4/10/2020
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
City (docketed as Criminal Case No. MC04-8514 and raffled to Branch 212) presided by
Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali.
Subsequently, in a December 14, 2004 resolution, the City Prosecutor reconsidered the
May 4, 2004 resolution and filed a motion with the RTC to withdraw the information.[9]
The petitioner and respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed their opposition[10] and
comment to the opposition, respectively.
In an August 1, 2005 resolution,[11] the RTC denied the motion to withdraw information
as it found the existence of probable cause to hold the respondents for trial.[12] Thus,
the RTC ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest against the respondents.
On August 26, 2005, respondents Antzoulatos and Gaza filed an omnibus motion for
reconsideration and for deferred enforcement of the warrants of arrest.[13] In a
September 2, 2005 order,[14] the RTC denied the omnibus motion, reiterating that the
trial court is the sole judge on whether a criminal case should be dismissed or not.
On September 26, 2005, respondent Alamil filed a motion for judicial determination of
probable cause with a request to defer enforcement of the warrants of arrest.[15]
On September 29, 2005, the petitioner filed his opposition with motion to expunge,
contending that respondent Alamil, being a fugitive from justice, had no standing to
seek any relief and that the RTC, in the August 1, 2005 resolution, already found
probable cause to hold the respondents for trial.[16]
In a September 30, 2005 order,[17] the RTC denied respondent Alamil’s motion for
being moot and academic; it ruled that it had already found probable cause against the
respondents in the August 1, 2005 resolution, which it affirmed in the September 2,
2005 order.
On October 10, 2005, respondent Alamil moved for reconsideration and for the
inhibition of Judge Capco-Umali, for being biased or partial.[18] On October 25, 2005,
the petitioner filed an opposition with a motion to expunge, reiterating that respondent
Alamil had no standing to seek relief from the RTC.[19]
In a January 4, 2006 order,[20] Judge Capco-Umali voluntarily inhibited herself from the
case and did not resolve respondent Alamil’s motion for reconsideration and the
petitioner’s motion to expunge. The case was later re-raffled to Branch 214, presided
by Judge Edwin D. Sorongon.
The RTC Rulings
In its March 8, 2006 order,[21] the
reconsideration. It treated respondent
motion to dismiss for lack of probable
indicate that the respondents gave any
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55390
RTC granted respondent Alamil’s motion for
Alamil’s motion for judicial determination as a
cause. It found: (1) no evidence on record to
false information to secure a license to operate
2/8