Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
1. That I filed my final and last appeal dated July 12, 2017 and
supplemental appeal dated July 26, 2017 pending resolution
before the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc;
1
The object of this written accusation was First. To furnish the accused
with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him
to make his defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the same
cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it
may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction,
if one should be had. (United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.) In
order that this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not
conclusions of law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and intent;
these must be set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity
of time, place, names (plaintiff and defendant), and circumstances. In
short, the complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact
and circumstances necessary to constitute the crime charged
It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must be
alleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the various
elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense. The allegations of facts constituting the offense charged are
substantial matters and an accuseds right to question his conviction
based on facts not alleged in the information cannot be waived. No
matter how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,
an accused cannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in
the information on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein.
To convict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating his
defense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and
underhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in
the information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the
criminal case if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much
so that it affects his substantial rights.
I was found liable for “using the official letterhead of her judicial
office in summoning a lawyer to a conference.”
PRAYER
3
AFFIDAVIT OF PROOF OF SERVICE AND EXPLANATION
I caused the service of the respective copies of this Omnibus Motion
and similar motions bearing the same date of November 23, 2017 to
the following parties and/ or different parties involving A. M. No. 12-
1-09-METC; A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC; A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813;
A.M. MTJ 12-1815; OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2399-
MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 12-2456-MTJ; A.M.
MTJ 13-1821 by registered mails (LBC) on the date and at the place
indicated hereunder with attached LBC receipts with postage fully
pre-paid and with an instruction to the LBC to return the mails within
ten (10) days if undelivered.
_______________
___________________
4
Notary Public
Doc. No.: __
Page No.: __
Book No.: __
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
Judge Bibiano Colasito, Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto
Mangalindan Jr., Judge Catherine Manodon Miguel Infante, Emma
Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N.
Geronimo, Virginia D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J.
San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L.
Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid
(deceased), Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero – Lopez, Ana
Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J. Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor
Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos, Joseph B.
Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E.
Diezmo, Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas,
Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T. Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo,
Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo Manuel E. Garcia,
Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba,
Marlon M. Suligan, Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie
F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain, Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial,
Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M. Estacio, Cristina
E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P.
Ubana, Marvin O. Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina,
Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan,
Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo Vergara
c/o Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Hall of
Justice, Pasay City
5
December 27, 2017
Your Honors:
I was informed that there are numerous Facebook accounts with name Eliza B. Yu.
Please see attached Exhibit “1”.
There are two Facebook accounts with similar names Eliza B. Yu, one activated and the
other deactivated that appeared at my kin’s friend’s list. Please see attached Exhibit “2”
previously submitted to OCA and SC.
What appeared from a kin’s messenger to a deactivated Facebook account with name
Eliza B. Yu is “Facebook user” not “Eliza B. Yu”, the effect of deactivation previously
mentioned in my correspondences to your respective office. Please see attached Exhibit
“3”.
Facebook accounts with similar names and identities are deactivated or suspended
automatically. Please see attached Exhibits “4” and “5”.
Because typewritten Facebook emails with name Bambi Yu were attached to Judge
Emily L. San Gaspar – Gito’s complaint against me, the absence of my requested actual
computer-print-outs with Facebook name Bambi Yu from start of probe until now
denied me of my constitutional right to due process that calls for the dismissal of the
administrative case without prejudice to its re-filing upon presentation of competent
and credible evidence to be attached with the new complaint thereafter she follows the
legal, right and just observance of administrative processes. Due process entails the
adoption of proper procedure.
Thank you.
Judge Eliza B. Yu
Copy furnished:
Judge Emily L. San Gaspar – Gito
c/o RTC Branch 5, Manila
2
October 11, 2017
RE: Prohibition to Maintain Two Profiles by a Facebook User and Other Related Matters on
A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821
Your Honors:
I found out that “Facebook is a community where people use their authentic identities. It's
against the Facebook Community Standards to maintain more than one personal account.” My
references are:
1. http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2012/07/a-facebook-dilemma-one-
account-or-two/
2. https://www.facebook.com/help/203498356357867?helpref=faq_content
3. https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/9134/top-5-things-not-to-do-on-
facebook.aspx
I noticed that there are several names Eliza Yu and Bambi Yu that appeared at the search engine
of Facebook, some of them are deactivated as of today. Please see attached copies marked as
Annex “1” and Annex “2” respectively.
If a Facebook user’s account has been deactivated, suspended, or deleted, the user's name
registered is replaced by "Facebook User", this is what appears in the inbox messages of the
recipient.
My cousins found out that there are two Facebook Accounts named Eliza B. Yu - one is
active and the other is inactive. Please see attached copy marked as Annex “3” as proof.
If none of these two Facebook Accounts named Eliza B. Yu appeared in the Facebook of Judge
Emily San Gaspar - Gito’s friends, with more reason that she must produce and give to me the
actual computer-print-outs with the name Bambi Yu so I can identify and testify each email, then
enter my objection if any.
1
Also, they found out that my Facebook named Eliza B. Yu which is active was hacked and/ or
tampered because it was stated that I was in two different cities – Manila and Pasay at the same
time on December 31, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. Please see attached copy marked as Annex “4” as
proof.
I am submitting two proofs marked as Annex “5” and Annex “6”, among several others, to
prove my email account luvs2smile2@msn.com was hacked and/or tampered, it sent emails to
others without my consent or prior knowledge as I claimed several times in my letters and
pleadings to the Office of the Court Administrator. The dates of hacking and/ or tampering as
proven by emails on deleted and sent sections are immaterial because once an email account was
hacked, it will be hacked repeatedly, that is, with or without my knowledge later on.
Because of the foregoing, it must be an absolute necessity that I testify and identify then enter
my objection if any to the actual computer print-outs of Facebook messages with the Facebook
user name Bambi Yu that I allegedly sent to complainant Judge Emily San Gaspar – Gito
because what were attached to the complaint against me were all typewritten emails with
Facebook name Bambi Yu otherwise the falsified, perjurious and libelous charge against me
must be dismissed for being a pure hearsay.
I requested several times, orally and in writing, from the Supreme Court and the Office of the
Court Administrator prior to the promulgation of the questioned Decision of all the subject
emails but I was not given any, and I was wrongfully and unjustly penalized with an offense of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge that was unproven by her, then her remaining administrative
charge must be dismissed for failure to provide actual computer-print outs of the subject emails,
she committed multiple counts of perjury, Falsification and Libel, I can prove these criminal
charges and I can pass her cross-examination before a trial court.
Thank you.
Judge Eliza B. Yu