ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 140279-81.March 17, 2003]

PEOPLE vs. PASCUA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 17 2003.

G.R. No. 140279-81(People of the Philippines vs. lsidro Pascua.)

It appearing that the transcripts of stenographic notes in this case were not yet complete, Atty. Teresita G. Dimaisip, Chief of the Judicial Records of this Court, wrote a letter dated May 23, 2000 requiring the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, to submit the transcripts of stenographic notes taken by stenographer Rosalina Deunida on the following dates:

Date of Hearing ������������������������������������� Witnesses

January 8, 1992����������������������������������� Jesusa Lou Cabrales

January 15, 1992��������������������������������� Jesusa Lou Cabrales

February 10, 1992������������������������������� Lucila Mangano

April 29, 1992���������������������������������������� Quirino Glico

In a letter dated July 10, 2000, Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Dinah Myrtle M. Pacquing informed Atty. Dimaisip that Ms. Deunida did not submit the required stenographic notes to the court. On the other hand, in a letter dated July 27, 2000, Ms. Duenida wrote Atty. Dimaisip alleging that: she had completely transcribed the subject stenographic notes and submitted the same to the former branch clerk of court; the statement of Atty. Pacquing that she did not submit the stenographic notes has no basis because when Atty. Pacquing reported to Branch 26, she (Deunida) had already transferred to the Court of Appeals; before transferring to the Court of Appeals, she secured the required clearance from the Clerk of Court and this Court relieving her of any work, money or property accountabilities; the testimonies of the abovementioned witnesses were quoted in the decision of the trial court thereby proving the existence of the transcripts of stenographic notes at the time it was penned; the notes and the transcription could have been among the papers destroyed by termites or by water that overflowed to Branch 26 from the branch atop it; and she could no longer reproduce the transcript of stenographic notes after eight years.

In the Resolution of September 6, 2000, the branch clerk of court was required to inform the Court of the whereabouts of the subject transcripts of stenographic notes. In a 1st Indorsement dated October 3, 2000, Atty. Pacquing stated that she has no knowledge of the present whereabouts of the transcripts of stenographic notes; if they were indeed submitted by Ms. Deunida, they were submitted to the former branch clerk of court; they were not endorsed to her by her predecessor; and diligent efforts to locate the same within the premises of the court were of no avail.

In the Resolution of December 6, 2000, Atty. Pacquing was directed to locate the whereabouts of Ms. Deunida and to require her to submit the required transcripts of stenographic notes. In her Manifestation dated January 16, 2001, Ms. Deunida made reference to her letter dated July 7, 2000 to Atty. Dimaisip while reiterating her allegations therein with a prayer that she be relieved of the responsibility of reproducing the transcripts of stenographic notes. Said manifestation was merely noted by the Court in the Resolution of February 12, 2001.

In the Resolution of June 26, 2002, it appearing that this case still lacks the original and duplicate copies of the transcripts of stenographic notes of the hearings held on the abovementioned dates, the Court required the parties to submit copies of the missing transcript of stenographic notes. In its Manifestation dated August 2, 2002, the Public Attorney's Office informed the Court that it has no copies of the subject transcripts of stenographic notes. Subsequently, in a Manifestation dated December 3, 2002, the Solicitor General stated that per letter dated November 4, 2002 of the present Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 26, Atty. Ma. Nalyn C. Jabat-Mesa, there was apparent difficulty in requiring Ms. Deunida to submit the missing stenographic notes and that Ms. Deunida has not actually submitted the same as required by her predecessor.

Per Report dated February 5, 2003 of the Division Clerk of Court that upon examination of the original records of the case on file with the Judicial Records Office of this Court, it was found that no stenographic notes of the proceedings held on January 8, 1992, January 15, 1992,February 10, 1992 and April 29, 1992 are attached to the record; and that for the hearings of January 8, 1992, covering the testimony of Jesusa Lou Cabrales, and of February 10, 1992, covering the testimony of Lucila Magano, handwritten notes probably those of the presiding judge were found.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the parties are required to MANIFEST, within ten (10) from notice, if they are willing to dispense with the missing transcripts of stenographic notes taken at the hearings of January 8, 1992, January 15, 1992, February 10, 1992 and April 29, 1992; otherwise, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26, shall be directed to retake the testimonies of the witnesses subject of said hearings.

Accused-appellant's letter dated 4 February 2003 praying for the early resolution of his case and for his acquittal, referred to the Division Clerk of Court of the First Division by 1^st Indorsement dated 21 February 2003 of Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., is NOTED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE