Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
Manila
have the case submitted for decision with respect to them; Provided that this paragraph is without prejudice to the application of the rules on demurrer to the evidence or other modes of terminating a case in advance of a full trial. (3) AUTHORIZE the Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 221 of Quezon City to issue, when appropriate, separate decisions or resolutions for issues which are ripe for resolution in any of the 58 cases being heard without waiting for the completion of the presentation of the evidence for all the accused; (4) DESIGNATE a third Assisting Judge to handle the conduct of all nontrial incidents in the Maguindanao massacre cases, such as arraignments and pre-trials, as well as to decide incidents and motions that are not intrinsic to the merits of the cases with deliberate dispatch, and for such purpose, the Presiding Judge shall determine incidents that shall be handled by the third Assisting Judge; (5) AUTHORIZE the Presiding Judge and the Assisting Judge, designated in accordance with paragraph 3 above, Regional Trial Court, Branch 221 of Quezon City, in their discretion, to resolve petitions, incidents and motions filed before the trial court, despite the pendency of some of these matters in the higher courts. [2] G.R. NO. 209421 (AUGUSTO L. SYJUCO JR., PH.D. vs. FLORENCIO B. ABAD. ET AL.) | The Court dismissed the petition filed by petitioner Syjuco Jr. to cite respondent Senate President Franklin M. Drilon for contempt of court for having filed Senate Resolution No. 302 and soliciting the signatures of other Senators allegedly in violation of the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court in the consolidated cases in G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493, and 209251. Petitioner also sought the disbarment or at least suspension of respondent Senate President from the practice of law. The Court found that petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations on the supposed violation of the TRO and, thus, for being insufficient in form and substance, the petition merits outright dismissal. Moreover, the Court finds that the petition has been mooted by its Decision in the PDAF cases rendered last November 19, 2013. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
###