6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In People vs. CFI of Quezon, Branch X,[12] the Court has observed: "[T]o-day, when stenographers are employed in the courts in the trial of cases and when a complete, authentic record of everything that transpires during the trial is kept and when from said record, every one x x x may read x x x x said record, and be informed fully of every act, objection, or exception taken or made during the trial, there seems to be but little reason for asserting that one qualified person may not be able to reach a just and fair conclusion from said record x x x x Every person may ascertain for himself the correctness of any disputed fact in said record."[13] Relative to appellant's claim that she was denied due process, the records would disclose otherwise. Evident during the trial were her participation in the proceedings and her own testimony in court given on 27 February 1995, 14 March 1995 and 03 April 1995. The right to due process of law would only require that an opportunity to be heard was duly accorded the accused. Undoubtedly she was given that opportunity. Appellant avers that former Assistant Prosecutor Gregorio Domagas, in filing eight different estafa and illegal recruitment cases against her in different branches of the Regional Trial Court and the Municipal Trial Court in Dagupan City,[14] has openly violated the Supreme Court's Administrative Circular No. 04-94, dated 08 February 1994, on forum-shopping. The argument is misplaced. Administrative Circular No. 04-94 concerns only the subject of additional requisites for civil complaints, petitions and other initiatory pleadings filed in courts and other agencies. Paragraph 1 thereof is explicit; it states: "The complaint and other initiatory pleadings referred to and subject of this Circular are the original civil complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third (fourth, etc.) party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention, petition, or application wherein a party asserts his claim for relief." (Underscoring supplied.) Parenthetically, the criminal cases filed against appellant in different courts appear to have distinct causes of action involving different offended parties who are said to have all been victimized by appellant. WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against appellant. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. Padilla, (Chairman), J., on leave. [1] Record, p. 1. [2] Rollo, pp. 33-34. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/34818 5/6