Republic of the Philippines

10th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 8
Malaybalay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. 27144-15

& CICL-175-15
For: ATTEMPTED
THEFT
-versus-

NEIL LORENZ AJOC Y SUAZO (B),

HEZEKIAH RAMIL SUCLATAN (B),
GLENN MARK O. DACUP @ REYMART
DACUP (AL),
Accused.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT TO MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO FILE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

PLAINTIFF, by the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully comments to the motion for leave of court to file
demurrer to evidence filed by the accused Glenmart Dagang and avers, to
wit:

1. That the accused through counsel filed a Motion for Leave of Court
To File Demurrer To Evidence dated 7 December 2018 only on 10
December 2018 which is beyond the reglementary period to file
the same;

2. Section 23, Rule 199 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is

clear:

“Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the

prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on
the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative
after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or (2)
upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or
without leave of court.

xxx

Page 1 of 3
 The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be
filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days
after the prosecution rests its case.

xxx

3. Applying the foregoing Rule in the present case, the prosecution

rested its case when it filed its Formal Offer of Exhibits on 22
October 2018 which was copy furnished to the accused-movant’s
counsel on the same day. From 22 October 2018, the accused-
movant had only until 29 October 2018 (since 27th is a Saturday) to
file his Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence which the
accused movant failed to do so. Accused-movant only filed his
Motion on 10 December 2018 which is 42 days beyond the deadline;

4. Rules cannot just be easily brushed aside absent any compelling

reason. The Supreme Court has been consistent in its ruling
regarding the same. In one case1, the Highest Court held that:

“While litigation is not a game of technicalities, and

that the rules of procedure should not be enforced
strictly at the cost of substantial justice, still it does not
follow that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and
at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation,
assessment and just resolution of the issues.
Procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed
simply because they may have resulted in prejudice to a
party’s substantial rights. Like all rules, they are
required to be followed except only for compelling
reasons.”

5. In this case, the accused-movant did not bother to explain himself

why the late filing of his motion. Therefore, no compelling reason is
present in this case. With this ground alone, the Motion filed by
accused-movant must be denied outright;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed to

this Honorable Court DENY the Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer
to Evidence.

Relief and other remedies equitable, just and proper in the premises
are likewise prayed for.

Malaybalay City, Bukidnon. 19 December 2018.

1
Lanzaderas vs Amethyst Security & General Services Inc, G.R. No. 143604, June 20, 2003

Page 2 of 3
 LAGAMON AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
2nd Floor, Jamstar Bldg., corner
Judge Carillo-San Isidro St.
Brgy 5 Poblacion, Malaybalay City Bukidnon
Counsel for the plaintiff

By:

DENCE CRIS L. RONDON

Roll of Attorneys’ No. 67495
PTR No. 6933714/10-JAN-2018/BUK.
IBP O.R. No. 23742/15-JAN-2018/BUK.
Tax Identification No. 496-556-017-000

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. MARCO R. HINLO

Counsel for accused Ajoc and Suclatan

ATTY. JEOFFREY C. SAYSON

Counsel for accused Glenmark Dagang

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing pleading are served upon counsels of the

accused and filed with the Court by personal service.

DENCE CRIS L. RONDON

Page 3 of 3