6/8/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and time when the intended witness, Atty. Oscar Ramos, must appear in court to testify. Even then, granting that the subpoena issued for February 20, 2001 hearing was properly served but which hearing was later on postponed, there is still a need to ask for a new subpoena to the same witness for the next scheduled hearing. The court cannot be tasked to guess whether or not petitioner still intends to present the witness at the next hearing. An intention to still present the witness necessarily requires another request for a subpoena. Moreover, the case was last heard on January 23, 2001 prior to the February 20, 2001 hearing. Apropos, to ask for a subpoena to his next witness on February 16, 2001, for the hearing on February 20, 2001 was rather late. As the complainant in the case, petitioner should have exercised due diligence or proper zeal in the prosecution of his case which has long been pending for five (5) years, let alone that it was the last chance given by the court to the prosecution to the prosecution to produce its witness on February 20, 2001 on account of its previous failure to do so. Then, again, as correctly observed by the court a quo, from February 20, 2001 to May 23, 2001, a good three (3) months period passed without the prosecution requesting for a subpoena for its intended witness. When the respondent court, as a consequence, deemed the prosecution evidence terminated and required it to formally offer its evidence, it was not committing any error nor abuse of discretion. Here, petitioner created its own predicament and should suffer from its adverse effect.[7] Hence, this appeal. Issue The issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled on the petition for certiorari of the petitioner. Ruling of the Court We find no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. I Before dealing with the petition for review, we point out the gross procedural misstep committed by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals. The petitioner did not join the People of the Philippines as a party in his action for elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/49672 3/6