to the complainant. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Urgent Motion for the Release of Vehicle be DENIED for utter lack of merit. Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Quezon City, 27 March 2018.