6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 615 Phil. 53 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 157952, September 08, 2009 ] JOWETT K. GOLANGCO, PETITIONER, JONE B. FUNG, RESPONDENT. DECISION BERSAMIN, J.: We have before us a petition for review on certiorari seeking the review of the decision dated September 12, 2002 (dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari)[1] and the resolution dated April 2, 2003 (denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration),[2] both promulgated by the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 66616 entitled Jowett K. Golangco v. The Presiding Judge of Branch 53, Regional Trial Court of Manila and Jone B. Fung. Antecedents C.A.-G.R. SP No. 66616 was a special civil action for certiorari commenced by the petitioner to assail the order issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, in Manila in Criminal Case No. 95-145703 entitled People v. Jone B. Fung, whereby the RTC declared the Prosecution to have terminated the presentation of further evidence and required the Prosecution to file a written offer of evidence within 20 days, furnishing a copy of the offer to the accused who in turn had to comment on the offer within 15 days from receipt. Criminal Case No. 95-145703, a prosecution for libel initiated by the petitioner as the complainant against the respondent, was commenced in 1995.[3] Allegedly, the respondent had issued an office memorandum dated May 10, 1995 maliciously imputing against the petitioner the commission of bribery and had sent copies of the memorandum to the petitioner's superiors in the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and to other public officers and personalities not connected with the POEA, causing damage and prejudice to the petitioner.[4] After almost 6 years, the Prosecution had presented only two witnesses in Criminal Case No. 95-145703. On February 16, 2001, the Prosecution requested that a subpoena ad testificandum be issued to and served on Atty. Oscar Ramos, Resident Ombudsman of the POEA, to compel him to testify in the criminal case on February 20, 2001. The hearing of February 20, 2001 was, however, reset to May 23, 2001 due to the unavailability of Atty. Ramos. On May 23, 2001, the Prosecution still failed to present Atty. Ramos as its witness because no subpoena had been issued to and served on him for the purpose. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/49672 1/6